Well.. it's not at all clear that those things he mention has anything to do with anti-racism and feminism. In fact, it seems quite clear they are the opposite of that.
It's ridiculously transparent libertarian/conservative PR.
As others have said - far more directly abusive and entitled privileged beliefs are endemic among the very rich.
If they weren't they wouldn't spend so much time strike-breaking, stealing pay, flouting laws and regulations, buying politicians, and proselytising their messaging through think tanks, PR firms and captured media.
The fact is worrying and getting angry about things like cultural appropriation is something one can only do if they have the time and energy to.
Most laborers are too concerned about being able to pay their bills, provide for their dependents and too tired from difficult labor to get that upset about a Chinese Basketball player wearing dreads.
I don't freak out over homosexuals. I see how "cultural appropriation" is bs. You can have those two ideas in your head at once. In fact, the vast majority do! Because it's the only sane position.
It may turn out that there's some interesting points being made, and you almost walked into one yourself.
What if a lot of these luxury beliefs promulgated by the elite are really just conscience laundering / overt cover for all the bad things you point out they do covertly (strike breaking / bribery / fraud / etc)?
It's a thought worth examining and has non-zero merit.
Some of my trendiest, leftiest friends (hey and I vote all-dem, all the time myself) are actually far richer but come from family money. And many of them are less white/straight/male than me! And many of them have strongly ironic ideas about things..
Greta IG re-posting "climate change is an existential crisis", while owning big ICE SUVs and flying 10x/year. "Soak the rich" (because their dad bought their condo for them in cash and their lifestyle doesn't depend on the high income they believe should be taxed). SATs are racist (but THEIR kid got all the SAT prep / coaching / etc to ensure access to the best school). AOC good & "billionaires shouldn't exist", but happily spend summers crashing in their boarding school friends mansion whose father is a well known but politically quieter CEO.
This post is basically conservative rambling disguised as sociology.
There are sets of liberal and conservative beliefs that are held by the wealthy and powerful that are detrimental to the powerless and poor.
He cites the liberal set, maybe he is a conservative and that’s his bias or maybe because there is an inbuilt hypocrisy in some of them, ultimately it doesn’t matter because the point stands on its own and one shouldn’t discount that.
Then sure there may be some elements of truth sprinkled every now and then, but every piece of propaganda always lies on some truth to be convincing, that doesn't make it legit.
Are you suggesting that it is inherently bad faith to argue against a position that one doesn't like?
And there are bunch of conservatives that are even pleasant to read even though I don't have much in common with them.
You can have different opinions and still argue in good faith.
They are equally bad, no matter where they come from, and they do not deserve anyone's attention, especially when it comes from grifters who live from the the confirmation bias of their followers/patrons.
(I don't even fit in the American political segmentation anyway)
Where's the point of making an argument against liberal ideas you do like?
Unless you are arguing that anything painted "liberal" should never have arguments made against it? That anyone making an argument against a "liberal" position should have their motives questioned?
But it doesn't seems to be something you're familiar with given your response…
You could break people up into political and wealth-based quadrants: 1. Conservative and rich 2. Conservative and poor 3. Liberal and rich 4. Liberal and poor
Consider the typical expressed beliefs of quadrants 1 and 2. Both advocate that individualism and an internal locus of control can help you succeed in life. The difference is whether they have "succeeded in life" (by socioeconomic measures/ whatever).
Consider the same for quadrants 3 and 4. They would typically be less likely to advocate for the idea that success is based on luck. Again, the difference between 3 and 4 is whether they have not "succeeded."
Of all the quadrants, quadrant number 3 (liberal and rich) has a unique cognitive dissonance between their lived reality and their stated moral position. They tend to believe that rich people have achieved their wealth largely through luck, and now have power and autonomy that others lack. They state that the rich should help the poor, and they are rich, so they continually must justify their own wealth. This type of cognitive dissonance does not exist in the same way for the other 3 quadrants. That's why TFA is inevitably critical of the left for its luxury beliefs moreso than the right.
