lorem ipsum
Add an image
Add a link
go back to maingo to old version
If you don't want to read the rant below, there's always Boggle.
I think (or would hope, I guess) that we'd all agree that getting beyond the out of hand decrying of (for lack of a better term) "stuff" as racist is a laudable goal; as laudable as eliminating ____-ism in the first place. I think, though, at present we've become so knee-jerk about the concept, and so touchy about the appearance of prejudice, that it's not much better. We've sort of done the pendulum swing, where now we aren't prejudiced, but fanatically anti-prejudiced. We get offended on behalf of people now (which I guess goes back to the authoritarian idea.)
I don't really want to gang up on Alison here, but what she says brings up, for me, a bit of a pet peeve. I mean, it's great that people are concerned enough to stand up to what they perceive as unjust, on behalf of a visibly discriminated group. However, to do so out of hand, without input from the group in question, can be somewhat condescending. I guess the best way to explain this is an anecdote (I apologize in advance, Gaut.) If you've ever gotten a ride in my van, and rode shotgun, you may have noticed a small book-like object attached to the dash. It's called a murthi (which sort of translates in English to idol, but without the somewhat negative connotation attached to idols... it's complicated, but let's just say that the idol is not worshipped, and this distinguishes it from the golden calf idea.) In any case, Jere (I apologized in advance, remember) has this habit of opening it and closing it somewhat absent-mindedly. I don't really have that big of a problem with it (but I jokingly give him shit for it, which I don't apologize for.) I can see, however, someone thinking "Hey, this is offensive to Jains. I should tell Jere to stop being an asshole." Doing so, however, implies that either I do not understand that I should be offended, or I lack the ability to express my offense (neither of which, I think, is true.) Being offended on my behalf, I feel, trivializes my take on the situation.
Maybe it's just me. It just bugs me when people perceive a non-existant offense, either on my behalf or on someone else's. Especially when it causes them to undermine something good (like cancelling school Halloween celebrations because they might offend Wiccans, or playing only "Holiday" songs because the concept of Christmas may exclude non-Christians)
load more posts . . .
October 31, 2004 -- 5:59 PM
posted by Jere
Does it really have fred savage in it!
Wait... we're talking about the wizard right?
With fred savage?
October 31, 2004 -- 5:41 PM
posted by Al
Are you scared of little kids who go from house to house getting candy? You should get some exposure to the "real" world, you might find its not all that scary or bad.
October 31, 2004 -- 5:40 PM
posted by Beck
Greetings from the second floor of Cameron Library
October 31, 2004 -- 3:30 PM
posted by P
I didn't say I had to stay around for trick or treaters. I said I had to stay away because of trick or treaters....
October 31, 2004 -- 11:05 AM
posted by eric
|wonderfully anti-date movies| go celebrate another stolen election with the Global Visions Film Festival.
www.globalvisionsfestival.com
(links are for dinks)
October 31, 2004 -- 9:21 AM
posted by edo
Hey Jeremy, have you seen The Wizard? It has Fred Savage in it!
October 31, 2004 -- 2:31 AM
posted by Par
List time. Tee hee.
- What the fuck are you talking about, Percy? Caves? I think your opinion is irrelevant on account of the staying home tonight because of trick-or-treaters. As far as lame excuses go, that's pretty sad. Both because it's the 30th, not even Halloween night, and because you have two brothers who could have been taking care of it. Seriously, and not to be an asshole, but if you can't argue a bullshit excuse like that one down, there may be some problems in the law for you...
- Andy, I'm holding your coat ransom. I demand, in return, a hilarious story about your nephew's encounter with that jack-o-lantern of yours.
- That's Internets (linky), if anyone is paying attention to the G-Dub (who, I understand, is just regular wack, not wiggity as some traitorous liberals would have you believe), and is also "cool" with how the youngsters "jive" these days about their "chavs"
- Something Awful's New Voter Exam. Determine your US political allegiances, based on hard-hitting insightful true/false questions such as "I support the troops, until they stop shooting and start complaining".
