Cancel culture craziness

[downer]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[mahagonny]

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

[Parasaurolophus]

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?

[mahagonny]

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!

[mahagonny]

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

[downer]

I guess this thread is moving to a discussion of PC symbols. I welcome the changes.

Did you hear about Trader Joe's 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!

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[Treehugger]

I guess this thread is moving to a discussion of PC symbols. I welcome the changes.

Did you hear about Trader Joe's 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>.

[spork]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[ergative]

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.)

[mahagonny]

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

[Parasaurolophus]

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.