I'm relatively affluent and I know that it's mostly the product of luck, I have no problem admitting that and that my salary is outrageous compared to the amount of work it requires (and required over my lifetime). I am also actively a militant in favor of an increase in taxes for the guys like me. I'd give away 80% of my capital instantly if it made all of my social class to the same because I know it would make life way better for most of us.
How am I suffering from cognitive dissonance?
As a european, I just can't wrap my head around this. How is it racist if I like a food of an other culture so much I cook it? Or I like a hairstyle of different culture so I also want to wear it. Or clothes. Or making music. Or....
I mean, I admire all that stuff so much that I want it to be part of my life. How is this racist?
Everyone drinks the same can of coke and eats the same grocery store sushi. If you look closer at the woke crowd you'll see that grocery store sushi is pretty "white".
One of the big things they're actually complaining about is enshittification of other cultures via capitalism.
So the idea is that cultural appropriation is a way to keep capitalism from eating the world, to keep shitty grocery store sushi from competing with people who actually know what they're doing. To try and keep capitalists from pillaging every developing economy.
1) It has nothing to do with racism but uses the accusation of someone being racist as a tool to push an agenda.
2) Japan still makes good sushi. Supermarket sushi has not destroyed japanese sushi culture
3) I'd argue that capitalism has made the world better in pretty much every aspect. You could argue that capitalism has destroyed the environment, but the fact is that leftist countries have a history of being even more destructive.
4) "white people have no culture" But people all over the world drink coke, watch american movies, drink french wine, eat italian food, drive german cars and they seem to like their smartphones.
It's like goldilocks.. you can't like another cultural too much (cultural appropriation) or too little (racism). Often the statement is made by people who aren't even from the supposedly wronged culture. Please let me know how much and in what manner I am allowed to appreciate and participate in other cultures, Mr Cultural Gatekeeper.
America is great because people come here, participate in and enhance the existing culture.
My grandmother loved Chinese takeout cuz she was a Jew who grew up in NYC. My Southeast Asian in-laws love Italian food and always insist on taking us out to it. Also, hate to break it to people, but Southeast Asia has some really crazy localized Italian dishes involving ketchup & hot dogs.
Yesterday for breakfast I had greek yogurt.. from a company founded by a Greek! Last night I had leftover Thai (made by Thais!) and stopped by a Jewish bakery owned by Muslims for dessert. Had a black&white cookie with some baklava.
My parents who live outside of any big city, who have never been to Asia, now frequently go out for Pho. A couple generations ago Vietnam was synonymous with "bad war". For a GenZ American it's now synonymous with "good food".
What's not to love here?
Because it turns out nothing is perfect, including capitalism.
Japan and other Asian countries expressly push their food and culture as a component of political and economic diplomacy. Like, literally, that's a stated goal. Anime, the Hilux, and sushi have done more to ensure good will to Japan than any lame goodwill gesture.
As I remember it, this really took off in popular culture after native americans got sick of dude-bros/girls wearing war bonnets to music festivals. Around 2012-2014 it was a hugely popular piece. When 'cultural appropriation' came up then I mildly agreed with the sentiment because the look was pretty openly disrespectful.
And then it expanded like kudzu until digital hairstyles became off-limits:
https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2020/11/30/21734131/ani...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=8997844...
I don't doubt there was someone somewhere complaining, but similar to the rename of the washington redkins, most of us didn't give a shit.
The most grumbling I've ever heard around this is complaints that pow-wow's are too commercialized but, if anything, that was criticizing our own tribes.
It's the old adage about a few loud people.
No it's not. It's about as real of a thing as the miasma theory. It's a idea that's been laundered through academia, but that doesn't make it anything but "well researched" fiction.
Of course many terms mutate in meaning.
That's absolutely subjugating the identity of the colonized: it takes these parts of their identity and says "these are not yours; like everything else, they are ours, and we can do with them as we please."
Even if it would have been as you described: it would have nothing to do with me cooking african food because I love the taste. It's admiration, not theft.
I guess I'm sort of old fashioned, when a concept is coined by some person I go with their definition and not what my feelings on it as a Dane might be.
cooking African food because you like the taste would probably not be cultural appropriation as the concept was originally defined, although I guess people may feel that is what it means now.
