In retrospect my comment on [sp2] was way too harsh. I'm sure the experience for his wife was horrible and traumatic and it sucks she had to go through that. Still it comes from the 'something bad happened to me therefore the world should change' genre that drives me nuts. It's right up there with 'won't someone please think of the children' pieces. He even admits he doesn't really know the scope of the problem but Something Must Be Done!
[Sp2] maybe the author and his wife should just start wearing their own catchers masks to games.
[Sp3] definitely an interesting read but I wish they went a little more into detail about Moore's personal demons. I get the sense that the author was trying to make a point about the lows that follow the dizzying highs of a career as a pro athlete but didn't quite make the connection. Instead it came off as 'well he was a drunk and a wife beater, of course he committed suicide.'
[Sp4] its a nice thought and the point is dead on, but without constant propaganda how else will our government convince people to be killed in Niger for no reason?
[Sp9] it sucks but it seems like, absent a miracle, football will eventually go the way of professional boxing.
Somehow we seem to have lost our way on working out these issues with kids. I remember in elementary school I got into a fight with a kid a year older who was picking on me. The principal flipped out on us both and said we had to sit in a room together every recess until Christmas. I don't remember how early in the year this occurred, but I think it was about a 6 week sentence. Around the 4 week mark it became apparent we no longer hated each other and the principal said 'merry Christmas' and we were free to go. I'd be lying if I said we became the best of friends after that but we got on well enough that we never had another issue.
I mention this not because I think it's the right solution for every incident but because there was some discretion exercised by the administrator to address the actual problem. I get the impression now that there's sort of a bureacratic response designed to avoid litigation. It's where you get these stories of kids being punished for defending themselves and cops called to schools for disciplinary problems. The caveat to my personal experience is that it occurred in Catholic school. I noticed a lot more zero tolerance when I was in public school later in life.
I hate to make a prediction but I suspect you're right. The federal laws in question are broad enough that it probably won't be hard to get a conviction or force a plea (so far we are just at the 'indictment of ham sandwich' phase). Even if that happens though I doubt that it will uncover the conclusive evidence people keep promising. Those who want to see this as evidence of a conspiracy will, those who want plausible deniability will have it.
And now that I've said this in less than a fortnight tapes will surface of Trump promising to sell Alaska back in exchange for Putin's help, all over salat Olivier and shots of vodka.
I do wonder if there isn't a substantial political divide around age. I too remember when the attempts at cultural policing were coming from the Christian right, and it informs my views on these issues. It's weird to think that side has lost so much ground in the last 20 years that there's a generation of people for whom it may as well have never existed.
Agreed. There's absolutely a cycle of escalation facilitated by the internet/consumerism. No one wants their brand associated with a controversy. Every overreaction to a small number of cranks and social media trolls proves someone's political or social narrative which then, like Oscar said, gets bounced around various echo chambers until whoever the other side is feels they must respond, ad nauseum.
I see what you're saying but if that's really what we're talking about it seems that the appropriate target for criticism is Disney for making the film at all, not parents buying costumes for their kids. You and Maribou went into the details of that and I don't really have much to add.
The only other comment I'd make is seems like another situation where I'm not sure there's a reasonable/workable rule for artistic enterprises to follow. Even people who work hard to portray other cultures fairly and accurately end up on the receiving end of these kinds of criticisms. It was just the other week we were talking about the Kirkus review correction. At some point you just have to say you can't please everyone and go about your business.
That rule misses the 'that works for a big diverse country' part that I think is just as important. There are too many sensibilities to take into account even for that to be workable.
I guess I'm in the camp that does not believe it can be harmful if the concept of harm is to have any meaning. No Polynesian American is suffering any type of injury or deprivation by white children dressing as Moana for Halloween. I believe it can be offensive, but mostly just in the sense that, much like what constitutes cultural appropriation, offense is inherently in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe thats fair from an academic standpoint but if we are expecting people to live it in their day to day lives lest they be judged harshly, as these annual Halloween controversies imply, I dont agree. It isnt reasonable to tell people not to break rules that can't be articulated.
