Let's rename St. Louis! (https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/how-st-louis-name-origin-history-french-king/63-4a6ea809-ef06-447c-94d8-ab9452eb7666)
Apparently, some group is now protesting the presence of a statue of St. Louis in St. Louis and is even trying to get the city to change its oh so problematic name. The problem? The medieval king the French fur traders named the city after, Louis IX, was islamophobic (and anti-Semitic)! Horrors! Some leader in the Middle Ages didn't like Muslims! Stop the presses! Tear down his statue!
I mean if people really want to get offended by history, there is a whole heck of a lot of statue-destroying and name-changing that still has to happen before this country can ever feel good about itself. Maybe we should have no statues at all and just use geographical coordinates to name cities. At least no one will be offended that way ...
Loury and McWhorter discuss taking down statues around eight minutes in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfsH3AaoqYM
'Cancel culture craziness?' I just got home from hanging with my White friend Les. He's upset because his daughter, of whom he is proud for marching with BLM (I agreed with him, although I didn't bother to mention I'm not going to march for them nor why, but I think being conscious of social justice issues is a good habit in a young person) is on Facebook talking about how words like 'exotic' must never be uttered again by any American. He took her side, and now other family members have unfriended the two of them. He's the kind of guy who is considerate above all. If someone were to say 'the word exotic offends me' he'd decide 'I will delete that word from my memory bank because you asked me to, politely.' You know, his focus is getting along with people, not delving into arguments.
The problem now as I see it is there's no place to sit down and think without being attacked from one side or the other. And I feel bad for Les, because he's just getting jerked around. Trying to be a good father and a good neighbor, and finding out it's a juggling act, while being nothing but nice.
https://abc7chicago.com/trader-joes-ethnic-food-labels-grocery-store-mings/6323860/
Here are the equations that I object to, and that I see a lot:
• Some people want a particular statue taken down, so now every statue will have to come down, and that's crazy!
• Some people want a particular statue taken down, and that's erasing history!
As to the second one, I'd wager that you could have asked the public before all of this, and 99 out of 100 couldn't have identified who a particular statue represented, and 99.9 out of 100, given the name of that person, couldn't have told you who that person was.
I remember a colleague of mine in the '80s, who studies Louis IX and his part in the Crusades, rolling his eyes at the idea of naming a city after him. The glorification of Louis IX had not pulled the wool over the eyes of my colleague. And indeed, if you read about the Crusades at any length, there are few Crusaders worthy of defense, even if you overlook the basic idea behind the enterprise. The particulars of what they did on Crusade are not pleasant reading, even if you tend to say, "Oh well, random brutal violence was the order of the day, who are we to condemn it?"
If someone wants to have a statue on their private property or land, that's one thing, but am I the only one who doesn't really think the government should be in the business of telling us who to admire? I don't really care if it's a statue of Robert E Lee or a street named for MLK. If you asked my preference, I would say get rid of all, but I recognize this is entirely impractical and not something I'm so invested in to want to change once these items already exist.
That said, if you do want to take a statue down or start renaming things, don't be surprised when someone goes after one of your idols. There is no one with a perfect history immune from a controversy.
Quote from: Hegemony on July 19, 2020, 08:13:22 PM
Here are the equations that I object to, and that I see a lot:
• Some people want a particular statue taken down, so now every statue will have to come down, and that's crazy!
But that's actually what is happening ...
On a slightly different note, here is what I believe is one of the fundamentally illogical parts of the movement to tear down statues and change names:
Most thinking people who are part of the radical left (aka academics) are more or less radical social constructivists. They support tearing down statues, "re-writing" history and arguing over exactly what words ("racism," "privilege," "white," "black," etc,) really mean and about what words are
verboten because they invest language and representation with extraordinary, almost mystical power. By controlling our representations, we supposedly shape, even control how people think, feel and behave. (Foucault, among many others has a lot to say about this). So, if we can get out representation straight, we can get our thinking and feeling straight.
But have they ever considered this: Why do people even care about these statues in the first place? I submit that it is only because the movement has indeed used representation to
create feeling and passions about the statues and actually
cause people to feel like they are being repressed by their presence. I don't know what every (or any) Muslim might think, but I do know that Muslims are humans like me and hence tend to simply not care about many things in the world that are not in their own sphere of interest. So, I would wager that 99.99% of Muslims in St. Louis were not going about their day deeply troubled that the city they lived in was named after a thirteenth century medieval king who had "problematic attitudes" about a Muslim. I don't know for sure, I am guessing that they were more concerned about their work, their families, protecting their communities from any threatening Islamophobia. "Are we safe at the mosque?" "Are we being profiled at airport security?" "Will our visas be revoked?" "I can't believe he just assumed I wasn't a citizen!" Again, I am not Muslim, but based on my common experience as a human being, I am guessing that this is the kind of thing they would be naturally concerned about. They didn't really care about the history of the name of their city ... until someone choose to actively politicize it. And they probably still don't really care.
