Malazan Empire: Identity Politics - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 13 Pages +
  • « First
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Identity Politics

#201 User is offline   stone monkey 

  • I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
  • Group: Grumpy Old Sods
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Joined: 28-July 03
  • Location:The Rainy City

Posted 10 July 2020 - 07:44 PM

In my experience it's usually easier and more effective to find a white person who actually gets it, and then get them to explain it to them. They may actually listen to them.
If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
0

#202 User is offline   Azath Vitr (D'ivers 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 896
  • Joined: 07-February 16

Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:33 PM

View PostQuickTidal, on 10 July 2020 - 06:50 PM, said:

No, all of that is white equivocating bullshit.

BLACK LIVES MATTER.

Full stop.

It doesn't need to be anything else.

The implied "too" is evident in that White lives aren't under threat. This isn't fucking hard.



Some context:

'Mortality rates seldom rise unless a society is subjected to something disastrous, like a major economic crisis, an infectious disease epidemic or war. But there has been an increase in working-age mortality rates for just one group in the United States since 1999, and that's non-Hispanic whites.

"This is a startling finding," said Arjumand Siddiqi, lead author of the study.
Siddiqi, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, went on to say this could be the first time that a widespread population health phenomenon cannot be explained by social or economic status disadvantage, and instead has been driven by "a perceived threat to status."

"The anxiety of whites is coming from a misperception that their dominant status in society is being threatened, which is manifesting in multiple forms of psychological and physiological stress," said Siddiqi.'

https://www.newsweek...-status-1474038

A large part of Trump's appeal to whites (in 'flyover country', in rural areas, in areas that had depended for a long time on factory or mining jobs and are now impoverished, and among the non-college educated) was that they felt like they didn't matter to Washington politicians or the educated elite---a feeling exacerbated by the longstanding scapegoating of POC benefiting from government assistance and from affirmative action.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 10 July 2020 - 08:34 PM

0

#203 User is offline   stone monkey 

  • I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
  • Group: Grumpy Old Sods
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Joined: 28-July 03
  • Location:The Rainy City

Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:48 PM

I suspect I would probably not be far wrong in hazarding a guess that the mortality rates for working class non-Hispanic whites are still lower than that for working class Blacks or Latinx...

That's a bit like blaming women for the fact that that there aren't enough domestic violence facilities for men.

But then I guess no one really wants those people to actually gain meaningful access to "The American Dream." They might get ideas above their station, after all.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 10 July 2020 - 08:55 PM

If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
0

#204 User is offline   Azath Vitr (D'ivers 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 896
  • Joined: 07-February 16

Posted 11 July 2020 - 08:59 PM

View Poststone monkey, on 10 July 2020 - 08:48 PM, said:

I suspect I would probably not be far wrong in hazarding a guess that the mortality rates for working class non-Hispanic whites are still lower than that for working class Blacks or Latinx...

That's a bit like blaming women for the fact that that there aren't enough domestic violence facilities for men.

But then I guess no one really wants those people to actually gain meaningful access to "The American Dream." They might get ideas above their station, after all.


Hispanics and Latinx people have a lower mortality rate (and higher life expectancy) than non-Hispanic whites:

'The Hispanic paradox, or Latino paradox, also known as the "epidemiologic paradox," refers to the epidemiological finding that Hispanic and Latino Americans tend to have health outcomes that "paradoxically" are comparable to, or in some cases better than, those of their U.S. non-Hispanic White counterparts, even though Hispanics have lower average income and education. (Low socioeconomic status is almost universally associated with worse population health and higher death rates everywhere in the world.)[1] The paradox usually refers in particular to low mortality among Latinos in the United States relative to non-Hispanic Whites.'

https://en.wikipedia...20even%20though

'Nearly 20 years ago, the mortality rate for high-school-educated white Americans ages 50 to 54 was 30 percent lower than the rate for all black Americans in the same age group. As of 2015, the rate was 30 percent higher.'

https://www.theatlan...g-class/520815/

However, the comparison should be between white people without a college degree and black people without a college degree. I'm having a harder time finding that. You can see it for people age 50-54 in figure 2 of this paper:

https://www.dartmout...n-mortality.pdf

While that, surprisingly, shows higher mortality rate among whites, that's excluding the many Black people who die before age 50.

