Yes
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
He did say "and corresponding protests" tbf.
Sexual assault survivor hotlines are available 24/7 and act as a safe space for people when they experience some emotional setback or need someone to talk to.
But the same group who felt the need to protest against someone saying things they didn't like, were also the ones then saying they needed a safe space.
So you mean there wasn't really any need for an additional one?
You're being ridiculously condescending considering what we're talking about here. Physical safe spaces and support groups for sexual assault survivors exist too.
Seriously dude, you need to get some fecking empathy.
Presumably these are different people protesting on behalf of the people who are too emotionally fragile to protest themselves. And I'm not using emotionally fragile in the pejorative sense.
No they weren't. Some protested, and 2 or 3, other - different people - opened a safe space for sexual assault survivors.
How many Mexicans are actually offended in the slightest by someone who isn't Mexican wearing a sombrero at Halloween though? There's no way of telling but I doubt it's very many of them.
That's not actually the point, and even if we did have a number, who's going to ascertain whether its enough?
If you want to dress as a Mexican there are dozens of famous Mexicans and other South American icons, celebrities, tv show characters, drug cartel members etc.
Why insist on wearing a caricature of an entire country of people?
Probably the most prominent campaign against cultural appropriation(/racism) is against the Redskins. And I can't help but side with the protestors on that one. Redskins is what native Americans were derogatorily called during the genocides and the team using the name and symbols they do does kind of take the piss.
Last edited:
If I wanted to dress as a Mexican, why on earth would I choose to dress as a non-Mexican, South American icon? Because all South Americans are the same?
Im not being serious by the way, I get the point you are making. Having said that, Im sure there would be people who would be offended by someone dressing up as a drug cartel member, which could be perceived as another form of racial stereotype - and perhaps a more negative one than a guy in a sombrero.
I understand that but if you were to dress up as say Pablo Escobar, you wouldn't be mimicking the entire country and culture of Colombia, you'd actually be dressing up as a famous historical figure. I think people would find more issue with the glorification of Escobar considering the crimes he committed, than taking offence.
I guess the other issue here is that going to a fancy dress party as as a stereotype of an entire country is arguably a little crass but you'd also risk being accused of cultural appropriation if you had a party where you served chilli and margharitas and people wore sombreros. Really struggling to see the offence in that scenario. I mean, every city in the world has Irish bars. Should that bother me?
What is so insulting about a caricature of a country though? I would have thought that going as a cartel member would be a lot more insulting.
@Silva
In what way do you see the safe spaces you describe as being analogous to AA?
People who need somewhere to be listened to and supported meeting for an hour or two. There's not much else to it.
Given that you could (presumably) walk around for an entire day in Mexico and not see a single sombrero, I'd argue you're not mimicking an entire country or culture there either. You're just wearing a hat that's synonymous with a particular country. Just like a kilt for Scotland, for example.
Anyway this is one of the reasons I don't go to fancy dress parties. The other one being that they're shit.
AA is the working of the twelve step program. If you are likely to get triggered by hearing about traumatic life events it is possibly the worst place you could go to as well.
Hats off to Mexico.
How very bizarre it all is.
And a bowler and umbrella for England or (if you watch Family Guy) terrible yellowing teeth. That's more offensive than a hat!
Sure, but beyond that that you're going to somewhere you won't be judged and where the people will understand your specific struggle. Even the people who don't buy into the whole 12 step thing can benefit from AA. It's exactly the for LGBT societies et al. And you have to remember different safe spaces serve different purposes, AA folk for example will more likely struggle if someone is walking around trying to give them a pint - as opposed to hearing about something that upsets them.
Another example of a safe space would be this reddit, now, most of us have zero use for it - but it serves as a helpful place people can go and share their experience with those who understand them.
And the truth is, when you see a safe space, or look into why those who opened it did - they suddenly make a great deal of sense. It's only the vague, non-specific ones that don't actually seem to exist that are absurd.
Last edited:
You're picking one item out of an entire outfit which only perpetuates stereotypes. It's not the sombrero in isolation, it's not the poncho in isolation, it's part of the entire set up.