Quote from: Treehugger on July 19, 2020, 06:26:47 PM
Let's rename St. Louis! (https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/how-st-louis-name-origin-history-french-king/63-4a6ea809-ef06-447c-94d8-ab9452eb7666)
Apparently, some group is now protesting the presence of a statue of St. Louis in St. Louis and is even trying to get the city to change its oh so problematic name. The problem? The medieval king the French fur traders named the city after, Louis IX, was islamophobic (and anti-Semitic)! Horrors! Some leader in the Middle Ages didn't like Muslims! Stop the presses! Tear down his statue!
I mean if people really want to get offended by history, there is a whole heck of a lot of statue-destroying and name-changing that still has to happen before this country can ever feel good about itself. Maybe we should have no statues at all and just use geographical coordinates to name cities. At least no one will be offended that way ...
Anyone know any dirt on Amerigo Vespucci?
Quote from: financeguy on July 20, 2020, 01:19:30 AM
There is no one with a perfect history immune from a controversy.
Yeah, because: human.
Imagine if all this time and energy were spent on programs and individual, unpublicized gestures that actually helped people. Like, go get groceries for a struggling senior of any last name, income, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
+ 1
These fixations actually do help people though, just not the people you're thinking of. Any idea what Robin d'Angelo is getting to speak at a corporation or a campus or a webinar? And those coattails are long. Think of all the professors who get to explain it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 20, 2020, 05:16:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 19, 2020, 06:26:47 PM
Let's rename St. Louis! (https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/how-st-louis-name-origin-history-french-king/63-4a6ea809-ef06-447c-94d8-ab9452eb7666)
Apparently, some group is now protesting the presence of a statue of St. Louis in St. Louis and is even trying to get the city to change its oh so problematic name. The problem? The medieval king the French fur traders named the city after, Louis IX, was islamophobic (and anti-Semitic)! Horrors! Some leader in the Middle Ages didn't like Muslims! Stop the presses! Tear down his statue!
I mean if people really want to get offended by history, there is a whole heck of a lot of statue-destroying and name-changing that still has to happen before this country can ever feel good about itself. Maybe we should have no statues at all and just use geographical coordinates to name cities. At least no one will be offended that way ...
Anyone know any dirt on Amerigo Vespucci?
The cancel culture may eventually cancel itself. Are the feminists paying attention to the statue of Jimi Hendrix in Seattle, WA? A man who was habitually violent with the women in his life (he even had a hit song about it), irrationally jealous in relationships when drinking, while anything but monogamous himself. And you can't find a more beloved person among liberals.
Yes there are statues that irritate me and people that I think are overpraised. I'm just not going to do anything about it. I guess common sense should tell most people that living in society means that there are people who are admired whom you admire much less. Or not at all. And people who didn't get a statue that you think deserve one. Or there are people whose artistic, athletic or other contribution may indeed be great, but they were, let's just say not really nice much of the time, and you wouldn't let them babysit your kids, and that's going to be overlooked.
Quote from: financeguy on July 20, 2020, 01:19:30 AM
If someone wants to have a statue on their private property or land, that's one thing, but am I the only one who doesn't really think the government should be in the business of telling us who to admire? I don't really care if it's a statue of Robert E Lee or a street named for MLK. If you asked my preference, I would say get rid of all, but I recognize this is entirely impractical and not something I'm so invested in to want to change once these items already exist.
Probably not the only one, but one of the few. That's a pure libertarianism that maybe even Nozick would not have agreed with. There are tributes to fallen soldiers from local towns erected by local government, for example, that most people would support. Of course, I suspect that on the libertarian view, there would not be many public places anyway -- most land would be privatized.
Cancel culture includes many different elements which can be separated out.
Statues are interesting cases. I remember being shocked and disgusted with the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan back in 2001. Now I'm not so sure how different that is from the current wave of statue toppling, except that few statues coming down are wonderful works of art or pieces of great religious signifiance. I see people say that it is different when the statues are of slave owners or people who fought to defend slavery, and that those statues are profoundly offensive to African Americans.
