Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Derren]

Do you really think errecting arbitrary walls around "culture" which no one is allowed to breach unless he fulfills arbitrary criteria is a human right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, a lot of very fine people bring up Piss Christ as their go-to example for everything, which is weird only in that this was a controversy over THIRTY YEARS ago and it is likely that many people reading this were not even alive when it happened.

What is the NEA equivalent of get off my lawn?

Anyway, it should probably be mentioned that a Catholic artist making a commentary about Christian iconography in popular culture should probably not be the go-to example for everything, let alone cultural appropriation.

It’s almost like a group making provocative and even offensive commentary about the thing their group together for is inherently different from a person outside the group doin the same.

As if...indeed, context is a major factor in determining what is right and wrong!

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. I’m not putting words in your mouth. You quoted a snippet of Umbran’s post, a section dealing with only two things:

1) Rights having corresponding duties, and
2) asserting rights without accepting the attendant duties is abuse

I disagreed with him that cultural appropriation constituted abuse. And looking at 2, I would disagree with that. How is not accepting responsibility a form of abuse? I don’t think that makes sense

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Pick any major ethical system, religious or secular. Point at one where ignoring a right’s corresponding duty isn’t considered abusive.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To make myself as clear as possible: I am an artist. I write fiction; I create physical arts in sculpture, acrylics, pastels, inks, and pencils; I compose and sing and play music in three different instruments. So I understand the issues intimately.

That said, the rights of an artist to create something do not automatically trump the other rights of human beings. As in ALL cases where rights are in conflict, it is a question of balancing relative harms and benefits on all sides.

But what rights are you arguing for here? Are you arguing that people have s right to not be appropriated? Or are you arguing everyone has a right to free expression, and I have s duty to allow for that right? If the latter I don’t disagree. We have a right to free expression. And that means I have a right to handle cultural elements and other people have a right to voice their opinion on that. I have never said they don’t have that right. All I have stared is just because someone voices a criticism that doesn’t mean their criticism has moral weight. If you are arguing people have a right not to be appropriated, I would disagree. I don’t think this is a right in the way that freedom of speech is a right.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Cultural appropriation is not a concept. It’s a real thing. Not something in the ether that some people think is a thing without any objective evidence. We have the definition. We have LOTS of objective examples of that very thing happening which proves it’s a real thing and not just a concept.

It’s like arguing that racism isn’t a thing, but just a concept, and if you say you disagree with it, then it doesn’t exist.

That’s flat out dangerous. And real people are getting harmed by it. You simply cannot deny the existence of something that is concrete and objective. It’s denying facts and the evidence before you, and needless to say, if your position is dependent on the denial of facts, then you might want to reconsider your position.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pick any major ethical system, religious or secular. Point at one where ignoring a right’s corresponding duty isn’t considered abusive.

I don’t understand your use of abuse in this context I think. Either way, if I understand your point, I am not neglecting my duty. We are talking about free speech right? I don’t have a duty to obey other people’s criticism of my speech or expression. I just have a duty not to infringe on their free speech and to support their right to free speech.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, artist to artist, when someone tells you they have a problem with an element in your creative output/process, that is not the time to simply fall back on your rights as an artist and plow ahead. That is the time to do your duty- pause and consider what you’ve been told.

I reject that you have this duty. I do think a good artist listens to criticism. I don’t think they have a social obligation to do so (and certainly not a legal one). I don’t see that an artist who ignores critics or a single critic is failing in a duty. It might be discourteius. It might be closed minded. But it isn’t something people are bound by duty

 

[Derren]

Cultural appropriation is not a concept. It’s a real thing. Not something in the ether that some people think is a thing without any objective evidence. We have the definition. We have LOTS of objective examples of that very thing happening which proves it’s a real thing and not just a concept.

It’s like arguing that racism isn’t a thing, but just a concept, and if you say you disagree with it, then it doesn’t exist.

That’s flat out dangerous. And real people are getting harmed by it. You simply cannot deny the existence of something that is concrete and objective. It’s denying facts and the evidence before you, and needless to say, if your position is dependent on the denial of facts, then you might want to reconsider your position.

Now it gets silly.
You are doing a disservice to all people actually suffering by claiming people are harmed because they arbitrarily decide some things are part of their culture which they somehow own and someone else who does not fulfill some arbitrary criteria and using it in a way this person thinks is inappropriate.
No one owns a culture.

But when you feel so strongly about it, there is only one solution. Don't use non-european cultures in your games.

 

[Mercurius]

Cultural appropriation is not a concept. It’s a real thing. Not something in the ether that some people think is a thing without any objective evidence. We have the definition. We have LOTS of objective examples of that very thing happening which proves it’s a real thing and not just a concept.

It’s like arguing that racism isn’t a thing, but just a concept, and if you say you disagree with it, then it doesn’t exist.

That’s flat out dangerous. And real people are getting harmed by it. You simply cannot deny the existence of something that is concrete and objective. It’s denying facts and the evidence before you, and needless to say, if your position is dependent on the denial of facts, then you might want to reconsider your position.

"Cultural appropriation" is a concept that refers to phenomena. I don't think anyone is denying that there is a real phenomena occuring that you label as cultural appropriation. But that is an interpretation of what is going on.

And yes, racism is a thing - it is real - although don't think it is a great analogy for cultural appropriation, due the fact that racism is more general and cultural appropriation more specific. But what constitutes racism is debatable, with a wide range of definitions. And how we handle the issue of racism is another matter, with a range of possibilities. There is no one true way to understand what racism is or how to solve it.

Let me ask you: what is the underlying goal of using a conceptual term like "cultural appropriation?" And can that goal be accomplished in different ways? Does it have to be adopting that interpretive framework? Or are there "other roads to Rome?"