In most cases, Europeans don't live close to the people their countries colonized (though there are some exceptions, like the Basque and Catalonia regions), so there's less of a likelihood for people to want to appropriate them.
And no; cooking African food, no matter whether you belong to a culture that colonized that particular African culture, is not appropriation (unless, as I mentioned in another post, the food is part of a closed religious/ritual practice).
The appropriator needs to get some profit or acclaim for doing the thing, while the people it came from are denigrated for the it.
Clothing is a much more visible identity marker: if you're dressed in clothing from particular African cultures, that's a strong signal that you belong to that culture—so if you do not, in fact, belong to it, that can cause a number of kinds of problems in the right (or wrong) circumstances.
Furthermore, for many cultures, the clothing that most recognizably signals membership is related to some form of cultural or religious ritual, and wearing it outside of that context can be very disrespectful.
Imagine if, for instance, you were in Nairobi (or Tokyo, or Mumbai) and saw someone wearing the traditional robes and cap of a Catholic cardinal—and you saw them partying, being vulgar, doing drugs, that sort of thing. Obviously, the connotations are not the same, because of the overall dominance of the Catholic Church and Western culture generally, but I hope that it gets across the general idea of why clothing can be more prone to appropriation, and why that's a problem.
> Furthermore, for many cultures, the clothing that most recognizably signals membership is related to some form of cultural or religious ritual, and wearing it outside of that context can be very disrespectful
Fair enough; it would be wrong for me to wear a soldier's uniform if I've never served in the army.
Still, I can't help but feel that complaining about cultural appropriation is just a way to maintain USA's cultural dominance. The message seems to be: It's fine for Americans to spread their culture, but it's wrong for other countries to do the same.
It’s not just whether you’re ‘allowed’ to eat certain foods - it’s more whether your allowance for foods is different than someone else’s, because of your level of cultural status versus theirs. It’s about double standards.
You're stripping the value of African food from African people, the same as colonialism stripped their resources from their land.
Opening restaurants with food from your culture is pretty much the standard way of doing it and certainly not looked down upon.
All of this sounds racist to me. People are now forbidden to do things if they have the wrong skin color.
Food is more of an edge case. I know there have been situations where someone who is white opened up a restaurant that sold food of a particular ethnicity. I'm not familiar with the specifics however. I would imagine that people debated whether or not that was cultural appropriation. Again, I don't know any specifics in that case.
I would say that cultural appropriation is less about individuals and more about the overall taking of something that means something to one culture and removing all that meaning. An example that comes to mind are things like turning Native American clothes into fashion or kids dressing as indians for Halloween.
So eat what you want to eat.
So if you’d be worried about hiring a black man with dreads, but you wouldn’t have the same hangups about a white woman with dreads, that’s an example. Or if when you make Ful Madras it’s very cultured and experimental and basically laudable of you - but if someone from Egypt brings it in, it’s more like a “oh isn’t your culture quaint” kind of situation, if not flat out “why did you make food that smells so bad.”
Like the enduring nonsensical racist gripe that people from indo/pak background smell like curry… while the UK had simultaneously made tika masala into a national dish. It’s brave and adventurous when white people do it, it’s separatist and foreign when brown people do it, even though it’s what brown people grew up with. That’s the angle.
If I, a white man living in upstate NY, were to don Haudenosaunee ritual gear and record myself performing a traditional dance of theirs, that would be cultural appropriation. It refers to a dominant culture taking the trappings of a colonized or otherwise marginalized culture and using them for entertainment, for clout, or otherwise for our own purposes.
On the other hand, if I were to travel to Japan, stay at a ryokan (traditional Japanese inn), and wear the simple kimono they provide for guests, or go to a kimono rental shop and rent a kimono from them for the day, that would be cultural appreciation, because that is something that the Japanese offer openly as a way for foreigners to connect with and understand their culture.