Asian-Americans have the highest life expectancy of any race, though I'm having difficulty finding recent mortality rate figures that include Asian-Americans.

Suicide rates for Native American / Indigenous peoples have gone up even higher than for whites. However, it seems likely that suicides among Black people are being classified as drug overdoses rather than suicides. I haven't found statistics directly comparing the mortality rate for Native American / Indigenous peoples without a college degree with whites without a college degree, but it's probably higher.

[Edit: I found the 2017 life expectancy at age 25 for people with low education. For Black men it's 71.26; for white men, 73.47. If we included deaths before age 25 the life expectancy for Black men would almost certainly go down significantly more.]

https://jamanetwork....article/2748794

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 11 July 2020 - 09:43 PM

0

#205 User is offline   stone monkey 

  • I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
  • Group: Grumpy Old Sods
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Joined: 28-July 03
  • Location:The Rainy City

Posted 11 July 2020 - 09:42 PM

So the tl;dr is:

Latinx mortality rates appear to be an outlier (I personally would hazard an uneducated guess at diet). Whilst there may have been assiduous massaging to make the figures for Black American mortality rates look better than they actually are... for reasons.
If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
0

#206 User is offline   20 Days of Sheep 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 20,877
  • Joined: 27-March 08
  • Location:Lake Charles, Louisiana
  • Drive by bye bye king

Posted 12 July 2020 - 05:03 AM

Hamilton has been cancel cultured? I wasn’t planning on ever going or watching on Netflix anyway but I’m hearing rumors.
Drive by bye bye king on my dumb horse
0

#207 User is offline   Tsundoku 

  • Make the Empire Great Again
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 3,364
  • Joined: 06-January 03
  • Location:Maison de merde

Posted 12 July 2020 - 08:33 AM

Looks like:

https://www.inquirer...g-20200708.html

Is ‘Hamilton’ the next victim of our ruthless new cancel culture? | Opinion
Posted: July 8, 2020 - 3:05 PM
Kay S. Hymowitz, For City Journal

On July 3, Disney gave America a big-ticket birthday gift: the musical Hamilton. After handing over a head-turning $75 million, the company began streaming a filmed version of the Lin-Manuel Miranda Broadway megahit on its Disney+ channel. It could be just what the doctor ordered as an antidote to the nation’s gloomy mood, or it could be the opposite — another cultural touchstone swept up and spit out by the vortex of the Great Awokening.

That second scenario may sound absurd. After all, Hamilton is the beloved masterpiece of the diversity revolution, an ode to the country’s multiracial future and to “immigrants [who] get the job done!” Its cast was almost entirely nonwhite, with one notable exception: a campy, mincing King George III. Miranda himself, son of Puerto Rican parents, played the musical’s namesake hero, Alexander Hamilton.

Audiences were swept up in the mischievous chutzpah of casting black actors as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the clever rap couplets evoking the thrill of youthful revolution. “Rap is the voice of the people of our generation, and of people of color,” Miranda, winner of a MacArthur “genius” grant, has proclaimed. Hamilton won a Pulitzer Prize, a Grammy, and 16 Tony Awards. The show has grossed well over $500 million. Beyoncé, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Stephen Sondheim, Jay-Z, and a long list of other luminaries number among his fans. On social media, followers were counting the days and minutes until the television event. What could go wrong?

Such is the madness of this Jacobin moment that a 2015 progressive musical now looks quaint — even problematic. Hamilton is a rousingly, unabashedly patriotic work -- “American exceptionalism [set to] hip-hop,” as Terry Teachout put it in his Wall Street Journal review.

