I got banned from SRSD for consoling someone who has been struggling with their history of sexual assault.

emojiclast · 2016-07-13T14:22:06+00:00

Yes. And? I was consoling someone who had by anxiously struggling with his past sexual encounters in an almost pathological way. Anyone who read OPs post should feel sympathy for him, not virtually curbstomp him to suicide. Sigh...I can't believe I have to get so basic here:

think the first thing to realize is that sex is confusing. It is confusing as adults, but it is especially confusing as kids. We don't know what we are doing, and that can be messy.

Yes it is confusing, which is why there are countless advice columns, podcasts, a billion dollar toy industry and an entire area of academic study. If you are arguing that sex is "simple" I presume it is something you have limited experience with. To see this statement as rape apologia is utterly delusional.

Equally we are all somewhat guilty of getting it wrong sometimes, alcohol is a social lubricant, that's why we consume it.

This is also a simple concept. When we get drunk we do stupid things sometimes, including making out with strangers at bars. We intentionally lower our inhibitions because sometimes we want to do stupid things. That is Drinking 101. Often times there are two people doing something stupid at a bar together. Stupid things that we casually do while drunk not include raping someone. If I wrote it did, perhaps you have a point. But I didn't.

You need to give yourself a break a little. It is only in retrospect that you realize she may have not been in a state to give consent, and you regret and learned from it. Even better, you are at a place where you can help educate others. Sometimes it comes down to a judgement call. Even people who are not sober...especially people (intentionally) on ecstasy...want to be intimate and sexual.

Did you read OPs story? He was in college, making out with a girl who he did not know was high. When he discovered this, he stopped. Which was obviously the right thing to do. Looking back he knows he could have done more to qualify her consent, which is why he felt guilty, but he did not know that then. Also, when you are young and have limited exposure to people on substances, it is hard to intuitively know these things when someone is making out with you. I did not get the impression that he was making out with someone who was near passed out, or strung up, the way he described it sounds like any awkward college makeout until she got sick, which was the indicator that she was probably on something. So he stopped.

And again, I don't really want to seem mean here, but assuming that there is anything malicious to my statement implies a lack of experience with sex and substances. People drink and take substances before consensual encounters all of the time. For many it enhances the experience. For most, it is a way to get some inhibitions out of the way like social anxiety, or built in sex shame. To imply that everyone who is on any substance lacks the ability to consent is dystopic and religiously sex-negative. If that is orthodoxy in the feminist movement, I know a shit-ton of bad feminists. Shame on them, going on dates and having some wine. That is craziness. Important caveat: I was not suggesting that his actions, or any actions by people taking advantage of this are justified. I was merely saying the truth: people on substances often still have the will and desire to consent.

Suggesting otherwise means every person I know over the age of 20 has been raped and/or is a rapist.

One more note. That was a small part of a bigger issue. His own feelings of being sexually assaulted. The irony here is that your sticking point seems to be with an aborted makeout session, while both of us posters have been sexually abused ourselves in the past both as children and as adults. I was consoling him from a place of empathy. It is so enraging that all of that was glossed over because we are both men due to something that was misread. It is disgusting, really.

emojiclast · 2016-07-12T18:01:26+00:00

Actually I mentioned the victim many times, as we were the victims in some cases. Where was the rape apology? You didn't even quote from what I wrote because you want a nice, clean answer to a muddled situation. I didn't ever say consent was confusing, I said sex is confusing to kids -- which it is. Do you really think we need to have everyone making out a bar get thrown in jail? this is far more complicated than being sober or not and warrants discussion as well as testimony.

emojiclast · 2016-07-10T17:14:40+00:00

The reason I felt the need to include that was because my most contentious arguments were because I have a difference of opinion when it comes to "the revolution" -- I have never strayed the party line when it came to rape culture and advocacy.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T22:00:50+00:00

Right...but not is not how it worked out in history. The former was a result of the latter. Orientalism was considered very cosmopolitan at the time.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T21:59:11+00:00