Until someone comes up with a hard, fast, and easy to understand rule that works for a big diverse country the concept needs to be thrown out. I think its fair to condemn a very specific form of minstrelsy where a person is intentionally acting like a negative stereotype of another race. Cultural appropriation on the other hand is so fleeting and impossible to define that in practice its another form of partisan gotcha or tribal signifier. It helps no one in any material way so screw it.
You hit on a couple of the more bizarre aspects of the 'cultural appropriation' debates that illustrate how schizophrenic the underlying ideology is. As I understand it, we are to applaud boys dressing as girls and girls dressing in costumes more traditionally associated with boys, most of which are associated with mass market fictional products (I think there's always been a bit more flexibility for girls on this in modern times).
However, even as we celebrate our culture's newfound appreciation of gender fluidity by buying these costumes, we are to condemn as evil costumes in some way associated with another culture, most of which also arise out of a mass marketed fictional product.
BUT the inclusion of the other culture in the mass marketed product must be vocally celebrated as a watershed moment or our own benighted and backward society. Except that the plurality of the people who make up our society shouldnt celebrate TOO much (certainly they must NEVER buy a Halloween costume associated with it) because that mass marketed fiction product isnt really for them, and they better damn well remember that!
I'm not sure I understand where all this is going, but what a weird moment it is we are living in.
To be clear, I don't really care about Woody Allen. Maybe his wealth protected him, maybe it didn't. Maybe he's a child molester who got away with it, or maybe the bizarre celebrity family life he was a part of resulted in bitter disputes in which all kinds of false or disputable allegations were made.
Just to give you my perspective,
I started my legal career as a defense attorney in a small practice that also handled divorces and other small time litigation. I've had plenty of experiences with prosecutors. They are just people doing what they percieve their job to be. That means they say what's in their interest to say, especially in high profile pearl clutching cases where they need to manage public relations (remember, a lot of them want to run for office or judge one day). For that reason quotes like that just don't mean anything to me when it comes to establishing guilt. I've heard it all before.
Now I believe Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married but they did have the bitter custody battle over the adopted kids right? I never handled the family law stuff (way too messy for me) but I was in close enough proximity to colleagues who did to tell you that the real nasty ones would frequently involve an allegation of physical or sexual abuse that was bitterly disputed but no one could substantiate (even some otherwise routine ones are like that). Some of these allegations were probably true, others probably the end result of extreme bitterness and score settling, still others something in between. Damned if I could tell the difference.
I'm well out of that type of practice now, but when it comes to these cases I've found its best not to pretend to know what I don't know (much like @gabriel-conroy 's comment) . I don't waiver from that, be the accused a rich celebrity or a black guy from a crappy neighborhood.
For society at large, I take @leeesq 's position that innocent until proven guilty is a necessary social fiction in addition to a constitutional protection. The fact that we're constantly attacking it (conservatives for drug crimes, basically everyone including liberals who should know better for sex crimes) is part of how we've ended up with all kinds of failed public policy. All of this is to say, absent intimate familiarity with a case well beyond what the media is typically going to provide, I reserve judgment. I think we'd be much better off if more people took that approach but I've got no illusions. People will pick up the tabloids and think they know things they don't or forget things they do to justify whatever their biases happen to be.
I think Allen's reputation is helped by the fact that the authorities investigated him pretty much contemporaneously with the allegation in question. I suppose more stuff could always come out.
Let's not be obtuse though. In a zero-sum, Malthusian world, yes, I suppose in a certain very general and aggregate sense setting policy so more parents can read to their kids if they so chose could maybe be a disadvantage to the kids whose parents can and do already read to them. What it isnt doing is telling people who can and do read to their kids that they should stop. We should want people to read to their kids full stop end of story.
There's a certain parallel here with police shootings where some people seem to argue that the only problem is the disproportionate racial impact rather than the policies and social problems that produce those numbers. Like if only we could get a few more upper middle class white parents to not read to their kids or the cops to gun down a few more white guys a year we'd be doing fine.
It's because the people making the arguments have lost perspective to the point that even when what they say has some merit it can only he expressed in a manner as alienating as possible and which implies solutions no reasonable person could accept.