In general, cooking and eating food of another culture in your own home cannot be cultural appropriation. (The only exception I can think of offhand is if the food is part of a closed religious practice of some sort.) Similarly with music—it's very unlikely to be cultural appropriation unless the music is part of a religious practice or being used disrespectfully. Hairstyles and clothing require a bit more nuance and can depend on the situation.
and then bougie middle-class white people getting upset about stuff they don't really understand
Making fun of marginalized religions, which are already frequently ridiculed because they're different from what the dominant culture does, and which are under threat, either overall or within a given area, is a very different matter.
The problem with cultural appropriation is specifically that it exacerbates marginalization and discrimination against already-marginalized groups.
Making fun of any religion is fine. No religion is above reproach, no religion is beyond mockery. None of them.
>Making fun of marginalized religions
Here's a newspeak term. There is no such thing as a "marginalized religion". This is a fictitious concept.
>which are already frequently ridiculed because they're different from what the dominant culture does, and which are under threat, either overall or within a given area, is a very different matter.
Good, every religion should be ridiculed. There's no culture that's beyond ridicule.
You're trying to create an illogical concept where hatred of White people is a reasonable thing. You can't come straight out and say it, so you launder the idea through a luxury belief and magically the hatred is tolerable.
>The problem with cultural appropriation is specifically that it exacerbates marginalization and discrimination against already-marginalized groups.
No it doesn't, because "cultural appropriation" doesn't exist. Upholding cultures even if they're backwards because it's politically fruitful breeds resentment. This is "baizou" behavior.
This is insufficient to be cultural appropriation. The context in which you wear the ritual gear and do the dances matter, the same as with the Japanese example.
Yes, I can see how that could be perceived as demeaning.
See also: Häagen-Dazs. Foreign people speak funny and can't write. Very funny.
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be because cultural appropriation doesn't exist. Culture is not a zero sum game. You doing that takes away nothing from the originating culture.
>It refers to a dominant culture taking the trappings of a colonized or otherwise marginalized culture and using them for entertainment, for clout, or otherwise for our own purposes.
Ah yes, White original sin and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion-tier rhetoric about the international White conspiracy. Conspiracy theories about some "dominance" and hierarchy of cultures on some fabricated scale is what the Nazis used to justify cleansing Europe of the Jews.
>On the other hand, if I were to travel to Japan, stay at a ryokan (traditional Japanese inn), and wear the simple kimono they provide for guests, or go to a kimono rental shop and rent a kimono from them for the day, that would be cultural appreciation, because that is something that the Japanese offer openly as a way for foreigners to connect with and understand their culture.
Japanese offer openly people to wear kimonos anywhere. It's often a gift given so others can wear them outside of Japan. You can appreciate culture anywhere.
>In general, cooking and eating food of another culture in your own home cannot be cultural appropriation. (The only exception I can think of offhand is if the food is part of a closed religious practice of some sort.) Similarly with music—it's very unlikely to be cultural appropriation unless the music is part of a religious practice or being used disrespectfully. Hairstyles and clothing require a bit more nuance and can depend on the situation.
Not in general, in totality: none of the aforementioned things are "cultural appropriation". The concept is an illusion.
Cultural appropriation is widely understood to be when someone in a position of power (most commonly a white person) utilizes something that is heavily related or socially seen as "part of" a minority community. For example, a white person wearing a Native American headdress. The issue that the minority community has with that is that they are routinely belittled or put down for participating in that part of their own community. For example, a white person wearing a Native American war bonnet to Coachella is appropriation, as war bonnets are culturally significant to Native Americans and you have to earn the ability to wear one. Meanwhile, many white Americans still put down Native American customs as "witchcraft".
When it comes to food, music, or clothing, you're pretty good there. It's primarily just avoiding things that are culturally or spiritually significant to a culture. I.E., don't wear a headdress if you're not Native American, don't act like you're the best rapper ever if you grew up on a farm in Kansas, or say you make the best gumbo in the world if you've never even been to New Orleans.
Laying claim to culture is dumb, but everyone wants to feel special. One’s culture is less at risk from appropriation than from extinction as the world continues to trend towards an internet transmitted monoculture.