Since audiences first jumped to their feet to applaud the show, the history Miranda relied on has been toppled like so many statues. The New York Times has endorsed the view that the nation’s birth celebrated in the play occurred not in 1776 but in 1619, with the arrival of the first enslaved Africans on American shores. Following the curriculum now endorsed by the paper of record, educators are preparing to teach the young that the American Revolution was fought, in part, to protect slavery, and that the revolutionaries Miranda celebrates eventually signed the Constitution, whose main purpose was to codify black people’s enslavement. Can millions of teenagers and their parents continue happily to sing the name of one of the Founding Fathers in good conscience?

Equally problematic for the current moment is Miranda’s embrace of the American dream. “[T]he ten-dollar Founding Father without a father / Got a lot farther by working a lot harder / By being a lot smarter / By being a self-starter,” the cast raps in the opening scene. But every red-blooded progressive knows that the American dream of upward mobility is a myth, designed to blame the poor for their own sorry condition. “[A]nother immigrant, comin’ up from the bottom”? Sounds like fake news — or false consciousness.

That’s the way a number of Black scholars viewed the show from the beginning. Soon after the musical opened, Harvard historian Annette Gordon-Reed listed its sins. Hamilton was no man of the people, she argued; he was an elitist and crypto-monarchist. Nor was he innocent of racism; he bought and sold the enslaved for his in-laws and, though a founder of the Manumission Society, had, at best, a tepid interest in abolition. Moreover, the musical is silent about the fact that George Washington owned enslaved people, an omission that even third graders will have no trouble spotting these days.

The playwright and fellow MacArthur Grant recipient Ishmael Reed has dedicated the last few years to de-platforming the musical, which he compares to the Confederate-nostalgic Gone With the Wind (which has also received calls for cancellation in recent weeks). He believes that the show’s multiracial cast is a con to distract audiences from the brutal reality of American racism. Last year, he staged a play called The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda, in which the ghosts of the enslaved and Native Americans come back to correct the lies of the bewildered Hamilton creator. “I think the corrective would be to close the show,” he has concluded.

Hamilton critics are not limited to old-timers. #CancelHamilton has become a Twitter meme. When Miranda took his musical to Puerto Rico to raise money for the stricken country after Hurricane Maria, students and employees at the University of Puerto Rico, where the production was to be staged, rebelled. “He wants to help the community of Puerto Rico as a whole? He needs to sit down and talk to us and stop coming across as a white savior,” one activist scoffed. And so it is that an ur-progressive, Hispanic rap artist can — and will — be accused of white privilege.

Should Hamilton attract the social-justice mobs now that it is being streamed on cable, skeptics of the woke will be tempted to take pleasure in yet another example of the revolution eating its own. That would be a mistake. Miranda is facing the tragic dilemma familiar to the intuitively moderate man caught in an extreme moment. Recently a group in favor of “change for BIPOC [Black, indigenous, and people of color] theatermakers” has circulated a petition demanding more diversity on Broadway. It has already amassed 80,000 signatures. “We have watched you [the white powers-that-be of Broadway] pretend not to see us,” they write. “We have watched you amplify our voices when we are heralded by the press, but refuse to defend our aesthetic when we are not, allowing our livelihoods to be destroyed by a monolithic and racist critical culture.” Miranda has yet to sign. But the progressive who has spun his considerable talents into capitalist gold faces the choice of signing or losing his Black Lives Matter cred.

Miranda is a unique cultural figure, a magician who made diversity palatable to New Jersey matinee clubs and Midwestern tourists while also enlivening American history for high school kids from the Bronx. His friendly, open demeanor and mild nerdiness — he adores American musical theater — has undoubtedly added to his crossover appeal. For years now, the auteur has been posting “g’morning” and “g’night” tweets, “little pep talks for me and you,” as he puts it, adored by fans for their sweet quirkiness. Last year, he played Bert the Cockney chimney sweep, a role that previously belonged to the old-school actor Dick Van Dyke, in Mary Poppins Returns. Somehow, he manages to be both mensch and resolute progressive. In the days of corporate wokeness, Disney and Miranda seem made for each other.