I grew up walking past statues of military leaders I grew to see as war criminals. They caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands in pointless massacre. I'd have been happy to see the statues come down. But I didn't really care about the statues -- I cared about the crimes. I never met anyone who cared much about the statues, one way or the other.
Now people are toppling statues in acts of righteousness and it seems fair enough. But the skeptic in me says that much of it is meaningless posturing and doesn't indicate much of a shift in values. Woke people are looking for something to focus on in these difficult times. Ask them if they are willing to give up their current or future personal wealth and property to compensate others for crimes of the past and see what they say then.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 20, 2020, 05:16:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 19, 2020, 06:26:47 PM
Let's rename St. Louis! (https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/how-st-louis-name-origin-history-french-king/63-4a6ea809-ef06-447c-94d8-ab9452eb7666)
Apparently, some group is now protesting the presence of a statue of St. Louis in St. Louis and is even trying to get the city to change its oh so problematic name. The problem? The medieval king the French fur traders named the city after, Louis IX, was islamophobic (and anti-Semitic)! Horrors! Some leader in the Middle Ages didn't like Muslims! Stop the presses! Tear down his statue!
I mean if people really want to get offended by history, there is a whole heck of a lot of statue-destroying and name-changing that still has to happen before this country can ever feel good about itself. Maybe we should have no statues at all and just use geographical coordinates to name cities. At least no one will be offended that way ...
Anyone know any dirt on Amerigo Vespucci?
Well, he's been widely regarded for centuries as a fraud who claimed discoveries and voyages that he never made. There were questions about his claims almost from the start. How he managed to get two continents named after him has always been one of history's great head-scratchers.
Quote from: mahagonny on July 20, 2020, 06:11:50 AM
+ 1
These fixations actually do help people though, just not the people you're thinking of. Any idea what Robin d'Angelo is getting to speak at a corporation or a campus or a webinar? And those coattails are long. Think of all the professors who get to explain it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/magazine/white-fragility-robin-diangelo.html
and Matt Taibbi's disagrees: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility
John McWhorter was interviewed on NPR this morning and was highly critical of White Fragility as well.
White Fragility is #3 on the NY Times best seller list this week. Seems there's good money in making white people uncomfortable.
Our current culture grew into consciousness in the wake of the mighty '60s and '70s rebellions----civil rights, feminism, and the (attempted) dismantling of the old patriarchal, Caucasian, military-industrial world order.
Some of us cannot let go of the idea that public protest, denigration of elder beliefs, and civil disobedience are the only ways to accomplish social justice---"subvert the dominant paradigm" and "the highest form of patriotism is descent" and the like.
Others of us cannot get over the deep resentment they feel toward anyone who sows discord, challenges the dominant paradigm, and rejects the notion that patriotism is accepting the dominant paradigm.
And we've just gone crazy when wearing a mask during a pandemic is correlated with government over-reach. Reader comments on our morning news about mandatory masks included comparisons to Nazi brutality.
Symbols matter, that's why we ought to choose them carefully based on what we want them to convey. This is especially true when those symbols are erected, used, or reinforced by the government (with public funds and for the public benefit).
Naming things after people is also, in many ways, a symbolic gesture. It parasitizes public associations, attitudes, and reputation. That reputation can be lost and replaced over time, however. Consider Yale University. It's named after a slave trader. He was a bad man, and does not deserve to be remembered in the public imagination. However, there's a good case to be made that virtually nobody remembers him, and nobody associates the name 'Yale' with him anymore--we all associate it with the university. And if that's the case, then our association has shifted from the person to the university, such that we are not, in fact, glorifying the person's legacy in our daily use. And that's a perfectly legitimate basis for deciding not to rename the university. The public's dominant association with a name is potent stuff.
You could rather easily construct a similar case for St. Louis. But that line of argument won't save things named after Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Custer, David Duke, Strom Thurmond, etc.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 20, 2020, 08:14:51 AM
Some of us cannot let go of the idea that public protest, denigration of elder beliefs, and civil disobedience are the only ways to accomplish social justice---"subvert the dominant paradigm" and "the highest form of patriotism is descent" and the like.
Freudian slip?
Quote
Others of us cannot get over the deep resentment they feel toward anyone who sows discord, challenges the dominant paradigm, and rejects the notion that patriotism is accepting the dominant paradigm.
You mean people who believe the millenia of development and refinement of governments and systems of law which have led to elimination of slavery, equal rights for women, labour laws, etc. suggest that
working within the system can actually bring about important and profound
social justice?
