Does it matter who owns art? (a version of cultural appropriation)

[Berkut]

I don't think Raz is a right-winger.

Are you sure? I remember him being centre right.

But anyway, I was referring to what he said there rather than anything about his beliefs in general, non right people just following the right wing view is again a problem.
The right's spin on these things ("its not real") has become the established understanding as its hardly the most important thing in the world and its such a easier slant  to take than the far more complicated and muddy "It depends" left wing version.
In particular I've seen groups like Praguer U really keen to try and fit intersectionality into a right wing world view of rules and hierarchies in order to whip up anger and rejection.

I think there is a fair argument to be made in good faith that these kinds of concerns are simply fraught - they are incredibly complex, and once you start down the path of trying to sort them out, you are going to immediately run into problematic territory, where one disadvantaged group is up against some other disadvantaged group.

That doesn't mean we should just ignore it, but it does mean that there is a discussion to be had beyond what the radical right cares about (or wants to ignore). 

Surely this can be talked about without ever once even referencing what the crazy right wingers are doing to pretend the issue is all BS? I mean, this is Languish, we don't even really have crazy right wingers here at all...

[Josquius]

I don't think Raz is a right-winger.

Are you sure? I remember him being centre right.

But anyway, I was referring to what he said there rather than anything about his beliefs in general, non right people just following the right wing view is again a problem.
The right's spin on these things ("its not real") has become the established understanding as its hardly the most important thing in the world and its such a easier slant  to take than the far more complicated and muddy "It depends" left wing version.
In particular I've seen groups like Praguer U really keen to try and fit intersectionality into a right wing world view of rules and hierarchies in order to whip up anger and rejection.

I think there is a fair argument to be made in good faith that these kinds of concerns are simply fraught - they are incredibly complex, and once you start down the path of trying to sort them out, you are going to immediately run into problematic territory, where one disadvantaged group is up against some other disadvantaged group.

That doesn't mean we should just ignore it, but it does mean that there is a discussion to be had beyond what the radical right cares about (or wants to ignore).

Surely this can be talked about without ever once even referencing what the crazy right wingers are doing to pretend the issue is all BS? I mean, this is Languish, we don't even really have crazy right wingers here at all...

As I say their view has power and has become just accepted as the default. I do think its worth highlighting when the default view of an issue most people don't care about became the default because there is a group who have a very particular interest in it; and it may not be an interest that you approve of.
Its especially relevant when strawmen are being placed against a nutty version of the left wing view (albeit without labelling it such).

[viper37]

There's a huge difference in casting John Wayne as Genghis Khan and Scarlett Johansson as a fictional detective with a Japanese name that looks like an occidental woman in the source material.

[Josquius]

There's a huge difference in casting John Wayne as Genghis Khan and Scarlett Johansson as a fictional detective with a Japanese name that looks like an occidental woman in the source material.

Yes.

Though she was ethnically Japanese in the source.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/09/why-do-the-japanese-draw-themselves-as-white/340084/

[Admiral Yi]

That's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.

This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.

[Berkut]

That's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.

This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.

I am still unclear what the practical utility of identity oppression principles are under hard or soft "science".

[Josquius]

That's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.

This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.

I am still unclear what the practical utility of identity oppression principles are under hard or soft "science".

You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?

[Eddie Teach]

Jesus, dude, read what he wrote.

[Berkut]

That's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.

This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.

I am still unclear what the practical utility of identity oppression principles are under hard or soft "science".

You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?

Yes, I do get why those things are bad.

What I don't get is how creating or thinking about a hierarchy of oppression is helpful towards fixing those problems.

As an aside, when you wrote " You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?" did you really think in your head "Wow, Berkut doesn't get why these things are bad!"

Really? Really really? Was there honestly some question in your mind as to whether or not I think those things are bad?

I suspect there might have been such a question, since my stance on those things is pretty well understood, I think.

So what is the purpose of asking a question you already know the answer to?

[Josquius]

Yes, I do get why those things are bad.

What I don't get is how creating or thinking about a hierarchy of oppression is helpful towards fixing those problems.

That's not the reason the idea of the hierarchy of oppression exists.
The hierarchy of oppression exists specifically to daemonise and undermine the idea that intolerance and privilege is a thing.

As an aside, when you wrote " You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?" did you really think in your head "Wow, Berkut doesn't get why these things are bad!"

Really? Really really? Was there honestly some question in your mind as to whether or not I think those things are bad?

I suspect there might have been such a question, since my stance on those things is pretty well understood, I think.

So what is the purpose of asking a question you already know the answer to?

Because as you correctly guessed the actual question was I don't get what you mean at all. Taking your post sans all context that's what it seemed to say though in context you obviously didn't mean that.

[Berkut]

Yes, I do get why those things are bad.

What I don't get is how creating or thinking about a hierarchy of oppression is helpful towards fixing those problems.

That's not the reason the idea of the hierarchy of oppression exists.
The hierarchy of oppression exists specifically to daemonise and undermine the idea that intolerance and privilege is a thing.

I suspect that its the opposite - those who want to avoid hard questions around actual, practical realities behind their ideas use the existence of those who want to deny that intolerance or privilege exists to avoid having to answer questions they don't know the answer to.
 

[Razgovory]

No, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege.  I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy.  I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".

[Jacob]

No, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege.  I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy.  I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".

That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.

[Admiral Yi]

I have no idea what the discussion is about.

[Razgovory]

No, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege.  I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy.  I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".

That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.

I believe for cultural appropriation to have any validity it needs to be applied to more than just Americans.  I also believe that an American can play a non-American in an American film.