Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bedrockgames]

You are saying that your right to be creative (free speech) trumps even the right to criticize your product (free speech). That’s elitism.

No I am not saying that. I have the right to be creative. They have the right to criticize. I am just saying if someone is going to be critical of something I do, I don't think it is reasonable, if I don't share their religious views, for people to expect me to be persuaded by arguments grounded in their own religious taboos. That was my only point because you had raised the issue of a ceremony not being permitted to the outside world. I was saying while it makes perfect sense for them to be able to impose that on people within their faith, it wouldn't make much sense for people outside their faith to have to adhere to it. I don't think this is that unreasonable a position.

And your claims that “this requires educational and intellectual” sophistication beyond the average person's ability to comprehend is also elitist. Go back to my initial post.

I think we disagree on the level of complexity involved, and I think if you look at most of the posts, you will see there is a lot of burden placed on people trying to explore the culture to get it right through extensive research, knowledge and other methods. And I don't think it is elitist to say that, because I am basing it on my own difficulty navigating the whole cultural appropriation thing.

The rules are simple- they’re not even rules, but suggestions- and could generally be encapsulated by The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This simple admonition is a core teaching to all of the world’s major faiths, and as such could be articulated and understood- even if not actually adhered to- by most of the adults on the planet. Most kids, too.

A few thoughts come to mind here. First, like I said earlier if something like the golden rule is what you really have in mind, then just advocate for the golden rule, don't bundle it in a concept so easily misunderstood and so challenging as cultural appropriation. Second, I did say very early on here, I think avoiding being offensive is good. If I borrow a cultural feature, the last thing I am hoping to do is be offensive. But Third, I also have to use my judgement when people voice a criticism or take offense. Sometimes people have good reason for being offended by something. Sometimes they don't. I believe in the golden rule, but I also believe we have to have freedom and fun to exchange ideas here. If someone is maliciously using a culture to depict them as savages or some vile stereotype, sure, I get people reacting to that. But if someone just likes a culture, but their exposure to it is limited so it is based on pop references and a variety of other things, I think people are prone to overreact, while using cultural appropriation as an excuse. The golden rule can be flipped on the critique here as well: would you really want to be on the receiving end of that kind of reaction when all you are trying to do is borrow an idea you fell in love with?

Also I want there to be room for all kinds of approaches. Not every writer, musician or director should speak in the voice of Jesus. Right? I mean sometimes you want things to have a bit of punch, to get a bit wild or outside the box. I worry when I see these kinds of arguments that people have become so obsessed with consuming purity, they leave us with a much less interesting landscape of art and entertainment. To me it comes down to intentions. I think that matters a lot.

Again, I think the way a lot of people here are approaching this issue is to sermonize on it, because they have so much certainty. I don't think the morality of it is as cut and dry or as simple as people are making it out to be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

(looks left)

(looks right)

...Told you, dude.

Sea. Lions.

I am not a sea lion lowkey. There are actually people who disagree with this idea, and they are not all sea lions. I am a real person on the other side of this keyboard. And I realize you are also a real person (which is one of the reasons I periodically check myself in these conversations, because my aim isn't to hurt anyone----though I can admittedly get punchy when I get butthurt).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Wiseblood]

I am he as you are he as you are me, and we are all together.
I am the walrus.

Almost made me say it.

 

[Umbran]

The term itself is nonsensical. It’s exactly what I stated. You cite two examples of something you think is disrespectful to the originating culture. You proceeded to expose bias

I am a human being. We do not live on the planet Vulcan. We all have biases. Having a bias does not itself prove someone is wrong. It is merely something that must be considered to see fi it is leading astray of the point.

as Cinco De Mayo is a Mexican holiday last time I checked Mexican does not mean Latino.

Ah, the nitpicking begins. So be it.

I was handed a posit to the effect of, "cultural appropriation does not exist". To dispel that notion, I must simply show that it does happen in fairly large populations. It is logically similar to disproving an absolute statement - I only really need a couple of examples to make the point.

So, "every drunk non-Latino fratboy on Cinco de Mayo" is sufficient. I don't need to deal with drunk sorority sisters, drunk latino fratboys, or any other drunkards on that day. I called out one specific group, because it was large enough for the point.

By the way, there could be drunk Latino fratboys on that day - but as other Latinos, within the US (where the "fratboy" population resides) they aren't in a notably superior cultural position over those of Mexican descent. They are borrowing a piece of culture, but aren't abusing their position in the process. The power-dynamic difference is a major point in the ethical issue.

While spirit animals exist in Non-Native American cultures you simply assumed that this is the one because of pop culture.

I said, "pretty much everyone not of Native American descent". There are two other peoples who have similar spiritual forms - the Torres Straight Islanders number 4500 or so, and the Aboriginal Australians who number under one million. Other groups have animal spirits, but don't apply them in the same way as to make "my spirit animal" a meaningful statement.

Compared to the 300+ million population of the US, it looks to me that the "pretty much" holds nicely. Thank you.

It’s own Incoherence is why I say it does not exist.

Nothing I've said here is incoherent, as I've demonstrated. You are (perhaps unintentionally) passing over important phrases to get to that conclusion.

I am well aware that when things get heated, or people feel threatened in some way, they will tend to elide over segments, misread, or get impressions of text that align more with fears than with what is actually said. In this discussion, we all need to be conscious of this, because it leads to arguing against strawmen, as if that's meaningful. If you aren't discussing what was really said, there's no point in having the discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No I am not saying that. I have the right to be creative. They have the right to criticize. I am just saying if someone is going to be critical of something I do, I don't think it is reasonable, if I don't share their religious views, for people to expect me to be persuaded by arguments grounded in their own religious taboos. That was my only point because you had raised the issue of a ceremony not being permitted to the outside world. I was saying while it makes perfect sense for them to be able to impose that on people within their faith, it wouldn't make much sense for people outside their faith to have to adhere to it. I don't think this is that unreasonable a position.

So, you feel like you have a right to the cultural artifacts of others, regardless how they feel about it?

No.

That is an incredibly unreasonable position.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, you feel like you have a right to the cultural artifacts of others, regardless how they feel about it?

No.

That is an incredibly unreasonable position.

In a free society, you kinda do. Elitism isn’t illegal.

What you DON’T have is immunity from criticism for that use; from people reacting negatively to said use; from people boycotting you for that use; from possibly ruining your business over that use.

See also Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” re: capitalism for further clarification.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In a free society, you kinda do.

What you DON’T have is immunity from criticism for that use, from people reacting negatively to said use, from people boycotting you for that use, from possibly ruining your business over that use.

See also Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” re: capitalism for further clarification.

You have a legal right, not necessarily a moral right.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You have a legal right, not necessarily a moral right.

“Just because you can doesn't mean you should.”

Again, The Golden Rule.