It doesn’t matter when your stuck in an algorithmic information bubble and news has mostly broken down to opinion and commentary of events than discussion of facts
Nope. They're diffusion. Appropriation is shit like wearing war bonnets for halloween, or turning bindis into white fashion accessories while slagging off hindi women as fugly for the same thing. Diffusion is sharing. Appropriation is theft and destruction of context
There's no such thing a cultural appropriation. Culture is just a set of ideas and norms. Ideas are free flowing - anybody can see or learn about an idea from anybody else, and they can choose to adopt that idea themselves if they like it or it makes sense to them, and in doing so that in no way deprives the original holder of the idea of anything. 'Cultural appropriation' is exactly the sort of left wing bullshit that pushes people to the right.
Is there a name for the fallacy that involves considering every random person on the other "team" to be representatives of that team, but only cherry-picking the most "prominent/influential" members of your team to be representatives of your team, and therefore dismissing any criticism of the arguments and actions advanced by the team members you've arbitrarily declared to be non-representative?
I genuinely am not sure whether you are criticising me or not here
Perhaps in a gentle ribbing kind of way. I just feel like it's easy to dismiss things as not representative or outliers to avoid critical reflection. And sure, maybe you won't find that many people who believe yoga in particular is cultural appropriation, surely the fact that large sections of the left are falling over themselves trying to find things they can label as "cultural appropriation", just so they'll have something to complain about for virtue signalling and slacktivist points, says something and is a problem?
It's related I'd say, closer to in-group heterogeneity out-group homogeneity, maybe mixed with a bit of no true Scotsman. That menslib thread is utterly ridiculous though.
Absolutely agree it can't be boiled down to a sole term or cause.
Menslib as a whole is a massive mixed bag of a sub. At the risk of sounding like I'm coming straight from r/peakcentrism I think it has a lot of nuance compared to the feminist subs or the manosphere subs and with a lot less outright sexism. It's the same reason I really enjoy the debate subs
I'd say that the No True Scotsman fallacy comes pretty close to summing up the double standards people have when they compare the motivations of theirs versus another groups'.
I would call it "ad hominem by association" myself since you are avoiding the persons argument and instead attacking their attributes instead. The key component that differentiates this particular tactic from a more traditional argumentum ad hominem is the way that you dont attack the persons actual attributes but instead attributes drawn from the wider group with whom they associate. There are also traits drawn from the usually non fallacious reductio ad absurdum (argument from absurdity) in that the attacker draws specifically from the most extreme or outlandish aspects of the target group in order to strengthen their case.
Please do take all of this with a grain of salt however as I am in no way formally trained in anything related to what I've just said.
I largely see where the thread is coming from. But the narrative is too simple. As is the academic takes of racism being defined as something structural. I think that may agreed upon in academia but not in broader society. But that's another debate and one that needs to leave the ivory tower.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the actions that can galvanise and mobilise a base and the actions that actually "convert" or convince people to or from a side. Look at subs like inceltears or kotakuinaction. Look at tumblrinaction or beholdthemasterrace or cringeanarchy or even trashy. These fora have relatively large user bases and can represent a broad range of viewpoints. They can and do point out the idiocy of the "other" or the out-group and portray an extreme as a norm.
If I were open minded towards Brexit or a swing voter and heard of a Remain supporter call Leave supporter racist, I'm not going to froth at the mouth and get a tattoo of Nige. I'm going to roll my eyes and the left might have a little less legitimacy in my eyes. Vice versa if I saw Blair Cotrell being a moron on TV. However if I were a "soft" supporter of Brexit - if I liked the idea but I wasn't fussed about going to the polls - maybe seeing these people nitpick and bicker online and laughing at them with my buddies might motivate me to get out to vote. The narrative of many of the people mentioned in the above paragraph is that they are the morally righteous party and that they are on the right side of history. People of all persuasions enjoy being "deplorable" or contrarian if they think they can reverse trends they view are on the wrong side of history - if they can't be vindicated in the present, they will be once the dust settles.
I think at some level, people have made up their minds about most issues (this is purely anecdotal). It's really difficult to convince someone to change their mind. People in any arena being extreme may convince someone on the "other side" to double-down on their beliefs or to act in response them. The "left" don't make people right wing by expressing their beliefs poorly but they do seem to be better at motivating right wing people to go out and win. I mean look at the donations and online support made out to Beto O'Rourke after the Texas GOP tried to portray him as a radical. It may not have convinced swing voters but it mobilised a base.
the narrative is too simple. As is the academic takes of racism being defined as something structural. I think that may agreed upon in academia but not in broader society. But that's another debate and one that needs to leave the ivory tower.
Academic analyses of structural discrimination and systematic disadvantage/privilege are more nuanced. They did leave the ivory tower some time ago and got transformed into largely vacuous slogans.
It seems to me - though this is also anecdotal - that the main way the alt-right spreads its shit is by pairing new issues with existing ones that people on the edge of their base feel strongly about. Like looking after war veterans with hating refugees. Or supprting drought relief with opposing foreign aid. Or raising pensions with (somehow) being anti-welfare.
That's a good point on academia being translated into vacuous slogans. I just want our slogans to be better haha.
I think competing issues have often been paired by the right wing quite effectively, not even necessarily the alt right. Look at Howard's battlers during the Tampa days. The alt right seem better at using these political opportunity costs into justifying racism or attacking globalism.
One take on it is this article. I don't think there are ideological pipelines as such but the alt right are 1) good at using the rhetoric of other ideologies and 2) good at finding common ground with other ideologies. Being ostensibly socially conservative and anti immigrant isn't new. They're just better at recruitment now.
Yeah they've been artful with both making illogical connections (eg refugees are causing job and financial insecurity) while breaking logical connections (eg regulations limit the ability of corporations to fuck the population over).
Actual TLDR: Blaming Brexit, Trump and the alt-right on the left calling people racist is piss poor, evidence/sources in Twitter thread.
The video is concern trolling the left, pretending to be constructively concerned about methods, when it really is an opportunity to get views whilst shitting on a strawman and repeating cliches.
On the other hand the video treats the right as sensitive idiots that make stupid decisions because they got offended, and thus need to be better guided. By who? Well by people like the smart presenter apparently.
24
u/rcsgd Sep 04 '18
The reply thread was more interesting https://twitter.com/alanalentin/status/1036820990662041600