Some symbols matter to some people. I look at the dollar bill and I think WTF every time. But no one really thinks about what is on it. If you live in the UK you have the image of the monarch on lots of stuff, and there is lots of religious imagery around, but no one really thinks about it much. A huge amount of cultural imagery is redundant and becomes meaningless through repetition. I tend to be a literal minded materialist who pays little attention to any state-sanctioned imagery, on the assumption that its mostly bullshit.
On the other hand, that imagery can help perpetuate the values that goes with them. So it's complicated.
Some symbols and names do have more direct connections to severe wrongdoing and it is a good idea to retire them. Others are offensive for other reasons. The names of sports teams are a good example -- presumably the followers of teams named after derisive names for Native Americans don't generally have negative attitudes towards Native Americans, and their allegiance to the names just comes from an emotional connection to what they grew up with. Plus some resentment at the implication that they personally are culturally insensitive.
There's also the imagery of toppling or demolishing statues, which is itself powerful. It's very different from a discrete and even respectful retiring of an old icon. It is a giant fuck-you to those who anyone who cherishes them.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 20, 2020, 08:31:11 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 20, 2020, 08:14:51 AM
Some of us cannot let go of the idea that public protest, denigration of elder beliefs, and civil disobedience are the only ways to accomplish social justice---"subvert the dominant paradigm" and "the highest form of patriotism is descent" and the like.
Freudian slip?
Just plain old dumb. Oops.
Quote from: downer on July 20, 2020, 07:26:15 AM
Now people are toppling statues in acts of righteousness and it seems fair enough. But the skeptic in me says that much of it is meaningless posturing and doesn't indicate much of a shift in values. Woke people are looking for something to focus on in these difficult times. Ask them if they are willing to give up their current or future personal wealth and property to compensate others for crimes of the past and see what they say then.
Some would because they can afford to buy themselves fame. That's a luxury of being wealthy enough. Like asking 'will you bequeath a million dollars of your estate to college that is going to name a building after you in return.' Sure plenty of people do it, but they get the fame in the bargain.
If the question were 'would you trade places with someone who grew up in a neighborhood with a crummy school system and a lot of crime' you shouldn't even listen to the answer.
Wealthy academics and other wealthy whites may think that they can atone on behalf of all white people for labor stolen from blacks 200 years ago by requiring everyone to get a copy of
White Fragility getting mad about Woodrow Wilson's statue and policing everyone's speech for words with some obscure derogatory historical association. It's very far from a generous gesture. It's part of the moral preening that liberalism cultivates. It's kind of like how they tolerate and perpetuate the adjunct scene by saying 'I was one once.' As someone said, whites have most of the wealth, but it's not all whites. A person who rents out his field to sharecrop farmers would just as soon have a white tenant as a black one.
More news. You would think Whole Foods Market and Black Lives Matter activists would be natural allies. But I guess if your thought process is 'whatever we've been doing about racism isn't enough, and some of you are faking it' then anything can happen.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/whole-foods-portland-worker-walkout
Quote from: mahagonny on August 04, 2020, 07:26:28 PM
More news. You would think Whole Foods Market and Black Lives Matter activists would be natural allies.
Why would you think that? Are they operating with shared interests?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 04, 2020, 08:57:33 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 04, 2020, 07:26:28 PM
More news. You would think Whole Foods Market and Black Lives Matter activists would be natural allies.
Why would you think that? Are they operating with shared interests?
Because Whole foods Market sees itself and is seen by by others as a social justice-conscious corporation. (Alas; that means they're asking for it). Also, I went a ahead and looked at the answers. Whole Foods donates money to BLM and makes buttons in support of them.
As long as we'll be taking sides: when you pay the rent, the zoning licenses, etc. buy the merchandise and pay the help you can require a uniform. It's legal. Your store is not someone else's personal billboard. You can send an employee away for not complying as long as you don't fire them in retaliation. Then the NLRB protects them.
Out of curiosity I went to the Whole Foods Market yesterday. What I gather from these articles is you could wear a button with a social justice message on it if it's an official Whole Foods Market product. But evidently it's not required. I didn't see any.
I usually shop where the smart people (the Blacks) frequent. Market Basket. Better selection and prices!
I have a feeling this thread is going to be active. Now I've found out that some are objecting to use of the term 'master.' God help us.
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/master-bedroom-racist-words-blacklist-whitelist-20200722.html
I guess this thread is moving to a discussion of PC symbols. I welcome the changes.
