More to the point, suicide would be taking the optimism too seriously, as it is a failed optimism. Really there is nowhere to go and nothing to do. There is a sort of existential paralysis with being born, that suicide does not undo. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that's the root of the relevant quote I think.



It's hard to know how literally to take that one but the following two I dug up after a quick look certainly strengthen my conviction concerning how Cioran's pessimism functioned for him and how I suspect it does for others too:

"The fact that life has no meaning is a reason to live - moreover, the only one."

"I don't need any support, advice, or compassion, because even if I am the most ruinous man, I still feel so powerful, so strong and fierce. For I am the only one that lives without hope."

(And by extension my attitude (now) that it's much more productive to focus on the function than argue over the content.)

So, you're basically saying that identity formation is motivated by optimistic thought or wishful thinking? — Wallows

It very often is in an ungroundable way but the main point is to focus on what pessimism, in its philosophic sense, does rather than says.

And, those who look past the dissonance of pessimism are more fit to live? — Wallows

More like those who can rhyme themselves with that dissonance may find its threats expended so the bottom is never reached.

That's my impression of it psychologically at least (said with awareness that there are plenty around here more knowledgeable about the details of the subject and its major proponents).

Kind of... Here's how I would put it with some more self-indulgent ramblings :p So, I think it's good to look at how pessimism functions rather than argue over the contents directly (as we have done many times before). And this involves recognizing both that an optimism built on fear dressed up as "positive thinking" or some other avoidance mechanism will always find ways to undermine itself and that a pessimism which embraces the logical underpinnings of that fear will functionally defy its apparent conclusions—reflecting the psychological principle that what we chase runs away from us due to the act of chasing creating as much as confirming the absence of that chased (as what we run away from chases us in similar fashion but from the opposing direction).

I think we all understand this at some level but that understanding tends to be instantiated indirectly through a fascination with the macabre, the horrific and the disturbing as presented and marketed to us by the media who've essentially appropriated almost exclusive access to this facet of human psychology—with this form of access serving to extenuate the issue rather than offer any real solution (in our relatively peaceful and secure western bubble at least).

A sort of ironic distance from the self and its emotional proclivities then, as achieved by daring them to do their worst while maintaining as open as possible an intellectual stance, is likely a better bet for the more infatigably sensitive souls among us than the contrary faithful overidentification. So, the obscene joys of nightmares win out over the sterile plateaus of dreams or each becomes the other when looked at obtusely, the crux being that we shouldn't cling to a central stable point of identity which then has to be positively grounded in order to justify its continued existence but instead embrace a kind of permanent free-fall without any hope of flying (while we're effectively doing just that).

"It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.” — schopenhauer1

“Only optimists commit suicide, optimists who no longer succeed at being optimists. The others, having no reason to live, why would they have any to die?”
― Emil Cioran — schopenhauer1

You always kill yourself too late because you are so alienated from your own identify by the time you want to destroy it that there is nothing left to destroy. Like insisting on incinerating the skin of a piece of fruit that's already been eaten. It's too late to do any damage worthwhile. If life is what you despise, your life such as it had any substance has been drained from you by the time you wish to end it. I think Cioran points to his game here, which is the same game played by most extreme pessimists, and that is to productively externalise their negativity as a process of catharsis in order precisely to make life worth living, or feel so, so long as said orientation is always presented as its obverse. Cioran's pessimism is itself the cloak of identity which refutes its central premise. He lived a long, productive and creative life not despite, but because of, his professed disgust for existence, which professed disgust he milked for every psychic drop of energy it could provide. And this secret life-affirming joy of pessimism is something we should all share in with a wry backward smile. It's the optimists who will kill you with their obvious lies, or you yourself if you cleave yourself to/with their words. Better to be at the bottom of the sea and realize you have gills than on a cruise ship heading for an ice-berg.

Speaking of...

"I don’t know: perhaps it’s a dream, all a dream. (That would surprise me.) I’ll wake, in the silence, and never sleep again. (It will be I?) Or dream (dream again), dream of a silence, a dream silence, full of murmurs (I don’t know, that’s all words), never wake (all words, there’s nothing else).

You must go on, that’s all I know.

They’re going to stop, I know that well: I can feel it. They’re going to abandon me. It will be the silence, for a moment (a good few moments). Or it will be mine? The lasting one, that didn’t last, that still lasts? It will be I?

You must go on.

I can’t go on.

You must go on.

I’ll go on. You must say words, as long as there are any - until they find me, until they say me. (Strange pain, strange sin!) You must go on. Perhaps it’s done already. Perhaps they have said me already. Perhaps they have carried me to the threshold of my story, before the door that opens on my story. (That would surprise me, if it opens.)