Unless he gets canceled.

Kay S. Hymowitz is a City Journal contributing editor, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys.

Posted: July 8, 2020 - 3:05 PM
Kay S. Hymowitz, For City Journal

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 12 July 2020 - 08:33 AM

"Fortune favors the bold, though statistics favor the cautious." - Indomitable Courteous (Icy) Fist, The Palace Job - Patrick Weekes

"Well well well ... if it ain't The Invisible C**t." - Billy Butcher, The Boys

"I have strong views about not tempting providence and, as a wise man once said, the difference between luck and a wheelbarrow is, luck doesn’t work if you push it." - Colonel Orhan, Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City - KJ Parker
0

#208 User is offline   Cyphon 

  • Cagey Bastard of TQB
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 717
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 July 2020 - 09:34 AM

Cancel culture conversation is irritating. People need to understand that freedom of speech doesnt equate to freedom of platform. Freedom of speech doesnt equate to freedom of consequences. The environment and ability of people to voice their views has radically shifted as social media has opened up the ability for people to voice their thoughts. This cuts both ways for progressives and conservatives. It's just the microphone and power dynamic has been balanced in favour of conservatives, so they have the most to loose.

This post has been edited by Cyphon: 12 July 2020 - 09:53 AM

Para todos todo, para nosotros nada.

MottI'd always pegged you as more of an Ublala
0

#209 User is offline   TheRetiredBridgeburner 

  • Mortal Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 28-March 13
  • Location:Deepest Darkest Yorkshire

Posted 12 July 2020 - 09:45 AM

One of the best rebuttals I saw of J K Rowling's original essay was a Youtube response from a couple where one partner is a trans man. And they were one of very few on that side of the debate to open with making it very clear that everyone has a right to say whatever they wish (including JKR), and that abuse is not okay in any circumstances, but "freedom of speech does include the freedom of others to criticise your speech".

Unfortunately, quite a lot of people on the "freedom of speech" side seem to translate as "I don't want to face the consequences of the things I say".
- Wyrd bið ful aræd -
0

#210 User is offline   Tiste Simeon 

  • Faith, Heavy Metal & Bacon
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 10,346
  • Joined: 08-October 04
  • Location:T'North

Posted 12 July 2020 - 03:10 PM

I saw the Hamilton stuff and most of you know I'm a huge fan (saw it on London's West End a couple of years ago) and it was stunning!

I think the criticism of it is founded in a good place but in reality (and LMM has said similar stuff himself) it's not possible to cover every angle. It would not be physically possible to try and tackle something like slavery on top of everything else that the show covers. There's only so much you can cram in.

And it does manage to show that he was part of an early abolitionist movement despite not necessarily fighting against slavery.

Yes it doesn't cover everything but surely it's an excellent starting point for this conversation in the mainstream? At the very least it's a step in the right direction.
A Haunting Poem
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
0

#211 User is offline   TheRetiredBridgeburner 

  • Mortal Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 28-March 13
  • Location:Deepest Darkest Yorkshire

Posted 12 July 2020 - 03:56 PM

Something not being able to cover every angle =/= the thing being harmful or worth cancelling. That nuance does seem to get lost on some.

I think it being a starting point for a conversation is great - Mr Not a Blacksmith and I ended up going and reading loads about Alexander Hamilton and the period on the back of watching the film on Disney+, because it piqued our interest.
- Wyrd bið ful aræd -
0

#212 User is offline   stone monkey 

  • I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
  • Group: Grumpy Old Sods
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Joined: 28-July 03
  • Location:The Rainy City

Posted 13 July 2020 - 09:59 AM

Taking my own advice:




I don't agree with him on everything, but I don't agree with anyone on everything. But yeah, he gets it.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 13 July 2020 - 10:00 AM

If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
0

#213 User is offline   Azath Vitr (D'ivers 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 896
  • Joined: 07-February 16

Posted 13 July 2020 - 04:04 PM

View PostCyphon, on 12 July 2020 - 09:34 AM, said:

People need to understand that freedom of speech doesnt equate to freedom of platform. Freedom of speech doesnt equate to freedom of consequences.