Did you hear about Trader Joe's (https://www.grubstreet.com/2020/07/trader-joes-changing-racist-product-names.html) changing some product names after some protests?
Arabian Joe
Baker Josef
JosephsBrau
Pilgrim Joe's
Trader Giotto's
Trader Jacque's
Trader Joe San
Trader Jose's
Trader Ming's
Good for them!
Quote from: mahagonny on August 10, 2020, 10:04:13 PM
I have a feeling this thread is going to be active. Now I've found out that some are objecting to use of the term 'master.' God help us.
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/master-bedroom-racist-words-blacklist-whitelist-20200722.html
I heard this a few years ago with technology. Instead of talking about "master-slave" configurations, it is now PC to refer to "client-server" configurations. (Although it's not a great replacement, since it is much more ambiguous about which device corresponds to which role.)
Quote from: downer on August 11, 2020, 03:35:29 AM
I guess this thread is moving to a discussion of PC symbols. I welcome the changes.
Did you hear about Trader Joe's (https://www.grubstreet.com/2020/07/trader-joes-changing-racist-product-names.html) changing some product names after some protests?
Arabian Joe
Baker Josef
JosephsBrau
Pilgrim Joe's
Trader Giotto's
Trader Jacque's
Trader Joe San
Trader Jose's
Trader Ming's
Good for them!
What bothers me about all this is the fetishization of language, words and symbols. Language, words and symbols are not reality. Just changing a name or a symbol doesn't actually change power relationships or magically transform a reality into something it's not. Can someone show me the contrary? Can someone give me an instance where changing language measurably changed the reality of a situation?
It seems to me that words like "Negro" become tainted because of racism, then they need to be changed to Black or African American to remove the taint. But, because the reality hasn't changed that much, these labels will become tainted too and need to be changed out, just as "crippled" became "handicapped" became "disabled" became "differently abled." Calling something by a different name doesn't actually do anything to solve the underlying problem.
So, it is not as if Trader Joe's product name changes are going to do be actually effective in any way (besides getting TJ's some good press). Imagine if Trader Joe's saved all the $$$$$$ on re-branding and re-packaging these items and instead donated the money to a worthy cause, like the Bail Project instead. Wouldn't that actually be better?
Note: I was thinking about the disconnect between language and reality today right before I saw this thread. But not because I was thinking about cancel culture. Instead I was looking at a "philosophy" sub-forum on another site and thinking "Just because something is called 'philosophy' doesn't actually make it philosophy." <snicker>.
If I was Jewish, Roma, gay, or a Jehovah's Witness, I probably would not want to drive down Adolf Eichmann Boulevard, past a 20' statue of Heinrich Himmler, to drop my children off at Reinhard Heydrich Memorial Elementary School.
Quote from: Treehugger on August 11, 2020, 04:38:02 AM
It seems to me that words like "Negro" become tainted because of racism, then they need to be changed to Black or African American to remove the taint. But, because the reality hasn't changed that much, these labels will become tainted too and need to be changed out, just as "crippled" became "handicapped" became "disabled" became "differently abled." Calling something by a different name doesn't actually do anything to solve the underlying problem.
In terms of black, African-American and negro, I'd argue that something a bit different happened. Neither black nor African-American arose out of a desire to to find a more neutral term. It was the opposite, actually. African-American started as a very particular statement connected to pan africanist movements. Black was a term that was offensive in lots of contexts reclaimed by activists who coined terms like "black is beautiful" and emphasized racial pride.
I suspect that negro became mildly offensive as it fell out of use as a a way for people to self identify. Often antiquated terms for groups take on a mildly offensive character. In the 19th century, Hebrew was the most polite way to refer to a jewish person. It isn't a slur now but if someone referred to me as a Hebrew, I would consider it mildly offensive and a bit concerning. In general, once people don't refer to themselves by a particular term, it becomes offensive, which makes sense.
Quote from: Treehugger on August 11, 2020, 04:38:02 AM
What bothers me about all this is the fetishization of language, words and symbols. Language, words and symbols are not reality. Just changing a name or a symbol doesn't actually change power relationships or magically transform a reality into something it's not. Can someone show me the contrary? Can someone give me an instance where changing language measurably changed the reality of a situation?
As all the discussion about 'tone policing' has shown, people care deeply about the language you use when you talk to them. 'I respectfully disagree; could we discuss a possible alternative' will get you a very different response compared to 'you f***ing moron if we do it your way everything will break and it will be your fault.' At best you might change someone's mind; at worst you will be able to de-escalate a fight. These effects do measurably change the reality of a situation.