If you don't want to read the rant below, there's always Boggle.
I think (or would hope, I guess) that we'd all agree that getting beyond the out of hand decrying of (for lack of a better term) "stuff" as racist is a laudable goal; as laudable as eliminating ____-ism in the first place. I think, though, at present we've become so knee-jerk about the concept, and so touchy about the appearance of prejudice, that it's not much better. We've sort of done the pendulum swing, where now we aren't prejudiced, but fanatically anti-prejudiced. We get offended on behalf of people now (which I guess goes back to the authoritarian idea.)
I don't really want to gang up on Alison here, but what she says brings up, for me, a bit of a pet peeve. I mean, it's great that people are concerned enough to stand up to what they perceive as unjust, on behalf of a visibly discriminated group. However, to do so out of hand, without input from the group in question, can be somewhat condescending. I guess the best way to explain this is an anecdote (I apologize in advance, Gaut.) If you've ever gotten a ride in my van, and rode shotgun, you may have noticed a small book-like object attached to the dash. It's called a murthi (which sort of translates in English to idol, but without the somewhat negative connotation attached to idols... it's complicated, but let's just say that the idol is not worshipped, and this distinguishes it from the golden calf idea.) In any case, Jere (I apologized in advance, remember) has this habit of opening it and closing it somewhat absent-mindedly. I don't really have that big of a problem with it (but I jokingly give him shit for it, which I don't apologize for.) I can see, however, someone thinking "Hey, this is offensive to Jains. I should tell Jere to stop being an asshole." Doing so, however, implies that either I do not understand that I should be offended, or I lack the ability to express my offense (neither of which, I think, is true.) Being offended on my behalf, I feel, trivializes my take on the situation.
Maybe it's just me. It just bugs me when people perceive a non-existant offense, either on my behalf or on someone else's. Especially when it causes them to undermine something good (like cancelling school Halloween celebrations because they might offend Wiccans, or playing only "Holiday" songs because the concept of Christmas may exclude non-Christians)
October 30, 2004 -- 7:15 PM
posted by M. Mash
i think erics trying to say that shrilly denouncing everything as racist does more harm than good when it comes to actually trying to start a discourse on the issue....if you try hard enough everything can be perceived as either racist, homophobic, sexist, ageist, fat-biased, etc... its gotten to a point in society where someone is sure to complain about every little thing thats out, and anyone can claim that such-and-such organization or person is a racist, sexist, etc... a lot of people begin to engage in self-censorship, and while this roots out a lot of real, harmful prejudices, it also stifles a lot of things that arent harmful at all..... thus, schools are beginning to ban the teachings of certain classic works of literature because of the "harmful" prejudices contained in them.... is the merchant of venice evil because of its anti-semitism, and should it not to be taught to children? a lot of people say yes to this question, sadly... you can see how this kind of thinking stifles the public discourse... some people and organizations would just like to present the dumbest, blandest material that is so unoffensive it wouldnt offend a black, jewish, one-legged, blind, 70 year old female midget, rather than face the hassle of being denounced as "insensitive"... any honest discussion on these issues become very problematic in this system, because people are afraid to bring up these issues in the first place..... i am all for equality for every individual no matter what colour sex or creed, but when it gets to the point where people are taught to see prejudice in something as innocuous as a satirical advertisement, its gone too far in my opinion... eric makes a good point by linking this type of thinking to authoritarianism.... remember in china during the cultural revolution, where those denounced as "counterrevolutionaries" were purged (ie slaughtered) by the millions..... now what is a counterrevolutionary, you may ask? pretty much everyone.... would u say that any type of honest social discourse is possible in this setting? of course its impossible.... this type of thinking is identical in form to the kind perpetuated by those uptight feminists, where everything is denounced patriarchical without hardly any sort of serious critical thinking..... absolutely no good comes by shouting at the top of your lungs, "RACIST!!!!!!!!!" or "SEXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY!!!!!!".... all those who love freedom and equality should stand firmly against this type of simple-mindedness
load more posts . . .