Laying claim to culture is dumb? That's kinda how things have been for the past thousands of years. A lot of these cultures have existed longer than many modern countries have. Yes, they do have risks from a cultural extinction, but watering a culture down or disconnecting it from it's roots doesn't save it from extinction. If anything, it advances that. Having people of that culture continue their cultural practices and protecting those practices, helps ensure that culture continues on.
Yes, there can be an internet monoculture, but everyone is part of some subculture. And the subculture is what is being protected. These cultures have existed for hundreds or thousands of years, and they carry historical importance in understanding history and the evolution of society.
Isn't part of being a rapper acting like you're the best rapper ever?
Now compare that with Hawai'i: instead of locals profitting of the local culture, Hawai'i was a kingdom colonized by the US and most of the tourism is done by mainland US companies rather than locals. The locals stand by as not only their land is sold off to rich Americans piece by piece but so is their culture and heritage. Religious traditions become scenary, sacred symbols become decoration and so on.
It's not immoral to take inspiration from foreign food, music, architecture, dress or traditions and weave them into your own (or even lift them wholesale). But this isn't about an individual act, it's about something happening in a very one-sided power relation where the more powerful side not simply copies the original but replicates it out of context and then (intentionally or non) uses their power to popularize their hollow replica to the point that it replaces the authentic original and that original context is lost.
Much like "racist" it's really more about the predisposition of a system towards emergent outcomes than individual belief or intent.
If it's acceptable for everyone, then it isn't cultural appropriation, it's just culture sharing. It's when society takes it away from those who grew up with it but allow others to use it that it's cultural appropriation.
It's a problematic/flawed concept, but that's the core idea and it makes some sense.
right, because working class people are incredibly stupid. As soon as I stopped working digging ditches and got a white collar office job my IQ jumped 30+ points!!
well probably because I have learned more esoteric knowledge than almost anyone I know despite having come from poorer circumstances than anyone I know, and I learned it while being poor.
Some exceptions I've seen are people like my mother who grew up higher-class but 'defected'. Another exception is occasional disabled members of the working class.
It has nothing to do with the intelligence or ability of the working class as a population and everything to do with the fact that people in that class who have certain abilities and types of intelligence are offered a way out that others aren't. (e.g. A mechanical genius is less likely to get this treatment than a kid reading several grades ahead ).
We also know the government taxing carbon or giving employment advantages to (often wealthy or connected) minorities rather than people who need it.
Luxury beliefs are common amongst the educated and twist demands for Justice for all into demands for privileges for themselves!
Isn't the author's point that the examples correlate very highly with affluence? The fact that it may/may not be correlated to something else might be relevant, but I'm not seeing the relevance.
Deflecting all criticism by knee jerk reaction of calling the questioner a racist. Disagreement over the magnitude of a problem, its relation to other problems, or the terms used for a problem makes you racist and therefore bad. Now we don't need to consider your opinion and can move on.
You can ignore anyone arguing from opinion, that's a given. "NYC left rich cohort" sounds like an absolute nightmare to try to figure out the truth with, given that they seem to think the character of a speaker has any bearing on the validity of their spoken words. Best not to engage with people like that, it's a waste of time.
At beast, I have seen people misread statistics to support their position, but, again, that's not really "how it effects their community".
https://www.hoover.org/research/diversity-illegal-immigratio...
Let me put it this way: pointing to one cogent article by a non-representative Trump supporter (you won't find many of them in academia, and the college-educated skew liberal/Dem) doesn't really make me change my mind about writing most of them off as racists based on my personal experience and what most of them say (which is not as cogent and reasonable as this guy's article).
Is this so different? It's saying the thing without saying it.
I made that quite clear in my original comment by suggesting several conservative "luxury beliefs" that I believe the author would have to criticize on the same grounds, but failed to do so. This is not "deflection", it's showing that the article employs double standards and is thus intellectually dishonest.
The "predictable" part, in my estimation, is that this kind of argument would be used by a right-wing author. To be saying the thing by saying it, conservative cultural critics, when measuring liberal discourse, are incapable of coming up with a bar that they themselves don't trip over.