We care about linguistic standards in interpersonal and professional (and commercial) communication. Why are labels exempt from those standards?
(Also, Chilean sea bass sells a lot better than Patagonian toothfish. Labels matter.)
Quote from: Caracal on August 11, 2020, 06:55:26 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on August 11, 2020, 04:38:02 AM
It seems to me that words like "Negro" become tainted because of racism, then they need to be changed to Black or African American to remove the taint. But, because the reality hasn't changed that much, these labels will become tainted too and need to be changed out, just as "crippled" became "handicapped" became "disabled" became "differently abled." Calling something by a different name doesn't actually do anything to solve the underlying problem.
In terms of black, African-American and negro, I'd argue that something a bit different happened. Neither black nor African-American arose out of a desire to to find a more neutral term. It was the opposite, actually. African-American started as a very particular statement connected to pan africanist movements. Black was a term that was offensive in lots of contexts reclaimed by activists who coined terms like "black is beautiful" and emphasized racial pride.
I suspect that negro became mildly offensive as it fell out of use as a a way for people to self identify. Often antiquated terms for groups take on a mildly offensive character. In the 19th century, Hebrew was the most polite way to refer to a jewish person. It isn't a slur now but if someone referred to me as a Hebrew, I would consider it mildly offensive and a bit concerning. In general, once people don't refer to themselves by a particular term, it becomes offensive, which makes sense.
Yet while we are expected to keep abreast of these ever changing proper terms for Black Americans, Black Americans themselves may use the dreaded toxic n-word in reference to themselves, which I guess is OK, because people such as professional comedians need to be able to push the envelope. But it also means we have to hear the word frequently and mindlessly used, and most of the time I wish I didn't have to hear it, ever. Although I will admit I laughed at this, but this is different. It's actually clever. Tiger Woods has been black for exactly ten seconds and he gets payback for not having had to be black previously. Whereas a good amount of stand up and skit comedy became insipid revelry years ago (sorry, I'm an old timer who remembers Jack Benny and the artfully constructed layers of humor in his work. But I also liked Cosby before i found out what we know about him today. He is intelligent. Smothers Brothers too). And free floating hostility, name calling etc. got elevated to the status of professional entertainment.
Let me be clear. I don't have the urge to use the word. I'd feel sick. I have the urge to have it retired, across the board. Richard Pryor eventually came to this conclusion too.
I guess you have to accept that a piece of you feels one way and another piece feels another way.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2z3wUD3AZg4&t=0s&index=8&list=PLG6HoeSC3raE-EB8r_vVDOs-59kg3Spvd
Quote from: Treehugger on August 11, 2020, 04:38:02 AM
Note: I was thinking about the disconnect between language and reality today right before I saw this thread. But not because I was thinking about cancel culture. Instead I was looking at a "philosophy" sub-forum on another site and thinking "Just because something is called 'philosophy' doesn't actually make it philosophy." <snicker>.
I trust you're aware of the attitude philosophers generally take to "theorists" of all stripes? If not, let me assure you that it's not
at all kind. Literary theory, in particular, comes in for a serious kicking.
That said, I think you'd find most philosophers to be relatively generous with what they're willing to count as belonging to the realm of philosophy, regardless of whether they think it's good or bad. The analytic/continental rift is increasingly less socially important.
Quote from: downer on August 11, 2020, 03:35:29 AM
I guess this thread is moving to a discussion of PC symbols. I welcome the changes.
Did you hear about Trader Joe's (https://www.grubstreet.com/2020/07/trader-joes-changing-racist-product-names.html) changing some product names after some protests?
Arabian Joe
Baker Josef
JosephsBrau
Pilgrim Joe's
Trader Giotto's
Trader Jacque's
Trader Joe San
Trader Jose's
Trader Ming's
Good for them!
I suppose, but it does seem like a foolish distraction at times. Not long ago I saw a Black Lives Matter activist quoted as saying that removing offensive images from syrup bottles and butter packages was nice and all, but that's not what they asked for. They asked for serious police reform. That job hasn't yet been completed.
In recent months every print issue of the
New York Times I've seen has multiple full-page ads by corporations of one kind or another signalling their virtue. I suspect that these ads draw a certain amount of skepticism. It's hard to see who they benefit, apart from the NYT's bottom line.
Quote from: apl68 on August 11, 2020, 08:01:35 AM
Not long ago I saw a Black Lives Matter activist quoted as saying that removing offensive images from syrup bottles and butter packages was nice and all, but that's not what they asked for. They asked for serious police reform. That job hasn't yet been completed.
