Adventures in Babysitting: The Catch-All Anti-SJW Thread

[Bi_3]

It’s just this constant trivializing of art as something disposable and replaceable, whether it’s Roseanne or Kanye or Mel Gibson or Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or whoever. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard some version of “There’s plenty of great art made by good people, so you don’t need this art.” As if there’s some kind of non-problematic artistic analogue for any of these people. No, art doesn’t work that way, and you can’t just tell someone else how much any artist or work of art does or doesn’t mean to them. There’s just no nuance in the discussion. Everything is black or white, yes or no, approved or not approved. I’m so sick of it all.

Have you experienced a flip-side to this? Where something is promoted to "approved art" by the artist's qualities and not anything compelling about the work?

[LoathedVermin72]

It’s just this constant trivializing of art as something disposable and replaceable, whether it’s Roseanne or Kanye or Mel Gibson or Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or whoever. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard some version of “There’s plenty of great art made by good people, so you don’t need this art.” As if there’s some kind of non-problematic artistic analogue for any of these people. No, art doesn’t work that way, and you can’t just tell someone else how much any artist or work of art does or doesn’t mean to them. There’s just no nuance in the discussion. Everything is black or white, yes or no, approved or not approved. I’m so sick of it all.

Have you experienced a flip-side to this? Where something is promoted to "approved art" by the artist's qualities and not anything compelling about the work?

Oh hell yes. Fucking Ava DuVernay. Ugh.

[LoathedVermin72]

The politicization of art by ignorant, self-righteous leftists who don’t actually care about it is what really makes me lose my mind. They trivialize and dismiss art to a nauseating degree, oblivious to what it could mean to anyone else. I just can’t.

Can you provide some examples? I see it coming from both sides (the right's response to Michelle Wolfe, for instance), can't pinpoint anything in the recent past that has reflected especially poorly on the left (any worse than the right, that is).

Also, the left/right schism is a philosophical dinosaur and I wish it would hurry up and gasp its last breath.

It’s just this constant trivializing of art as something disposable and replaceable, whether it’s Roseanne or Kanye or Mel Gibson or Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or whoever. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard some version of “There’s plenty of great art made by good people, so you don’t need this art.” As if there’s some kind of non-problematic artistic analogue for any of these people. No, art doesn’t work that way, and you can’t just tell someone else how much any artist or work of art does or doesn’t mean to them. There’s just no nuance in the discussion. Everything is black or white, yes or no, approved or not approved. I’m so sick of it all.

Got ya. I guess my experience with this has been a little different with regard to the bold part; I find that many people just like to seek out art or entertainment that reinforces/fellates their existing beliefs rather than challenges them, like they formed some baseline opinions in their early 20s and then just said "I'm good."

But based on the names you included (Roseanne, etc), it seems like you're talking specifically about people who won't separate the art from the artist, which I am definitely guilty of. But for me, it's a case-by-case basis. I've got no problems watching a Mel Gibson flick, because I believe he's got some mental illness issues and was also raised by a Nazi -- I feel empathy for him, and find his film work more compelling because of his personal background. That's a stark contrast with Louis CK, whose humor I adore, but has taken on a much darker light given his admissions of harassment/sexual assault.

But even if I do choose to pass on a given work because I find the creator distasteful, that doesn't mean I'm just sitting around watching Adam Sandler movies all day; I'm still seeking out art that will challenge my world view, hopefully without contributing cash to someone whom I might find abhorrent.

Long-story-short, fuck anyone who is comfortable in their bubble and doesn't endeavor to venture beyond.

I think it runs deeper than an inability/refusal to separate art from artist - I think it’s an inability/refusal to hold two different thoughts at once. Roman Polanski’s art cant be worthwhile because of his crimes. Gone with the Wind can’t be shown anymore because it has racist elements. Blah blah blah. It’s so regressive and childish.

[Strat]

The politicization of art by ignorant, self-righteous leftists who don’t actually care about it is what really makes me lose my mind. They trivialize and dismiss art to a nauseating degree, oblivious to what it could mean to anyone else. I just can’t.

Can you provide some examples? I see it coming from both sides (the right's response to Michelle Wolfe, for instance), can't pinpoint anything in the recent past that has reflected especially poorly on the left (any worse than the right, that is).

Also, the left/right schism is a philosophical dinosaur and I wish it would hurry up and gasp its last breath.

