[Noisebridge-discuss] Oppressive Behavior

[hep]

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.


-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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131229/7f8880f8/attachment-0003.html>