[Noisebridge-discuss] [drama] Re: Oppressive Behavior

[Torrie Fischer]

On Dec 29, 2013 5:42 PM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:
>
> Are we really going to literally debate the semantics and levels at which a white person is allowed to use the n word and have it somehow not be offensive? like for real? IT IS ALWAYS OFFENSIVE. a white person can "use the lingo" of street culture without using the n word. trust me, i am half white, fully white passing, was raised in local bay area street and hiphop culture (because i am half latino), and still manage to not use the n-word. saying that one is a part of street culture and that either requires them or permits them to use the n word while white is also pretty offensive fyi. and being racist (even passive or unintentionally racist) is pretty exclusionary towards POC. personally, as a half latino, I am fully not inclined to hang around somewhere where white people use the n word and try to qualify how it's not racist because i find that highly racist. white people deciding a usage of a racial slur isn't racist is still racist fyi. 

Adding [drama] for flavor.

>
>
> -hep 
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> To clarify the above is not a justification of cultural relativism or complete nihilism with regard to words. 
>>
>> It's just an argument that exclusion should be examined a bit more before decisions are made with regard to words. Otherwise, the function of exclusion can snowball, or just be inherently hypocritical. 
>>
>>
>> On 29 December 2013 16:42, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a difference between appropriation and reappropriation. 
>>>
>>> It really depends on how this individual identifies and how the group around identifies. I don't think language constructs a bright line. If we are to delve into semiotics here, there are too many experiences, life circumstances and abridging history of the word to come to a conclusion of exclusion. 
>>>
>>> Take for instance the use of gendered pronouns. If one does not identify with conflated archetypes of sex, they may want to use a different pronoun to describe themselves. This upheaval is an attempt to rewrite a dominant cultural narrative as to who or what one can be conceived with relation to their body.
>>>
>>> The same upheaval can be applied to archetypes of race, whereby one in their own whiteness or any other color or affiliation seeks to upheave their whiteness in an alternative racial narrative. It comes down to if someone is using the term in a pejorative sense and if the instance it is cultural appropriation or a reappropriation entrenched in an alternative identity or schemata as to how one wants to be perceived. 
>>>
>>> Now, if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation, we are excluding others who cannot exist within the strict circles of racial identity. For example, I'm half Chinese and half Irish. If we can exclude, were am I allowed to exist in reappropiration. Specifically, where am I allowed to take back power over my own identity? Perhaps this exclusion would justify excluding me, as I do not have a discrete identity. What words can I speak about whiteness, when I'm not entirely white? What words can I speak about my Asian decent, when I'm not entirely Asian. Such a discourse of impossibility of existence within the racial strata articulates that I can't, because reappropration should not exist for those who are not entirely classified by essentialist functions within a social space. 
>>>
>>> The strictest definition and articulation of dominance comes from complete censorship. One cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space because of policing of boundaries. Much can be said of this function as discourse does construct reality.  Where am I allowed to take back my identity, where am I allowed to take back power over a word with relation to my identity? Where does this policing recreate the boundaries it seeks to police? And does the exclusion recreate the same social functions that allow the dominant narration to exist in place. 
>>>
>>> Just my 2cents. Word boarders are hard to consecrate within frameworks, because intended meanings are different to perceptual meanings. Particularly with race narration, identity politics abounds and borders become salient with relation to their own controversy. Conversely, it repoliticizes these borders and depoliticizes attempts to strip the words of their exclusionary value. 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29 December 2013 16:02, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2013 1:43:05 PM, "Jeffrey Carl Faden" <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It mentions positive purposes.
>>>>
>>>> That's a really good point. I like that part of the verbiage.
>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a problem with the policy, please send a pull request to the GitHub repository or ask for help to do so.
>>>>
>>>> -we can change verbiage of a policy after it's been consensed on? (that could be a good way)
>>>> -github, and not the nb wiki, is now the place we where collaborate on nb documents? (i don't object to cloud tools, but i would also be fine with 100% on-site nb services)
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> hep
> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472