It’s just this constant trivializing of art as something disposable and replaceable, whether it’s Roseanne or Kanye or Mel Gibson or Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or whoever. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard some version of “There’s plenty of great art made by good people, so you don’t need this art.” As if there’s some kind of non-problematic artistic analogue for any of these people. No, art doesn’t work that way, and you can’t just tell someone else how much any artist or work of art does or doesn’t mean to them. There’s just no nuance in the discussion. Everything is black or white, yes or no, approved or not approved. I’m so sick of it all.

Got ya. I guess my experience with this has been a little different with regard to the bold part; I find that many people just like to seek out art or entertainment that reinforces/fellates their existing beliefs rather than challenges them, like they formed some baseline opinions in their early 20s and then just said "I'm good."

But based on the names you included (Roseanne, etc), it seems like you're talking specifically about people who won't separate the art from the artist, which I am definitely guilty of. But for me, it's a case-by-case basis. I've got no problems watching a Mel Gibson flick, because I believe he's got some mental illness issues and was also raised by a Nazi -- I feel empathy for him, and find his film work more compelling because of his personal background. That's a stark contrast with Louis CK, whose humor I adore, but has taken on a much darker light given his admissions of harassment/sexual assault.

But even if I do choose to pass on a given work because I find the creator distasteful, that doesn't mean I'm just sitting around watching Adam Sandler movies all day; I'm still seeking out art that will challenge my world view, hopefully without contributing cash to someone whom I might find abhorrent.

Long-story-short, fuck anyone who is comfortable in their bubble and doesn't endeavor to venture beyond.

I think it runs deeper than an inability/refusal to separate art from artist - I think it’s an inability/refusal to hold two different thoughts at once. Roman Polanski’s art cant be worthwhile because of his crimes. Gone with the Wind can’t be shown anymore because it has racist elements. Blah blah blah. It’s so regressive and childish.

I want to be clear that my imminent praise for China is selective, even grudging. But you've got to hand it China. It has something we're sorely missing today: civilizational confidence.

Exhibit A: The Chinese think we're idiots when it comes to the absurd panic over "cultural appropriation."

By now, you've probably heard that an American teenager wore a traditional Chinese dress to her prom. The young lady, Keziah Daum, is not ethnically Chinese or Asian. And this infuriated a lot of people on Twitter. Someone responded to Daum's pictures by tweeting, "My culture is NOT your goddamn prom dress."

And like Pavlov's dogs responding to the dinner bell, thousands of Twitter hounds rained abuse on Daum for the great, alleged sin of "cultural appropriation."

Cultural appropriation was originally a sociological term to describe how a majority culture borrows or adapts from a minority culture some custom, fashion, cuisine or practice. At some point, alas, it went from being descriptive to proscriptive.

Proscriptive rules — the opposite of prescriptive rules — tell people what they cannot do. And while it's not quite a law (yet), save on some college campuses, there's an organized and passionate movement to pass a new social commandment: "Thou shalt not appropriate someone else's culture."

It must be noted that this is different than saying, "Thou shalt not mock or denigrate someone else's culture." That's a valuable social norm. But this is a distinction the anti-cultural-appropriation forces want to obliterate. They argue that any form of cultural appropriation is essentially indistinguishable from attacking someone's culture.

And that is idiotic.

Without cultural appropriation, American blacks would never have picked up European musical instruments to create the blues and jazz. Without cultural appropriation, white and black artists alike would never have spun these wonderful creations into rock 'n' roll.

Nearly every meal you've ever eaten is the byproduct of centuries of cultural appropriation, to one extent or another. This column is written in English, a language that contains hundreds of thousands of words appropriated from other tongues. Just less than two-thirds of our language derives from Latin or French. About a quarter is Germanic in origin. And about a sixth comes from Greek, Arabic and other languages.

Christianity was a Middle Eastern religion "appropriated" by Europeans.

Cultural appropriation manifested itself in every society and civilization since the concepts of society and civilization were born. We are living through the greatest period of poverty alleviation in all of human history right now because countries in Asia and Africa have appropriated many economic policies and practices — free markets, property rights, etc. — that began as quirky artifacts of English and Dutch culture.

But Western civilization is a bit different than other civilizations because, until very recently, it prided itself for its ability to embrace, and borrow from, other cultures. To be sure, some of that appropriation happened at the tip of a sword or gun, but show me a civilization that wasn't true of at one point or another.