It will be I? It will be the silence, where I am? I don’t know, I’ll never know: in the silence you don’t know.

You must go on.

I can’t go on.

I’ll go on."

(Beckett.)

Welcome back :cheer:

Your theory fits the facts we know better than any alternative I've heard. Unless Baldrick/Trump's cunning Iran strategy was to end up looking like a weak flip flopper, there must have been a very serious counterweight to bombing other than his beautiful soul (which has heretofore not made its presence strongly felt on the domestic or foreign front).

Should I listen to my emotion, what my body is telling me? — rohan

Yes.

Feel free to share some of it here.

Trump is trying to transform weaknesses (no long game on Iran) into magnanimity. It's not a bad strategy. But, yes, the whole story may fall apart within a few leaks.

Second that :up:

Well, I'm just going to digest everything that's been said here anyhow. I'm not really satisfied with much of it including my own stuff. It's difficult not to get caught in a pincer between trying to be ethically aware and acting as a placeholder for a somewhat misguided standard liberal view. Ho hum...

But I don't really want to go on about it any more as I feel like I'm in danger of setting myself up as a spokesperson for other cultures I don't even know that much about, so if I don't reply from here on in, tough shit, my apologies. :zip:

A lot of what you've written above seems to amount to nothing more than the following falsity: X is more important than Y; therefore Y is not important. So, I'll grant there are almost certainly more pressing problems for American Indians but seeing as I have no special insight into how they view things, I'll take the community's word that this issue is at least worthy of attention.

In other words, I'd argue that if American Indian groups say the Redskins name and mascot are offensive and damaging to them and they want it changed, and there is significant justification for considering it offensive and damaging and no pressing ethical reason to retain it, it should be changed. Why not? That you happen to think it won't do much good for them is not remotely as convincing as the fact that they, or their representatives (presuming they are fairly representative of their community's wishes), think it will and have written a detailed report to explain why.

Other cases of (alleged) cultural appropriation, I'd similarly take on their own merits. I'm not wedded to the term, but I'm not allergic to it either. It seems to do some semantic work other terms don't.

I agree with most of that. We're pushing back at excesses and thoughtlessness from different directions. And the rhetoric is important on both sides I think.

Mostly a rubbish concept... — VagabondSpectre

I don't see that you've established anything other than what I conceded at the beginning of the discussion that the idea is often misapplied or applied overstrenuously. But the effect of using your language is dismissive with or without the 'mostly' and echoes the right-wing media's attempts to deride everything that's a concern of minorities by downplaying or mocking it. So, if, as per the first example, American Indian organizations who represent a people who have historically been treated abominably and are now amongst the most deprived in the country say their social problems are partly to do with negative stereotypes being inflicted on them and particularly their youth and that a major remaining stereotype is associated with a huge money-spinning football franchise, I'd be willing to take them seriously on the basis that they're the ones who are the authority on themselves and their problems. Anyway, I think we've reached the end here. It's a conversation I expected from the very beginning would be filled with mockery and contempt and I wanted to give the other side a fair shake. Which I've done I think.

Several are linked to at the end of the paper. I await your analysis with bated breath.

That kind of rhetorical tactic will only discredit you. No-one here is pro-child abuse.

2.

2. It Lets People Show Love for the Culture, But Remain Prejudiced Against Its People, E.G white people owning restaurants that serve non white food"

I'm sure you'll agree with me that this one is too foolish. If a white person opens a Mexican style restaurant, it's stealing? When a Mexican person opens a Mexican style restaurant, are they obligated to share profits with all other Mexicans? — VagabondSpectre

Sure it sounds foolish when you represent it like that. But she didn't say it was "stealing" for a start and qualified that the problem was mostly in the wider economic context.

E.g.

"In the San Francisco Bay Area, I witness people taking what they like without wanting to associate with where it came from all the time. Here, recent transplants to the area write Yelp reviews in search of “authentic Mexican food” without the “sketchy neighborhoods” – which usually happen to be what they call neighborhoods with higher numbers of people of color. The Yelpers are getting what they want, at least in terms of the neighborhood, as gentrification rapidly pushes people of color out of their homes, and white-owned, foodie-friendly versions of their favorite “ethnic” restaurants open up.
...
So is every non-Mexican who enjoys a good burrito guilty of cultural appropriation? Say it ain’t so! That would include me and nearly everyone I know."

I don't think this is one the stronger points here but it's not looney tunes either.