This is reductive and only true in a binary world. If I question some anti-terrorism approaches, does that make me pro-terrorism? Of course not, but one could dishonestly accuse another of that to silence them or derail the conversation (see The Dixie Chicks). The world is hardly ever black and white.
It was shoot the messenger type stuff.
I recall when the Dixie Chicks criticized Dubya's invasion of Iraq.
The analogy here, to me, would be instead of arguing about whether Iraq invasion was a good idea, you said "aha! I knew the Dixie Chicks wouldn't have anything to say about Whitewater!" (or some similarly team blue scandal of similar vintage).
I hate tribalism, and I actually hate to see it even more on the side I vote with because it puts me in the position of being asked to defend things that I don't think make sense.
I felt the poster was discounting the article because the author had the opposite political preference on 2 topics. They lead with - "I figured out as soon as I saw the link title that the author's examples for "luxury beliefs" would just so happen to be associated with a feminist and anti-racist outlook."
To me reading the criticism of "my side" by reasonable writers from "the other side" is only additive. Also, logically that's exactly where I would expect the criticism to come from. You may even gain some perspective and re-evaluate your position or adjust your argument. This is how we grow.
As you point out, one can have a complex set of preferences/beliefs/things they support that do not fit directly into blue|red binary as a whole.
My point is that this is a bad faith argument. The author pretends to care about "luxury" beliefs, but in truth, all he cares about is finding a cheap shot against feminist positions. He intends to delegitimize these positions by painting them as an upper-class fringe ("luxury") concern. Once this angle of attack is found, the author never stops to see that the same attack could be levied against any number of political positions that he himself might agree with, because he was never interested in a real debate to begin with: he only wants to smear and ridicule.
The point is not that the examples are also "correlated" with something else, it's that they're carefully cherry-picked and made a target for an attack that would work against conservative positions, carefully excluded by the author, just as nicely as it does against liberal positions here.
It is intellectually dangerous to read a piece like this "apolitically", precisely because a biased political agenda is wearing the garb of a much more universal observation. If the writer had mixed "luxury beliefs" from all over the political spectrum, then there would be a clear focus on what the title purports to concern. Instead, there is a second agenda that is being silently conflated without being acknowledged.
The fiercest culture warriors I know are working-class folk. They do in fact, give a shit about this stuff, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. I blame the increased polarization.
The irony is that people who claim to be against culture wars - like the author - are they themselves actively engaging in a culture war while feigning neutrality. The truth is that they are simply against one perspective, which betrays either a lack of self-awareness, or bad faith.
It’s wild that this whole piece is based on one response on one question in a poll.
The income bracket breakdown on that question is 22%/23%/32%. Which is significant but isn’t “they’re all top hat wearing elites just trying to impress each other”. “Defund the police” isn’t even the majority opinion of that income bracket.
This whole article is just an attempt to smear liberals. Even if you care about making the case that defund the police is a “luxury” to advance their social standing, and simply pointing to a slightly higher level of support in a higher income bracket is quite frankly stupid.
(As an aside, I don’t think they get the history of dueling right, either.)
While the income breakdown is 22%/23%/32%, the urban breakdown is 30%/25%/28%/12%. With the largest difference between City and Rural.
This is not commented on by the author, as it would undercut their implicit point.
Working class people aren’t even inherently apolitical, they just don’t vote and aren’t taught that voting changes things like middle and upper class folks are
Then you've been duped by the author faking a neutral tone. This post is definitely not apolitical.
Author leans in quite heavily to his own bonafides... somehow able to rise from foster homes to the military to graduate from Yale.
Neato.
And then he gets REALLY basic shit wrong.
"Working class" does not mean "lower middle class white folks." Go ask 10 "working class" black folks whether this country is racist. Then ask them whether it occurs at all levels of the country. They don't even need to know what the term "systemic racism" is to be able to describe it to you.
"Defund the police" had a pretty fucking specific meaning. It meant removing all the military surplus gear from police organizations in an attempt to reduce the amount of machismo and brutality from LEOs. Nobody should ever feel safe around a person who barely graduated from high school and yet has the authority to brutalize you and legally steal your shit. Go ask people if they think body cams on cops are important.
