I think all my political blame game comments on Facebook will now just cut the chase and blame George Washington.
It seems like nearly every issue can always be blamed on the predecessor and on and on. So why not just cut to the chase and blame the first President?
I'm not at all offended by Matt Taylor's tacky shirt and anybody who is should find better uses for their time than working overtime to be offended by things.
It could as easily be a shirt covered in speedo-wearing Chipenndales. Who gives a fuck? It's not a statement on all women any more than Michelangelo's David is a statement regarding all men.
Get a grip, western society. There are REAL problems.
I'm not at all offended by Matt Taylor's tacky shirt and anybody who is should find better uses for their time than working overtime to be offended by things.
It could as easily be a shirt covered in speedo-wearing Chipenndales. Who gives a fuck? It's not a statement on all women any more than Michelangelo's David is a statement regarding all men.
Get a grip, western society. There are REAL problems.
You're not offended. That's great. But some people are, and it's generally a dick move to tell people how they should feel about things. That ranks up there with "don't be angry."
As for there being bigger problems, there will ALWAYS be a bigger problem, that's a non argument.
I'm not offended per se, but that low-level shit is pervasive in science and technology fields, adding up to a constant background noise for any non-men who try to work in them...
Why do women check off the "seeking casual sex" box on their dating profiles and then post that they do not want booty calls or hookups? Isn't that the point of casual sex?
Why do women check off the "seeking casual sex" box on their dating profiles and then post that they do not want booty calls or hookups? Isn't that the point of casual sex?
Casual sex to many people just means a sexual relationship that has no implied long-term consequences. So, dating someone (plus sex) for a few weeks or months and then possibly stopping.
Nope, sorry. Being offended by the fact of the existence of a depiction of a body, female or otherwise, is nonsense. To be offended requires supplying your own derogatory context which is not inherent to that shirt. You're offended by your own imagination. Too bad.
Nope, sorry. Being offended by the fact of the existence of a depiction of a body, female or otherwise, is nonsense. To be offended requires supplying your own derogatory context which is not inherent to that shirt. You're offended by your own imagination. Too bad.
You might as well also say that blackface isn't offensive because the derogatory context thereof isn't inherent in putting black or brown makeup on your face. That argument just doesn't hold up.
Blackface is something that will be offensive until the end of time primarily because of people who will constantly remind us of how offensive it is.
No, we haven't dealt with the social inequalities and cultural baggage that are intertwined historically with blackface, but the idea that portraying another person or character via makeup is inherently offensive if the makeup is a certain color or applied in a certain pattern? Nonsense. Deal with the problematic context. Ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.
There's a limited amount of parallelism between the two scenarios. That's a matter of opinion, sure, but it's mine.
In any case, blackface doesn't offend me. Persecution and mockery of a disadvantaged subset of the population defined by inconsequential criteria offends me. The two are not the same and have never been the same. Their close historical association is the only reason anybody confuses one for the other.
This sort of well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided agita is a large part of the reason so much debate rages around these issues. Ignorance and hatred are obviously real, pressing issues that undoubtedly exist in the world, but failure to define the symptoms and outcomes properly impedes communication and stymies resolution. It's incredibly frustrating.
Blackface is not the *problem*. That shirt is not the *problem*.
The issue is that ignoring the kinds of close historical associations you're talking about simply doesn't work. Given the cultural context it's always going to be a better idea to take it into account rather than pretending it doesn't exist. As long as people continue to make those kinds of associations, it's just common sense to make sure that other people know that and take it into account.
It's a great thing when the majority in a society can simply "not be offended", but the issue is that disadvantaged subsets of the population are pretty much guaranteed to be more cognizant of those factors. Yes, in many cases they may well be thick-skinned and ignore them, but there is quite a big difference between willfully ignoring something and never noticing it in the first place.
Moreover, there are other subsets of the population that are more likely to notice those things, and those are the people who intentionally discriminate. They also see those associations, and to them, at the very least, the kinds of "low-level shit" or "background noise" that Rym mentioned serve to provide cover. Worse still, it's likely that many of them see those factors as legitimizing their actions.
I'm really not sure on this one. 1. It's a shitty shirt 2. If I owned it I wouldn't be wearing it to work. 3. If I owned it I wouldn't be wearing it if I was being interviewed by media. 4. If I owned it I don't think I would wear it out or anywhere women are at because it is provoking.
At the same time I also own this shirt, which I bought because I was into the Sin City comic book series.
Does this make me sexist for owning this t-shirt?
Neither of the two tops are as bad as the infamous Black Sugar top that Brad Pitt wore in the final scenes of Fight Club but it was totally acceptable because he was playing a completely counter culture character.
But actually, I do believe he's given lectures in game theory as part of his Actual Career. And while panel presentations at cons aren't exactly paying gigs, they qualify for certain aspects of "professional."
So it's not an unfair statement - it's just confident marketing coupled with self-aggrandizing tendencies.
Comments
It seems like nearly every issue can always be blamed on the predecessor and on and on. So why not just cut to the chase and blame the first President?
It could as easily be a shirt covered in speedo-wearing Chipenndales. Who gives a fuck? It's not a statement on all women any more than Michelangelo's David is a statement regarding all men.
Get a grip, western society. There are REAL problems.
As for there being bigger problems, there will ALWAYS be a bigger problem, that's a non argument.
No, we haven't dealt with the social inequalities and cultural baggage that are intertwined historically with blackface, but the idea that portraying another person or character via makeup is inherently offensive if the makeup is a certain color or applied in a certain pattern? Nonsense. Deal with the problematic context. Ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.
There's a limited amount of parallelism between the two scenarios. That's a matter of opinion, sure, but it's mine.
In any case, blackface doesn't offend me. Persecution and mockery of a disadvantaged subset of the population defined by inconsequential criteria offends me. The two are not the same and have never been the same. Their close historical association is the only reason anybody confuses one for the other.
This sort of well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided agita is a large part of the reason so much debate rages around these issues. Ignorance and hatred are obviously real, pressing issues that undoubtedly exist in the world, but failure to define the symptoms and outcomes properly impedes communication and stymies resolution. It's incredibly frustrating.
Blackface is not the *problem*. That shirt is not the *problem*.
Moreover, there are other subsets of the population that are more likely to notice those things, and those are the people who intentionally discriminate. They also see those associations, and to them, at the very least, the kinds of "low-level shit" or "background noise" that Rym mentioned serve to provide cover. Worse still, it's likely that many of them see those factors as legitimizing their actions.
1. It's a shitty shirt
2. If I owned it I wouldn't be wearing it to work.
3. If I owned it I wouldn't be wearing it if I was being interviewed by media.
4. If I owned it I don't think I would wear it out or anywhere women are at because it is provoking.
At the same time I also own this shirt, which I bought because I was into the Sin City comic book series.
Does this make me sexist for owning this t-shirt?
Neither of the two tops are as bad as the infamous Black Sugar top that Brad Pitt wore in the final scenes of Fight Club but it was totally acceptable because he was playing a completely counter culture character.
http://verdantlabs.com/blog/2014/11/13/political-names/
But actually, I do believe he's given lectures in game theory as part of his Actual Career. And while panel presentations at cons aren't exactly paying gigs, they qualify for certain aspects of "professional."
So it's not an unfair statement - it's just confident marketing coupled with self-aggrandizing tendencies.