I think the big hiccup here is the framing. If the argument is we need to make policy adjustments so that moms in bad socio-economic circumstances can read to their kids instead of work the graveyard shift at a 7-11 there's something we can work with. Hell I'd be agreeing with it. The problem is the framing makes it sound like fairness requires intentionally disadvantaging your own children. It's not only bad policy, its counter to human nature.
Now I understand there's a certain demographic that finds catharsis in this type of psychological self-flaggelation (indeed its the topic of this thread) but to everyone else it seems crazy and even offensive.
@maribou I do see the difference and I'll work to take it into account moving forward. At the very least I can't take a position against jargon or sterotypes in one instance then lazily resort to them myself. Regarding moderation of comments no need to keep the subject off limits with me. I just wanted to confirm I understood.
I value the community here and would hate to contribute to any problems. I get that its a fragile thing, and appreciate that work done by you and the rest of the staff.
That's actually the most helpful explanation I've ever recieved on the subject. There are some big premises in there I reject, or at least would consider to be begging the question (in the logical fallacy sense). That probably goes a pretty long way at explaining my annoyances at many of the positions adopted by adherents of the philosophy in question. Your comment taught me something about the world and myself, and for that I thank you.
@maribou I mean, if we are deciding those terms are off limits on OT I'd have to abide by it or be banned I guess. My intent hasnt ever been to chase anyone off. I did not see any of my comments as pushing the envelope but if there's a rule I need to follow to stay in good graces here I'm happy to comply or vanish if I find it unfair.
If you're saying that in principle words should have clear meanings I'm with you. If you're saying we should fight for social justice to have a clear meaning I'm not sure that a concept so fleeting and malleable ever can. That fundamental emptiness is why the warriors always speak in euphemisms and inscrutable jargon. Maybe these things have meaning in academia but in popular debate its magical words used as tribal identifiers or rallying cries.
On “Morning Ed: Sports {2017.11.01.W}”
In retrospect my comment on [sp2] was way too harsh. I'm sure the experience for his wife was horrible and traumatic and it sucks she had to go through that. Still it comes from the 'something bad happened to me therefore the world should change' genre that drives me nuts. It's right up there with 'won't someone please think of the children' pieces. He even admits he doesn't really know the scope of the problem but Something Must Be Done!
"
[Sp2] maybe the author and his wife should just start wearing their own catchers masks to games.
[Sp3] definitely an interesting read but I wish they went a little more into detail about Moore's personal demons. I get the sense that the author was trying to make a point about the lows that follow the dizzying highs of a career as a pro athlete but didn't quite make the connection. Instead it came off as 'well he was a drunk and a wife beater, of course he committed suicide.'
[Sp4] its a nice thought and the point is dead on, but without constant propaganda how else will our government convince people to be killed in Niger for no reason?
[Sp9] it sucks but it seems like, absent a miracle, football will eventually go the way of professional boxing.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2017.10.31.Tu}”
Sounds about right.
"
Somehow we seem to have lost our way on working out these issues with kids. I remember in elementary school I got into a fight with a kid a year older who was picking on me. The principal flipped out on us both and said we had to sit in a room together every recess until Christmas. I don't remember how early in the year this occurred, but I think it was about a 6 week sentence. Around the 4 week mark it became apparent we no longer hated each other and the principal said 'merry Christmas' and we were free to go. I'd be lying if I said we became the best of friends after that but we got on well enough that we never had another issue.
I mention this not because I think it's the right solution for every incident but because there was some discretion exercised by the administrator to address the actual problem. I get the impression now that there's sort of a bureacratic response designed to avoid litigation. It's where you get these stories of kids being punished for defending themselves and cops called to schools for disciplinary problems. The caveat to my personal experience is that it occurred in Catholic school. I noticed a lot more zero tolerance when I was in public school later in life.
On “It Has Begun”
I hate to make a prediction but I suspect you're right. The federal laws in question are broad enough that it probably won't be hard to get a conviction or force a plea (so far we are just at the 'indictment of ham sandwich' phase). Even if that happens though I doubt that it will uncover the conclusive evidence people keep promising. Those who want to see this as evidence of a conspiracy will, those who want plausible deniability will have it.
And now that I've said this in less than a fortnight tapes will surface of Trump promising to sell Alaska back in exchange for Putin's help, all over salat Olivier and shots of vodka.