"3. It Makes Things ‘Cool’ for White People – But ‘Too Ethnic’ for People of Color. E.G white people 'get away with' cultural hair-styles that people of color are discriminated against because of"

This is one is too foolish to even address. — VagabondSpectre

Here's the crux of the text:

"For example, standards of professionalism hold back all kinds of people who aren’t white men. As a Black woman, there are many jobs that would bar me if I wore cornrows, dreadlocks, or an afro – some of the most natural ways to keep up my hair.
...
Compare that to fashion magazines’ reception of white teenager Kylie Jenner’s “epic” cornrows or “edgy” dreadlocks.

When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?"

The target of criticism seems to be unequal treatment by institutions not the white teenagers who copy the hairstyles. I don't know the extent that that's a fair reflection of what actually happens in the U.S. but it doesn't strike me as completely implausible either. So, why is it too foolish to even think about?

You seem to have proven my point for me. Cultural appropriation is a mostly rubbish concept.... — VagabondSpectre

Let's take a look at your critique then.

1.

The Redskins name might be insensitive, and in that sense they're "being a dick", but beyond a bit of emotional resentment the "Redskins" is more of an anti-example. Modern Native American tribes aren't worried about baseball team names, — VagabondSpectre

Really? So this:

"The Washington Redskins name controversy involves the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League (NFL) franchise. Native Americans have been questioning the use of the name and image since the 1960s, while the topic has received widespread public attention since the 1990s. Native Americans demanding change include tribal nations, national tribal organizations, civil rights organizations, and individuals. The largest of these organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, counted the enrollment of its member tribes as totaling 1.2 million individuals in 2013."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

is just fake news or you're still being glib.

But let's not rely on Wikipedia. Here's a report about that little bit of emotional resentment that those 1.2 million American Indians represented by the NCAI don't really care about:

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

"Native peoples remain more likely than any other race to experience crimes at the hands of a person from another race. Native youth experience the highest rates of suicide among young people. With studies showing that negative stereotypes and harmful “Indian” sports mascots are known to play a role in exacerbating racial inequity and perpetuating feelings of inadequacy among Native youth, it is vital that all institutions—including professional sports franchises—re-evaluate their role in capitalizing on these stereotypes.
...
The most discussed in the media of late has been the Washington football team, which uses the term “Redsk*ns. This derogatory name was created in 1932 – while the federal “Civilization Regulations” were still in place, confining Native people to reservations, banning all Native dances and ceremonies, confiscating Native cultural property and outlawing much of what was traditional in Native life.
...
The following document outlines the position of NCAI, the nation’s oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, which has a clear position against derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people—including sports mascots—in media and popular culture. The information provided also includes historical and contemporary background information on “Indian” sports mascots and the widely supported efforts to end the era of harmful and racist mascots"

But let's ignore all that because it's all just based on a rubbish concept? And this is how you start your critique. Try harder.

@Vessuvius If you could give a one line summary of your thesis, please, so the debate can be about that and not the writing style.

Just on the moral advancement / technological advancement proposed connection, it would be resassuring if it were true. It would suggest, for example, if we were ever visited by an alien culture, they would likely come with candy and donuts rather than plans to enslave us. The history of human slavery, colonisation, and genocide of indigenous peoples by more technologically advanced cultures suggests otherwise though. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to lionize less advanced cultures either. I just don't think looking at ethics in those terms is very useful. I wouldn't like to think what putting advanced weaponry into the hands of, say, the Yanomami might lead to (though even this supposedly violent traditional culture is subject to debate re the extent and causes of said violence) but I would have supported taking them off the British Raj and giving them to Ghandi and his "primitive" supporters. The situation is just more complicated and far less obvious then you've painted it.

You're better off using the reply and quote functions if you want to interact. It's not going to always be clear who you are directing your comments at otherwise and they won't be notified either.

I originally thought it was about controlling immigration but it seems it's now about ensuring the right to make worse trade deals with other countries than they already have with the EU. Stumped.

it’s clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice."--Obviously. I didn't speak English by choice. I speak English because I was raised in an environment where only English was spoken. That's how language works. You only speak languages by choice when you take up other languages later. — Terrapin Station

Just on this one as it's so very far off point. Cultures and particularly historically imperialistic cultures can deliberately destroy the languages of other cultures by forcing them to speak their own. The reason the Irish speak English as a first language and not Irish is because generations of Irish were deprived of the choice of speaking their own language and in fact punished for doing so. So, this is not about young Terrapin not being given the choice of speaking Swahili as a baby rather than English but about cultural power and dominance in the linguistic sphere, which though it isn't always as overt as the case I gave does still exist.

If the author did think cultural appropriation was always racist, I definitely wouldn't agree, but I don't get the impression she does.

That, in context, is presenting a point of view of someone who thinks they're being accused of racism not necessarily the author's view.

At least you read it. I agree cultural appropriation isn't the same as racism. The author doesn't say it is afaik though there's a danger of conflation there. I'll take a look at your other points later.