In recent months every print issue of the New York Times I've seen has multiple full-page ads by corporations of one kind or another signalling their virtue. I suspect that these ads draw a certain amount of skepticism. It's hard to see who they benefit, apart from the NYT's bottom line.
Simple principle: *effective solutions to longstanding problems requires time and lots of unsexy, behind-the-scenes effort. Virtue-signalling is easy and cheap!
Guess which one wins!!!!!!
(*Longstanding problems are longstanding because they probably don't have "perfect, once for all time" solutions; they are a constant work in progress because their societal context is constantly in flux. So the job will never be "complete".)
I am all in when it comes to skepticism regarding the motivations of corporations in their "virtuous actions." They are looking after their financial interests.
Nevertheless, they are responsive to social criticism sometimes. Maybe that's on issues where they can get credit for change without it costing them anything significant, but still, it is change. And their "virtue signalling" may have some effect in binding their future actions.
Words matter and actions matter. Some matter more than others. Some make very little difference. But I don't see any point in holding on to old problematic words or lamenting the change of stereotyping labels.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 11, 2020, 07:52:31 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on August 11, 2020, 04:38:02 AM
Note: I was thinking about the disconnect between language and reality today right before I saw this thread. But not because I was thinking about cancel culture. Instead I was looking at a "philosophy" sub-forum on another site and thinking "Just because something is called 'philosophy' doesn't actually make it philosophy." <snicker>.
I trust you're aware of the attitude philosophers generally take to "theorists" of all stripes? If not, let me assure you that it's not at all kind. Literary theory, in particular, comes in for a serious kicking.
That said, I think you'd find most philosophers to be relatively generous with what they're willing to count as belonging to the realm of philosophy, regardless of whether they think it's good or bad. The analytic/continental rift is increasingly less socially important.
Ok, I just glanced at this forum and a leading thread topic is: "Which is more important? Being tall or having a lot of money?"
Would a professional philosopher call that an interesting inquiry? Is it philosophy? Are they
that generous?
And here's another. Thread title: "I want to send my possessions to Mars, so the universe will know I existed."
Philosophy? Or not so much? <snicker>
Quote from: Treehugger on August 11, 2020, 09:27:25 AM
Ok, I just glanced at this forum and a leading thread topic is: "Which is more important? Being tall or having a lot of money?"
Would a professional philosopher call that an interesting inquiry? Is it philosophy? Are they that generous?
And here's another. Thread title: "I want to send my possessions to Mars, so the universe will know I existed."
Philosophy, or not so much? <snicker>
Sure, it isn't. But... you're talking about an internet forum, and not even an academic one. Ordinary people don't have a clue about philosophy, which is why it struggles as a discovery major and why it's constantly, and to our eternal frustration, lumped in with religious studies. If you look at all the colloquial uses to which 'philosophy' gets put, it's hardly surprising some random internet forum misses the mark. Even on
this forum, 'philosophy' gets bandied about where the poster actually means 'ideology', 'doctrine', or something else.
Shrug.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 11, 2020, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on August 11, 2020, 09:27:25 AM
Ok, I just glanced at this forum and a leading thread topic is: "Which is more important? Being tall or having a lot of money?"
Would a professional philosopher call that an interesting inquiry? Is it philosophy? Are they that generous?
And here's another. Thread title: "I want to send my possessions to Mars, so the universe will know I existed."
Philosophy, or not so much? <snicker>
Sure, it isn't. But... you're talking about an internet forum, and not even an academic one. Ordinary people don't have a clue about philosophy, which is why it struggles as a discovery major and why it's constantly, and to our eternal frustration, lumped in with religious studies. If you look at all the colloquial uses to which 'philosophy' gets put, it's hardly surprising some random internet forum misses the mark. Even on this forum, 'philosophy' gets bandied about where the poster actually means 'ideology', 'doctrine', or something else.
Shrug.
I see. This is probably less amusing to someone actually in philosophy. I didn't mean to come across as snide. I actually get a kick out of stopping by this non-philosophy philosophy forum to see what people are currently attempting to debate. Sometimes it's really funny.
But my point was that the word (in this case "philosophy") doesn't create the thing.
I won't even bother to explain what's so loopy about this. Maybe just say 'Well...California."