On “Moana vs The Dragon”
I do wonder if there isn't a substantial political divide around age. I too remember when the attempts at cultural policing were coming from the Christian right, and it informs my views on these issues. It's weird to think that side has lost so much ground in the last 20 years that there's a generation of people for whom it may as well have never existed.
"
Agreed. There's absolutely a cycle of escalation facilitated by the internet/consumerism. No one wants their brand associated with a controversy. Every overreaction to a small number of cranks and social media trolls proves someone's political or social narrative which then, like Oscar said, gets bounced around various echo chambers until whoever the other side is feels they must respond, ad nauseum.
"
Alas the closest we've ever gotten is Space Balls.
"
I see what you're saying but if that's really what we're talking about it seems that the appropriate target for criticism is Disney for making the film at all, not parents buying costumes for their kids. You and Maribou went into the details of that and I don't really have much to add.
The only other comment I'd make is seems like another situation where I'm not sure there's a reasonable/workable rule for artistic enterprises to follow. Even people who work hard to portray other cultures fairly and accurately end up on the receiving end of these kinds of criticisms. It was just the other week we were talking about the Kirkus review correction. At some point you just have to say you can't please everyone and go about your business.
"
That rule misses the 'that works for a big diverse country' part that I think is just as important. There are too many sensibilities to take into account even for that to be workable.
I guess I'm in the camp that does not believe it can be harmful if the concept of harm is to have any meaning. No Polynesian American is suffering any type of injury or deprivation by white children dressing as Moana for Halloween. I believe it can be offensive, but mostly just in the sense that, much like what constitutes cultural appropriation, offense is inherently in the eye of the beholder.
"
Maybe thats fair from an academic standpoint but if we are expecting people to live it in their day to day lives lest they be judged harshly, as these annual Halloween controversies imply, I dont agree. It isnt reasonable to tell people not to break rules that can't be articulated.
"
Until someone comes up with a hard, fast, and easy to understand rule that works for a big diverse country the concept needs to be thrown out. I think its fair to condemn a very specific form of minstrelsy where a person is intentionally acting like a negative stereotype of another race. Cultural appropriation on the other hand is so fleeting and impossible to define that in practice its another form of partisan gotcha or tribal signifier. It helps no one in any material way so screw it.
"
And thats exactly what they'll do.
"
You hit on a couple of the more bizarre aspects of the 'cultural appropriation' debates that illustrate how schizophrenic the underlying ideology is. As I understand it, we are to applaud boys dressing as girls and girls dressing in costumes more traditionally associated with boys, most of which are associated with mass market fictional products (I think there's always been a bit more flexibility for girls on this in modern times).
However, even as we celebrate our culture's newfound appreciation of gender fluidity by buying these costumes, we are to condemn as evil costumes in some way associated with another culture, most of which also arise out of a mass marketed fictional product.
BUT the inclusion of the other culture in the mass marketed product must be vocally celebrated as a watershed moment or our own benighted and backward society. Except that the plurality of the people who make up our society shouldnt celebrate TOO much (certainly they must NEVER buy a Halloween costume associated with it) because that mass marketed fiction product isnt really for them, and they better damn well remember that!
I'm not sure I understand where all this is going, but what a weird moment it is we are living in.
On “Morning Ed: Harvey’s Shadow {2017.10.25.W}”
@maribou
To be clear, I don't really care about Woody Allen. Maybe his wealth protected him, maybe it didn't. Maybe he's a child molester who got away with it, or maybe the bizarre celebrity family life he was a part of resulted in bitter disputes in which all kinds of false or disputable allegations were made.
Just to give you my perspective,
I started my legal career as a defense attorney in a small practice that also handled divorces and other small time litigation. I've had plenty of experiences with prosecutors. They are just people doing what they percieve their job to be. That means they say what's in their interest to say, especially in high profile pearl clutching cases where they need to manage public relations (remember, a lot of them want to run for office or judge one day). For that reason quotes like that just don't mean anything to me when it comes to establishing guilt. I've heard it all before.