Ohhh... that's a VERY good post.

The problem with this attitude is you go from criticizing the excessive victim playing of the Sami to creating victims out of those who insulted their culture. Some celebrity had to apologize for something! Shock/horror! Let's all run and rescue her from the evil liberals! You're only playing in reverse the same game you propose to be against.

And it can all be dealt with in a civilized way without rancour as long as everyone shows a bit of respect.

E.g.

Reps of Culture A: Please don't do X with cultural tradition/artefact Y.
Members of Culture B: Why not?
Reps of Culture A: *Provide good reasons why use is inappropriate.*
Members of Culture B: Ok, sure.

I don't know how you could read about the issue and be so glib.

Try this one:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/

I don't necessarily agree with all of it but the author makes several very good points which should be useful for the mystified. The crux of it for me is that people generally don't appropriate with ill-intention but that doesn't mean they're not doing harm and it's not being a dick to oppose that.

I cannot think for you. Take it as is; if not go elsewhere with your pedantry.

I’m not trying to be nasty here, it’s just a small courtesy to let you know if I don’t reply to comments directed my way it isn’t because I didn’t read them. — I like sushi

Ditto on that. :up:

I don’t see the need to refer to ‘theft’ of culture though. — I like sushi

Neither do I, I'd rather keep the original term 'appropriation' which has a different sense. I also like 'stupidly fucking with' but maybe that's a bit emotive. :)

Without a thorough discussion on what ‘culture’ means and what ‘intellectual property’ is I don’t see how we can sensibly deal with another level of ambiguity - here or anywhere else.

The OP has opened up an interesting topic. I’m still confused about the meaning of the term; regardless of any political position being pushed by this or that zealous/naive group/s. — I like sushi

We're not going to get a thorough discussion of culture here. It's too broad an issue. But cultural practices or artefacts that don't 'fit' in well with a modern connected capitalist super-culture can be vulnerable or at least seen as vulnerable by their cultural guardians to assimilation/degradation. Whether you care about that and how much you do is likely to be at least partly defined by your own cultural background. Getting a bird's eye view is difficult, but I think it's worth trying to see through the fog.

I don't think anyone here said this had something special to do with Americans or race. I didn't mention race once and the examples given were about Australia, America and other places. But it normally is a minority culture, as you agreed, complaining about a dominant culture degrading their practices and traditions through misuse. So, your example fits in well. As to whether their complaint is justified, that could be debated. So, an interesting example, but I'm unsure of the target of your critique.

Where it becomes an ideological tool of intolerance, it's being misused and that has happened, but the term as originally introduced (in the 70s) in its anti-colonialist sense has value. And it's intellectual laziness on both sides to misapply it: on the left to harass those engaged in harmless cultural cross-fertilisation, and on the right to dismiss the idea out of hand due to an inability to see past these misapplications or appreciate the importance of others' cultural behaviours, practices, symbols, and artefacts and their vulnerability to abuse. There's plenty of nuance there for those who want to look.

You seem to be willfully missing the point. Even in this case, which is not all that serious, it's possible for a culture to be proud of a particular dish and not want a different inferior dish represented as it. Suppose Irish stew actually tasted good and that certain ingredients were vital for it to be considered Irish stew and some restaurant in a foreign country started selling some other crap that they called "Irish Stew" but that wasn't. An Irish person might feel that this restaurant had appropriated an aspect of their culture and misrepresented it causing people to think that a national dish of ours was of a lower quality than it is, and might feel somewhat aggrieved. It's not something you should necessarily go to court over or that most people would necessarily worry about, but it could be seen as an unwelcome appropriation, and the situation can be clearly distinguished from intellectual property rights (which do not apply to cultural traditions) and not getting what was paid for (we didn't buy the damn stew). Why is that difficult?

Therefore I am sure that a lot of people are quite confused about the ontological status of these all too familiar institutions that are part of our daily lives. — Matias

You're definitely right about that.

Looks like Iran's cunning plan to make themselves look like every bad thing John Bolton said they were in order to help give him the excuse he needs to kill them in massive numbers is working out just fine.

Or they didn't do it.

Cultures subsist in a tension between the sacred and the taboo. That's the energy that holds them together. Threaten that dynamic and they can fall apart. I don't want to speak for any culture other than my own, but a basic understanding of how culture's function should allow for an appreciation of their strengths and vulnerabilities. And as @andrewk pointed out, there's a spectrum of affect there. Many accusations along these lines will be trivial and misguided, but some are not and even those that are don't justify the tin-foil-hat-left-wing-guilt-trip conspiracy theory fostered by the right-wing media that the stupider among us will gobble up like catnip .