Is it now a "luxury belief" for women to be afraid that they live in a state that might attempt to jail them for the crime of having a failed pregnancy, or is that an actual valid concern? Don't want to do that? Okay, then let's look at the number of OBGYNs who are choosing to leave states with oppressive anti-female laws because THEY don't want to be prosecuted for the crime of providing healthcare, and follow that up by examining the cities in places like Texas that want to prosecute women for using state highways to LEAVE the state in order to receive proper reproductive healthcare.
Luxury beliefs my ass. It's only a luxury in his mind because these things don't impact him.
Bonus points for making them elites in academia who apparently do not know how the "real word" works.
It is actually a means of pivoting to a different subject, and the next step is to make the subject the person doing the pivoting, and from there to change the entire scope of the discussion to the interpersonal dynamics of the parties involved in the discussion.
On the left (whom I would count myself among, even if I would hardly pass a purity test) there are many ways to do this, the key to all of them being that there's not a serious attempt to engage with the substance of the matter but simply to use an intersecting contextual facet as a means to collect the focus away from the topic and toward the discussant. Racism is probably the most straightforward path, or at least the most well-traveled (of the two mentioned in this thread, it would outrank abortion by being more generally applicable across age groups sexes religions etc) it goes "this isn't about x, x is really about racism. Your position on x implies you might be a racist. That position is personally offensive to me, who is directly or indirectly affected by racism." Done. conversation is now about people, and specifically two individual people, and specifically about the unfalsifiable statements about the feelings of one or both, and this is where it ends.
The right wing version of this trick, at least in the US, is much clumsier and ham-fisted but follows from the same motivation to replace the confrontation with an idea with a personal confrontation, though unlike the progressives they have only managed to devise one or two lasting variations of this same discussion-jamming measure: the pedophilia track and the socialist / communist sympathizer track.
I'm at a loss as to how to even attempt to have conversations in public about anything that matters due to the ever-present danger of one of these tactics surfacing and rendering the entire effort pointless. Perhaps we need to revive IRL coffee shop culture of small close circle debate from the 1800s, or import something like it from wherever a form of it still exists, maybe morocco or turkey.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion-miscarria...
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-ba....
Come again? The only way you could fail to know about these things or read about them is if you willfully choose to ignore them.
The links did cite cases where medical practitioners did not do their job because they were worried about the government.
Texas law specifically states that abortions in the case of risk to the mother are ok and the medical practitioners felt the language wasnt clear enough.
Just because someone doesn’t recognize a word, doesn’t mean it’s some rarified hoity toity elitist folly - it’s ignorance; a lack of education or opportunity, nothing more.
It's like how mothers used to chip in to enforce gender inequality their daughters suffered. It is a defeatist mindset, that is culturally enforced and learned from bitter lessons of the reality of power balance and dynamics in society.
edit:
like many here at my development stage (middleclass, degreed parents, etc) there was significant positive feedback for displaying cognitive abilities.
So it is not a luxury, it is a privilege.
And that raises the question of whether it is in fact required (as a sort of petite-bourgois-oblige) for those of us who are comfortable with "fancy words" to do the talking for the otherwise encumbered oppressed?
> And that raises the question of whether it is in fact required (as a sort of petite-bourgois-oblige) for those of us who are comfortable with "fancy words" to do the talking for the otherwise encumbered oppressed?
I honestly cannot tell if this is a serious comment. I hope not.
And the author didn’t fail to deliver. The George Floyd protests in Portland Oregon were massive. I find it hard to square that with a yougov poll that says only upper middle class people were protesting to defund the police because the crowds were young people who aren’t even old enough to have achieved that economic status.
The author hilariously tries to paint small liberal movements as cultural capital, which is the same smear conservatives play when using “virtue signaling.” I’m sorry but 30 years ago Silence=Death fell under his category, and here we are today with overwhelming support nationwide for gay rights.
This paper is interesting but seems intentionally geared toward wrapping antiprogressive rhetoric as insight.