Now I believe Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married but they did have the bitter custody battle over the adopted kids right? I never handled the family law stuff (way too messy for me) but I was in close enough proximity to colleagues who did to tell you that the real nasty ones would frequently involve an allegation of physical or sexual abuse that was bitterly disputed but no one could substantiate (even some otherwise routine ones are like that). Some of these allegations were probably true, others probably the end result of extreme bitterness and score settling, still others something in between. Damned if I could tell the difference.
I'm well out of that type of practice now, but when it comes to these cases I've found its best not to pretend to know what I don't know (much like @gabriel-conroy 's comment) . I don't waiver from that, be the accused a rich celebrity or a black guy from a crappy neighborhood.
For society at large, I take @leeesq 's position that innocent until proven guilty is a necessary social fiction in addition to a constitutional protection. The fact that we're constantly attacking it (conservatives for drug crimes, basically everyone including liberals who should know better for sex crimes) is part of how we've ended up with all kinds of failed public policy. All of this is to say, absent intimate familiarity with a case well beyond what the media is typically going to provide, I reserve judgment. I think we'd be much better off if more people took that approach but I've got no illusions. People will pick up the tabloids and think they know things they don't or forget things they do to justify whatever their biases happen to be.
And with that I will now step off my soap box.
"
I have no dog in the fight and Woody Allen seems like a weird guy. Still, the police investigated him and there wasn't enough evidence to charge him.
"
I think Allen's reputation is helped by the fact that the authorities investigated him pretty much contemporaneously with the allegation in question. I suppose more stuff could always come out.
On “Linky Friday: Blood & Money”
Let's not be obtuse though. In a zero-sum, Malthusian world, yes, I suppose in a certain very general and aggregate sense setting policy so more parents can read to their kids if they so chose could maybe be a disadvantage to the kids whose parents can and do already read to them. What it isnt doing is telling people who can and do read to their kids that they should stop. We should want people to read to their kids full stop end of story.
There's a certain parallel here with police shootings where some people seem to argue that the only problem is the disproportionate racial impact rather than the policies and social problems that produce those numbers. Like if only we could get a few more upper middle class white parents to not read to their kids or the cops to gun down a few more white guys a year we'd be doing fine.
"
It's because the people making the arguments have lost perspective to the point that even when what they say has some merit it can only he expressed in a manner as alienating as possible and which implies solutions no reasonable person could accept.
"
I think the big hiccup here is the framing. If the argument is we need to make policy adjustments so that moms in bad socio-economic circumstances can read to their kids instead of work the graveyard shift at a 7-11 there's something we can work with. Hell I'd be agreeing with it. The problem is the framing makes it sound like fairness requires intentionally disadvantaging your own children. It's not only bad policy, its counter to human nature.
Now I understand there's a certain demographic that finds catharsis in this type of psychological self-flaggelation (indeed its the topic of this thread) but to everyone else it seems crazy and even offensive.
"
@maribou I do see the difference and I'll work to take it into account moving forward. At the very least I can't take a position against jargon or sterotypes in one instance then lazily resort to them myself. Regarding moderation of comments no need to keep the subject off limits with me. I just wanted to confirm I understood.
I value the community here and would hate to contribute to any problems. I get that its a fragile thing, and appreciate that work done by you and the rest of the staff.
"
That's actually the most helpful explanation I've ever recieved on the subject. There are some big premises in there I reject, or at least would consider to be begging the question (in the logical fallacy sense). That probably goes a pretty long way at explaining my annoyances at many of the positions adopted by adherents of the philosophy in question. Your comment taught me something about the world and myself, and for that I thank you.
"
@maribou I mean, if we are deciding those terms are off limits on OT I'd have to abide by it or be banned I guess. My intent hasnt ever been to chase anyone off. I did not see any of my comments as pushing the envelope but if there's a rule I need to follow to stay in good graces here I'm happy to comply or vanish if I find it unfair.
"
If you're saying that in principle words should have clear meanings I'm with you. If you're saying we should fight for social justice to have a clear meaning I'm not sure that a concept so fleeting and malleable ever can. That fundamental emptiness is why the warriors always speak in euphemisms and inscrutable jargon. Maybe these things have meaning in academia but in popular debate its magical words used as tribal identifiers or rallying cries.
"
This is a very fair point. I'm not sure it's feasible though now that its entered the mass cultural vocabulary the way it has.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.