These have become popular talking-points, but it's worth bearing in mind that they're not accurate as stated.

If the government allowed you to speak or publish freely, but with the 'consequence' of going to prison, that would violate the First Amendment. Likewise, if you were allowed to say anything you want, but the government mandated that any publisher or website had to remove your content or else face fines, denial of service, or termination, that would violate the publisher's First Amendment rights.

In US law, freedom of speech does equate to freedom from punitive consequences from the government for the act of speech or the views expressed, with the exception of speech that poses a clear and immediate physical danger (physical threats, incitements to violence, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater).

However, it's true that, legally, the First Amendment only applies to actions by the government, and by some publicly funded institutions.

But a society in which private individuals and institutions seek to suppress speech or expression can effectively achieve the same end as government censorship (though one could argue that the people don't have as much power as the government, even in a democracy, that is a substantively inaccurate analysis of the power relations, which are complex and multifaceted).
The principle of permitting expression even when it seems to contradict the beliefs or values of the majority of the population (or a vocal and influential enough minority) is particularly important in the sciences and (more arguably) the arts. This freedom is tempered by discursive requirements, and I think most progressive critics of 'cancel culture' agree that some speech (for example, racial slurs) should result in firing and deplatforming. (Take for example this recent essay by a Princeton professor: 'Let me be clear: Racist slurs and clear and documentable bias against someone because of skin color are reprehensible and should lead to disciplinary action, for which there is already a process. But is there anyone who doesn't believe that this committee would be a star chamber with a low bar for cancellation, punishment, suspension, even dismissal?')

https://quillette.co...eton-professor/

Quote

The environment and ability of people to voice their views has radically shifted as social media has opened up the ability for people to voice their thoughts.


It's true that the most extreme deplatforming---trying to prevent any internet server from hosting a discussion board, punching people who speak or dress a certain way---seems to have been mostly reserved for Nazis. In extreme cases, full deplatforming (in the sense of trying to prevent any publication or dissemination) can be justified. Also, it's good to hold institutions like academic journals, newspapers, etc. to high editorial standards, and to threaten to boycott them if those standards are violated. (From what I've read, there was significant editorial malpractice in the publishing of Senator Cotton's NYT op-ed. More generally, the NYT has a terrible history of not fact-checking editorials at all; conservative David Brooks has gotten away with not only cherry-picking from (and misrepresenting the significance of) weak studies, but repeatedly making factual errors, which should not happen in a paper like the NYT. Having a weekly columnist is no excuse for not fact-checking at all.)

Granted, one could argue that, if art exhibits are disrupted by protesters who attempt to physically block people from seeing the art (as has been happening in the United States) or lectures/Q&A are disrupted by protesters who try to drown out the lecturer with shouts (as has also been happening), they could simply move to the internet (though with visual art---particularly sculptures---it's not quite the same; though perhaps VR is the answer?)---and risk being attacked by 'hacktivists'.

The right-wing has been deploying the equivalent of 'cancel culture' for a long time (attempting de facto censorship of the arts and sciences), and progressives have been fighting against it. However, the solution is not to adopt it ourselves to suppress anything which seems to deviate from any aspect of (current) leftist orthodoxy.

'Reza Aslan Reveals How CNN's Jeff Zucker and Trump 'Canceled' Him Over a Tweet

[...] the CNN pundit and host fired off a tweet: "This piece of shit is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He's an embarrassment to humankind."
He was immediately inundated with emails, texts, and missed calls from producers, CNN execs, and even liberal-celeb acquaintances chastising him for the move. #FireReza and #CNNisISIS began trending on Twitter, as a right-wing mob called for his ouster. At the network's urging, he issued a diplomatic apology—which they accepted. All seemed fine.