"I'd just finished a long evening walk in my neighborhood and was relaxed for the first time in days when I saw the white woman washing her Lexus. She probably didn't know she was about to throw her whiteness at me like a rock—nor do I think she meant to. I paused to wave as she sprayed water across her soapy SUV. I didn't want to startle her with my large, black presence. She made eye contact but didn't wave back. We were both on the sidewalk. I motioned to ask whether she'd take a few steps back into her driveway so I could pass while preserving social distance. My alternative was to step into traffic on a curved street. She rolled her eyes, sighed, and walked wearily into her driveway, making a little room.
Maybe she was just frustrated—as we all are—by how COVID-19 has shifted the formerly straight-forward rituals of our lives, like taking walks or washing cars. Maybe she was tired. Maybe she'd had a bad Zoom meeting. There are a million reasons why she might have been rude. The reasons don't matter, though—the impact does. And what I experienced was a white person being ticked off by my black presence in front of her house, and exercising her privilege to make her annoyance known. How else could I experience it? We relentlessly teach people of color that their non-whiteness is the most salient, determinative thing about them, and, indeed, lived experience frequently confirms this—of course we view what we experience through the lens of race. (Paradoxically, we simultaneously teach white people that race doesn't matter and they should be colorblind. No wonder we struggle to make progress.)'
https://time.com/5871387/white-people-must-be-twice-as-kind/
Quote from: mahagonny on August 17, 2020, 03:15:56 PM
I won't even bother to explain what's so loopy about this. Maybe just say 'Well...California."
"I'd just finished a long evening walk in my neighborhood and was relaxed for the first time in days when I saw the white woman washing her Lexus. She probably didn't know she was about to throw her whiteness at me like a rock—nor do I think she meant to. I paused to wave as she sprayed water across her soapy SUV. I didn't want to startle her with my large, black presence. She made eye contact but didn't wave back. We were both on the sidewalk. I motioned to ask whether she'd take a few steps back into her driveway so I could pass while preserving social distance. My alternative was to step into traffic on a curved street. She rolled her eyes, sighed, and walked wearily into her driveway, making a little room.
Maybe she was just frustrated—as we all are—by how COVID-19 has shifted the formerly straight-forward rituals of our lives, like taking walks or washing cars. Maybe she was tired. Maybe she'd had a bad Zoom meeting. There are a million reasons why she might have been rude. The reasons don't matter, though—the impact does. And what I experienced was a white person being ticked off by my black presence in front of her house, and exercising her privilege to make her annoyance known. How else could I experience it? We relentlessly teach people of color that their non-whiteness is the most salient, determinative thing about them, and, indeed, lived experience frequently confirms this—of course we view what we experience through the lens of race. (Paradoxically, we simultaneously teach white people that race doesn't matter and they should be colorblind. No wonder we struggle to make progress.)'
https://time.com/5871387/white-people-must-be-twice-as-kind/
There always many different ways to experience an event. The choice is yours ...
Quote from: Treehugger on August 17, 2020, 04:44:20 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 17, 2020, 03:15:56 PM
I won't even bother to explain what's so loopy about this. Maybe just say 'Well...California."
"I'd just finished a long evening walk in my neighborhood and was relaxed for the first time in days when I saw the white woman washing her Lexus. She probably didn't know she was about to throw her whiteness at me like a rock—nor do I think she meant to. I paused to wave as she sprayed water across her soapy SUV. I didn't want to startle her with my large, black presence. She made eye contact but didn't wave back. We were both on the sidewalk. I motioned to ask whether she'd take a few steps back into her driveway so I could pass while preserving social distance. My alternative was to step into traffic on a curved street. She rolled her eyes, sighed, and walked wearily into her driveway, making a little room.
Maybe she was just frustrated—as we all are—by how COVID-19 has shifted the formerly straight-forward rituals of our lives, like taking walks or washing cars. Maybe she was tired. Maybe she'd had a bad Zoom meeting. There are a million reasons why she might have been rude. The reasons don't matter, though—the impact does. And what I experienced was a white person being ticked off by my black presence in front of her house, and exercising her privilege to make her annoyance known. How else could I experience it? We relentlessly teach people of color that their non-whiteness is the most salient, determinative thing about them, and, indeed, lived experience frequently confirms this—of course we view what we experience through the lens of race. (Paradoxically, we simultaneously teach white people that race doesn't matter and they should be colorblind. No wonder we struggle to make progress.)'
https://time.com/5871387/white-people-must-be-twice-as-kind/
There always many different ways to experience an event. The choice is yours ...
I was thinking, shades of Dostoevsky's "Tales of the Underground" but then, no, obviously the right way to experience this is "I can write a piece about this and get ink, because I am badass."