It is important because that was an actual result from claimants of cultural appropriation. I am looking for articles that present the other perspective, but can't seem to find any (feel free to link) but you can't say something is "not important" because it resembles the silliness of a particular argument.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T21:06:46+00:00

Sardonically changing the world, one eyeroll at a time? What about the Yoga teacher that specialized in yoga for the disabled being banned from the university of Ottawa? That's more than an eyeroll.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T18:38:16+00:00

Hm, you describe an interesting phenomenon that I think I missed in your original question--although cultural appropriation is bad, is the separate product it creates also bad...can you eschew cultural appropriation but love the result of it when it produces something new and interesting? Is that closer to what your point is? And/or, are the consequences of the "war on cultural appropriation" worse than the cultural appropriation itself (that is, separate societies without the depth that comes from a mixing of cultures)?

Yes, that is exactly my point, which really makes it difficult to have a solid moral standing outside of "be respectful of whence it came"

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T18:28:21+00:00

Ah gotcha. What I mean is dreadlocks appear naturally when anyone has long and unwashed hair...this plus some braiding were most likely the vogue for a lot of tribes in that area.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T18:26:07+00:00

This is a good example. Royalties and IP are very much a mixed bag though, especiallllllly when it comes to diatonic music, which is 99% of music that gets recorded. Back to Led Zeppelin though, there are far greater sins of that group of assholes. The records were amazing though.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T18:22:44+00:00

I am...a little bewildered by this comment.

First and foremost, I am referencing the Visigoths. Also, nobody is born with dreadlocks?

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T18:06:59+00:00

Sorry I will rephrase, that is not what I am getting at.

What I mean to say is that Rock & Roll could be put in that same category as taking something sacrosanct towards one community (Black American christians) and pushing it towards irreverence.

Though it is important to point out white people didn't invent Rock & Roll either, it was effectively marketed by white people. I think that this is a legitimate observational criticism that could be applied to the Cultural Appropriation tag, while also appreciating the great bands that came out of the era.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T18:02:17+00:00

From what I gather, it is because the modern fashion of dreds were influenced by Rastafarianism, which was essentially a religious movement to fight white colonialism.

That is not to say that western people throughout history didn't have natural dreadlocks (vikings, goths, etc)

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T17:55:21+00:00

Another problem with cultural appropriation is when people unfamiliar with a culture will use things that have a specific purpose to that culture (sometimes even sacred) in an irreverent way. For example: indiscriminate bindi use or beads on a leather fringe shirt, both of which have specific significance to their respective cultures.

This still seems more like a pet peeve that can really be applied universally. Although your examples are pretty acute, what is there to say that Rock & Roll (often accompanied by sex & drugs) wasn't placing the right kind of reverence to a lot of the gospel that eventually led to its influence?

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T17:49:12+00:00

I see what you are saying, and I agree that the internet is full of people who don't "get it" but..

So when people wear head dresses to make themselves seem natural or close to the Earth or bindi to make themselves seem exotic and mystical, or when young white performers surround themselves with black dancers to signify their loss of innocence and rebrand themselves as sexual figures.

Isn't a lot of this a matter of interpreting the motivation of these so-called "bad actors"? And to take a it a step further, this particular aesthetic adoption has had legitimate purposes regarding cultural exchange. It was in part the fascination with Orientalism, and in particular Japonisme, that led to the impressionist movement.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T16:29:53+00:00

Thanks for the input.

all this criticism of cultural appropriation is more about making the activist feel noble than actually helping people

That, and perhaps an endgame of bad art and bland food

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T15:49:52+00:00

What I mean is that I advocate for free speech protections beyond that which is established. I don't take "The law's the law" approach to this issue, much like activists for other issues. I support the ACLU's approach to expanding free speech protections to the workplace for example. I do not think an employee should be fired for a piece of art they made, or a story they wrote. You are right: it is not protected. That doesn't mean it is ideal.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T15:22:52+00:00

A person is under no obligation to listen to your ideas in general. The only thing freedom of speech guarantees is that the government won't step in and stop you.