And then four days later, without warning, he received notice that his highly rated travel series, Believer, which saw Aslan immerse himself in different religions (from a Hawaiian death cult to getting audited by Scientologists), had been canceled by CNN honcho Jeff Zucker. The move struck Aslan and his crew as odd given the show's popularity, his public apology, and the fact they were set to begin shooting Season 2 in days. Most curious of all was how the man who dropped the hammer, Zucker, is a longtime friend of Trump's who, as president of NBC Entertainment, breathed life into the real estate mogul's dying empire with The Apprentice.'

https://www.thedaily...-tweet?ref=home

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 13 July 2020 - 04:32 PM

0

#214 User is offline   Azath Vitr (D'ivers 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 896
  • Joined: 07-February 16

Posted 13 July 2020 - 05:13 PM

Also worth bearing in mind that 'cancel culture', if embraced across the ideological spectrum, ultimately favors the largest, wealthiest, or (more generally, the most) influential groups. According to polling, there are significantly more 'conservatives' than 'liberals' in the United States:

Posted Image

https://news.gallup....cally-2019.aspx

Embracing mass punitive retaliation (with the intent to suppress deviant expression) as an ethically valid tactic on the whole favors the right-wing (obviously liberals have an advantage in many cities, on many university campuses, many parts of the internet, etc.).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 13 July 2020 - 05:15 PM

0

#215 User is offline   stone monkey 

  • I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
  • Group: Grumpy Old Sods
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Joined: 28-July 03
  • Location:The Rainy City

Posted 13 July 2020 - 06:23 PM

Then why do we find the preponderance of objections to it coming from conservatives? Especially as they've never been too terribly concerned about the free speech rights of people who aren't them. I suspect the reason goes back to the unofficial mantra of modern conservatism (especially as it's practiced in the US): "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

As I've said before, conservatives have always embraced cancel culture. But only when they were the only ones doing the cancelling. As one can easily see from the types of boycotts that particularly get their goat i.e. those done by liberals. The very fact that we even have the word boycott is ample evidence that the so-called cancel culture is nothing new.


This post has been edited by stone monkey: 25 July 2020 - 10:51 PM

If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
1

#216 User is offline   Azath Vitr (D'ivers 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 896
  • Joined: 07-February 16

Posted 01 August 2020 - 06:21 PM

'George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (RageBlog Edition)

[...] The host for this year's festivities was George R.R. Martin and he spent an awful lot of time talking about John W. Campbell, noted fascist and racist. Pretty sure that between Martin and Bob Silverberg, Campbell (noted fascist and racist!) was mentioned more than the aggregate of the folks being honored. I aged approximately 67 years during Silverberg's segment.

We were treated to tales of how Martin is Just Like Us while he was broadcasting from the movie theater he owns for funsies. I lost count of how many times he mentioned that fandom used to be so much smaller that Worldcon was in a hotel and that there was a banquet with rubbery chicken (no one cares).

Because it's such a goddamn fucking shame that fandom is so much larger and diverse than it was 50 fucking years ago. Because the people nominated for and winning awards aren't exclusively white and male.

[...] Speaking of Jemisin, Martin made the decision to first mention her unprecedented accomplishment of winning the Best Novel three years in a row–no one else of any race or gender has ever accomplished a Best Novel hat trick–and then attempt to undermine it by talking at great length the time Heinlein won three Hugos in nine years,

[...] What I haven't forgotten is this: George R.R. Martin repeatedly mispronounced the names of nominees and, in one case, a publication which was nominated. All the nominees were asked to provide pronunciations for their names in advance. The fact that Martin chose not to use that information is disgusting and racist as fuck, as without exception the names he mispronounced were Black and brown. He mispronounced FIYAH, a publication owned, edited, and written by Black people.

This is thoroughly beyond the pale, especially since those segments were pre-recorded and CoNZealand could have asked him to re-do those segments and pronounce peoples' names correctly. Names are important. They have power.