Plus sombrero's are actually part of the stigmatisation that Mexicans are lazy - that's more likely part of the reason why you wont find Mexicans wearing them if you were to visit Mexico
What's the appeal in caricaturing an already marginalised group? This is what I don't understand.
Just wondering about this: do people object to folks (like, say, singer Adam Ant) using appropriated imagery & clothing-styles because of their respectful admiration for marginalised groups?
I object to Adam Ant more generally.
Yes, just like I get very offended by the Boston Celtics badge
Or Notre Dame negatively stereotyping us as violent thugs.
That's because you're too scared to mention
That he spends his cash on looking flash and grabbing your attention.
So long as they serve as a support group rather than a echo chamber for political ideology then I can't disagree.
There is no appeal to me but I don't quite follow why there is a difference in caricaturing a marginalised group or the dominant group so long as it isn't done in mean spirit.
You've just summed up EXACTLY the problem I have with this stuff, it's not about empathy towards everyone, it's about artifically enforced empathy by a self-selected group of enforcers towards certain groups who are deemed worthy of empathy, while those who fall outside it don't receive even a moments consideration or care.
If someone is deemed to hold opinions that don't satisfy the often ludicrously high (and occasionally extremely questionable) moral standards held by certain groups, they are treated as repellant evil caricatures who must not be listened to, allowed to present their own views, and certainly not engaged in any kind of intellectual debate. This kind of nonsense is absolutely anti-scientific, anti-intellectual and frankly authoritarian, and it's peddled by people who gain their apparent authority by little more than popular opinion amongst their equally self-important peers.
There certainly are times and places where a 'safe space' or equivilent is hugely valuable and indeed vital. There are equally plenty of times and places where protesting against abhorrent views is completely justified, but I'm damned if I'm going to support any individuals or groups that try to shut down discourse or debate, or create an environment where not conforming to the common group-think is enough to ruin reputations and careers.
I think he just reminds me a bit of Gary Glitter.
Blimey.
Trigger Alert
People who get their knickers in a twist over harmless cultural stereotypes really need to get over themselves. As do people over the age of 10 who attend fancy dress parties.
People who get their knickers in a twist over harmless cultural stereotypes really need to get over themselves. As do people over the age of 10 who attend fancy dress parties.
Because you are part of the dominant group so of course you don't see the difference.
For the record I don't think dressing up in a Mexican or any other outfit is normally done with the intention of being rude - however the question was raised on the validity of cultural appropriation and why some people take offence to it. This is why.
Dominant groups normally don't have such harsh negative stereotypes placed against them - yes you could say Brits are labelled as having bad teeth, tea drinkers, snobby, alcoholic etc. But I'm sure you'd prefer to have that than negative stereotypes such as lazy, rapists, criminals, thieves, maids, gardeners etc.
We need to talk about the online radicalisation of young, white men
With the appointment of Breitbart News’s chair to Trump’s staff we need to be clear about the links between misogyny, racism and neofascism on alt-right websites
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart
With the appointment of Breitbart News’s chair to Trump’s staff we need to be clear about the links between misogyny, racism and neofascism on alt-right websites
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart
What the feck are you talking about? Who do you think runs so called "legitimate" support groups? It's not elected officials you know. It's just random people who've decided they want to help out. The only difference between student run ones and ones in the so called real world are that the student ones are run by students.
"Empathy enforcers"? Jesus Christ dude.
The safe spaces you seem to be railing against don't actually exist. They're a figment of your imagination.
Just read that. I've found the "manosphere" morbidly fascinating for a while. They're all so fecking repellent and the whole thing does seem to be a fairly significant movement that doesn't get much coverage in the (oh yes) MSM. Really makes me despair knowing turds like that exist. Feels like a new phenomenon but maybe it's just a forum for attitudes that have been round for ages?
What about the Indian in the group The Village People, he was in fact part native American, but the costume he wore was certainly stereotypical complete with war paint. Be tough to accuse him of cultural appropriation I guess, but was it okay for him to promote a stereotype for profit?
In the overall discussion this is a minor thing, but it just popped into my head when I saw the Adam Ant reference. Even if we think it is okay for him to do, it doesn't mean it is okay for everyone to do.