Alas, the Puritan tradition in America takes funny new forms. So today, people can appropriate a different gender, but don't you dare wear a sombrero if you have the wrong DNA, never mind invent a Korean taco or wear a Chinese dress to the prom. I don't take much pride in the fact that Chinese elites wear Western jackets and ties, but I don't see why it should offend anyone either.

Which brings me back to China. The New York Times did a great journalistic service this week: It investigated whether Daum's alleged hate crime offended the Chinese. The overwhelming response? Nope. Chinese social media and cultural commentators celebrated Daum's decision as a compliment.

But in America, unfortunately, some people are so insecure in their identity and so desperate to be offended they have breathed new life into H.L. Mencken's definition of puritanism: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

https://www.vaildaily.com/opinion/goldb ... ed-column/

[bart]

Oh good, local newspaper editorials.

[Strat]

Well he’s got a good point and it goes along with LVs point.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don’t really understand what that op-ed has to do with what I was saying? Is it the puritanism part?

[Strat]

I don’t really understand what that op-ed has to do with what I was saying? Is it the puritanism part?

“ so desperate to be offended”

The entire article is about the lack of nuance and intelligent thought and the overreaction from SJW over such things - as outlined in his piece. He doesn’t state SJW directly but that’s exactly what he is talking about.

[LoathedVermin72]

Ah, I see. I almost wonder if it’s less “desperate to be offended” than it is “conditioned to be offended to a trigger-happy degree,” especially now that Trump’s in office. Offense is safe and easy. Discomfort and complication are, well, uncomfortable and complicated. Simpler to just “cancel” everything that even remotely sets off an outrage reflex.

[surfndestroy]

Seems you know have to be the SJW approved color to teach some history courses.

http://nationalpost.com/news/university ... ments-area

[LoathedVermin72]

The college graduation I went to today was like a parody of what you would think a college graduation would be. Pure fucking liberal stereotypes. They actually said, multiple times, that their goal is to create "social justice warriors" and send them out into the world. Fuck everything about all of it. Burn the universities.

[Bi_3]

The college graduation I went to today was like a parody of what you would think a college graduation would be. Pure fucking liberal stereotypes. They actually said, multiple times, that their goal is to create "social justice warriors" and send them out into the world. Fuck everything about all of it. Burn the universities.

We do need people who will advocate for the disadvantaged. BUT. We need doctors, scientists, construction workers, teachers, software engineers, and artists more.

[chewm]

The college graduation I went to today was like a parody of what you would think a college graduation would be. Pure fucking liberal stereotypes. They actually said, multiple times, that their goal is to create "social justice warriors" and send them out into the world. Fuck everything about all of it. Burn the universities.

Sounds like heaven.

[Orpheus]

The college graduation I went to today was like a parody of what you would think a college graduation would be. Pure fucking liberal stereotypes. They actually said, multiple times, that their goal is to create "social justice warriors" and send them out into the world. Fuck everything about all of it. Burn the universities.

We do need people who will advocate for the disadvantaged. BUT. We need doctors, scientists, construction workers, teachers, software engineers, and artists more.

The fact the people think these ideas are mutually exclusive is sad.

[McParadigm]

Being angry about social justice fantasies (which is the more appropriate term) at a time like this is a lot like whining about your cell phone’s autocorrect errors while standing next to a public execution.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[McParadigm]

Being angry about social justice fantasies (which is the more appropriate term) at a time like this is a lot like whining about your cell phone’s autocorrect errors while standing next to a public execution.

Now this guy has razor sharp focus. Pure specialization.

[Bi_3]

Being angry about social justice fantasies (which is the more appropriate term) at a time like this is a lot like whining about your cell phone’s autocorrect errors while standing next to a public execution.

Now this guy has razor sharp focus. Pure specialization.

I don’t follow what “a time like this” is suppose to mean.

[Bi_3]

The college graduation I went to today was like a parody of what you would think a college graduation would be. Pure fucking liberal stereotypes. They actually said, multiple times, that their goal is to create "social justice warriors" and send them out into the world. Fuck everything about all of it. Burn the universities.

We do need people who will advocate for the disadvantaged. BUT. We need doctors, scientists, construction workers, teachers, software engineers, and artists more.

The fact the people think these ideas are mutually exclusive is sad.

I think we are interpreting the term 'SJW' differently. I was not suggesting that a nurse who actively supports social justice in the workplace is somehow bad or unneeded. But organizations growing legions of individuals whose career is the establishment and enforcement of social justice (esp. intersectionality) is a big mistake, not only for the indoctrinated young people, but our nation as a whole.