There was also a whole segment about the Oscar statuette and its crotch. It was gender essentialist and transphobic. It was so gross I don't even want to talk about it to be honest. CoNZealand tweeted a non-apology apology about it to people who were offended. I'm not particularly gender non-conforming, but if that segment made me feel gross and unwelcome, imagine how it made not only the trans and other gender non-conforming nominees feel, but also all those who were watching. It was a gigantic "fuck you, you're not welcome here."

[...] CoNZealand has published an apology, in which they admit mistakes were made–including the decision to "provide an agnostic platform for all the participants, and […] not place restrictions on any speech or presentations." That was a very bad decision. Editing pre-recorded segments for clarity and length is not a restriction or any kind of censorship. It's professional.

[...] Would Martin and Silverberg have felt as free to be gross racist misogynist transphobes if there had been a live audience to contend with? I suspect not.

There was no need for Martin to put all the dolls he has of himself on display or to change his hat in every segment–he clearly put more thought into that schtick than he did into pronouncing people's names (I am never not going to be mad about that).'

https://www.pretty-t...TOW8aD7cD4vfyUY

[edit: Just noticed this addendum by the author:

'Multiple people have pointed out that it wasn’t only BIPOC folks who had their names mispronounced, plenty of white folks did, too. As someone whose name is often mispronounced, I can’t believe I didn’t mention that.

[...] My deepest apologies to Nibedita Sen for misspelling her name. It has been corrected.']

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 01 August 2020 - 06:28 PM

0

#217 User is offline   Aptorian 

  • How you doin?
  • Group: The Wheelchairs of War
  • Posts: 23,048
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 01 August 2020 - 06:48 PM

That last edit is hilarious.
0

#218 User is offline   Whisperzzzzzzz 

  • Reaper's Fail
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,185
  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • Location:Westchester, NY

Posted 01 August 2020 - 10:55 PM

 Aptorian, on 01 August 2020 - 06:48 PM, said:

That last edit is hilarious.


Seconded. Throw the author of the post into the Sun!

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 01 August 2020 - 10:55 PM

0

#219 User is offline   Grief 

  • Prophet of High House Mafia
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Joined: 11-July 08

Posted 02 August 2020 - 11:29 AM

View PostAzath Vitr (D, on 13 July 2020 - 04:04 PM, said:

View PostCyphon, on 12 July 2020 - 09:34 AM, said:

People need to understand that freedom of speech doesnt equate to freedom of platform. Freedom of speech doesnt equate to freedom of consequences.


These have become popular talking-points, but it's worth bearing in mind that they're not accurate as stated.


I also think that it cedes quite a lot of power to the platforms which are increasingly replacing public with private space (which itself is becoming increasingly concentrated).

Granted this is a broader trend that is troubling in its own right, but I do think that the people who use this argument from a liberal standpoint might be missing a trick. Do we really want mega-platforms that much leeway about what is allowed on their platform? Is it wrong to think that freedom of platform might become increasingly important as more and more public life de facto takes place there?

I find it quite troubling that a lot of apparently liberal people seem happy with an argument that boils down to "it's fine because it's private companies doing it".

Cougar said:

Grief, FFS will you do something with your sig, it's bloody awful


worry said:

Grief is right (until we abolish capitalism).
1

#220 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,889
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 02 August 2020 - 01:31 PM

The Hugo’s will NEVER not be a shitshow. Never. No one will ever be pleased, some people are going to be pissed at one aspect or another.

Awards shows are a waste of time and energy to play favorites, and pat each other on the back.

The Hugo’s has become the bellwether of the SFF community tribalism that gets to be a worse cancer every year.

No one will ever enjoy it.

EDIT: To clarify GRRM was a Super moron in this, And I’m not defending
Him in my comment...more a comment on how the Hugo’s court controversy every damned year, from multiple angles and I’ll never understand why ppl bother with them.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 August 2020 - 09:07 PM

"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

Share this topic:


  • 13 Pages +
  • « First
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users