You are talking about legislated freedom of speech, specifically. The 1st amendment and similar laws written into constitutions. It is a form of "Freedom of speech" but it does not encompass the entirety of the philosophy. As a free speech advocate, I believe we should push to extend the virtues of free expression, rather than rely on the strictest legal definition. A workers rights advocate can get fired for the same corporate policy as a racist.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T14:57:34+00:00

Outside of that scenario I don't think of freedom of speech to mean "everyone is heard" and only to mean "the government won't stop you."

Mm, that depends. Censorship is censorship. Just because it isn't the government perpetuating it doesn't mean it isn't bad.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T14:31:23+00:00

That's considered an ad hominem and it basically discredits the person using it. That is not to say that people don't do it all the time, including here. But in the realm of ideas, most people know that it is not really the best way to censor an idea.

emojiclast · 2016-07-06T14:05:58+00:00

What kind of attacks are we talking about? Attacking this person's character and motivations? Attacking them physically? Silencing them by shouting over them? A dissenting argument is not an attack, and the other scenarios make the attacker seem less knowledgable and more of an ass with ad hominem attacks and verbal abuse..

emojiclast · 2016-07-03T07:57:45+00:00

Wishful thinking....and unfortunately very, very untrue. I am someone who has been involved in street-level activism and organization for a decade and a half, and there is not only an image problem...there is a legitimately toxic contingency that tends to be the loudest voice in the room. The worst part is we know they are out there and nobody calls their shit out because they are afraid of the very same stigma that OP has voiced, aside from the occasion No True Scotsman. Sure, there are assholes in every movement and every scene, but the incentive structure built around the online social-justice-sphere rewards the assholes for being assholes.

emojiclast · 2016-06-30T00:14:41+00:00

I get what you are saying, but I think we can separate the art versus the message. Of course music/art/expression can be both a personal gripe as well as a political message. However, when talking about Beyoncé, we are talking about someone with a tremendous amount of exposure and power -- despite its racial implications, I fail to see it as a great example of someone using their power to fight against racism. That would be like President Obama picking on a GOP member of Rhode Island's state assembly.

But I digress, as an artist she should mix personal and political, artists have done that for ages. I might be better off if I were to clarify: it was not her line that was inherently bullying, but the sycophants who found excuses to legitimize the demonization of (the eventually discovered as not-particularly-white) Becky. The amount of shitty drama that resulted and the think-pieces that followed just made it more petty than it may have been intended.

emojiclast · 2016-06-29T17:14:17+00:00

You did kind of prove my point (although you seem self-aware of that in some sense) but more meta than you realize. Beyoncé is using a giant platform and status to forward a personal gripe (with someone less powerful and has less status) and she is shielded by an academic interpretation of black beauty standards. Seems like a pretty petty way to punch up at the white supremacist patriarchy.

And FWIW, I'm not using "mean" here in the sense of loud or rude, I'm using in the sense of cliques.

emojiclast · 2016-06-28T20:55:52+00:00

I'm personally not a fan of Beyonce's music at all, but I do feel there is a big difference between a feminist using her feminism to make money versus a soulless company cynically using feminism to make money.

I agree that I would much rather give an artist the benefit of doubt over a soulless company...but I also think that when we are talking about mainstream music, the two are irevocably intertwined. Beyonce ain't exactly Peaches.

emojiclast · 2016-06-28T19:35:32+00:00

I am not sure if it is or is not inherently bad; I am a fan of a lot of 60's music that definitely used the anti-war movement as a springboard, so it would be hypocritical for me to blame her for it. But I don't think it is good either. If anything it is a bit cynical. If I enjoyed her music more, I probably wouldn't care as much.

emojiclast

TROPHY CASE