Jump to content
clyde

Social Justice

Recommended Posts

I wonder what percentage of the population could actually stay if this rule applied to all citizens.

 

From what I can tell, more than 50% falls below that margin.

 

Edit: Actually I was treating it as if it was £25,000, it's £35,000! That means more like 75% is below the margin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, but I need to get some thoughts out and please feel free to tear me down if I deserve it. I just don't quite know how to process some of the thoughts I'm feeling today. Despite so much good social justice shit happening (in the scheme of things), I can't help but feel a little hopeless in other ways, as though everything is cheapened by this propensity to just social justice SO HARD or be just SO CYNICAL about everything.

 

For instance, a bunch of anti-capitalist people (for whom I identify with) are shitting on brands/companies that have adapted their logos to make light of the gay marriage decision today at the Supreme Court. They're saying that by doing this, they're just trying to make a quick buck because it'll improve their brand image, or something like that. Which is undoubtedly true, which is undoubtedly part of the business strategy of these companies. But isn't it also possible that the company culture actually does support these broad cultural victories? Also, is it really bad that various huge companies are outwardly showing support for gay marriage? Like, isn't a potential good outcome of this that other smaller companies might be a little more tolerant on the whole of queer folk if they see that other companies have a pro-LGBTQ stance? (Edit: I want to stress that there are really, really shitty things happening with some brands, I saw Chipotle's "Homo Estas?" thing and it's so bad. But I'm saying that other companies have just updated their logo, tweeted a #LoveWins thing and haven't made a big deal about it. Can't see the harm there.)

 

On another hand, Obama just delivered from what I could understand (I haven't been able to watch the clip, I'm at work) is a beautiful eulogy for one of the victims of the Charleston massacre. He's also looking super good because of the victory in upholding ACA/Obamacare in the Supreme Court as well as marriage equality as it was a pillar of his election campaign. Everyone is SO IN LOVE WITH HIM RIGHT NOW. But for me, Obama has just been so disappointing for years when it comes to war, trade, etc. I understand the political cycle, that he is much more able to make liberal moves in the latter half of his second term, but it still strikes me as shitty that his values only extend so far until reality means that he has to make a shitty choice. I mean, just last week he scored a major victory by allying himself with Republican Congressmen and Senators in passing Trade Promotional Authority, which is paving the path for a trade deal that will certainly mean that we will throw more money than ever to countries with absolutely no worker's rights. How is that responsible?

 

So basically, everything is either way too cynical or way too shiny and happy. I just can't stand how we can only seem to be focused on one thing at a time. Either capitalism sucks or capitalism is a potential tool for social change. Social change is good, unless a brand acknowledges it in which as it's bad. A politician is great because he scored a lot of points lately, but if you look at his career as a whole he probably just breaks even or gets a little bit in the green on social justice.

 

Anyways, I'm just so conflicted and bothered by all this shit. Anyone have any thoughts on my essay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think it's a good sign to stay off Twitter. It really encourages that kind of dual reaction that can make you feel dizzy and dejected.

More broadly, it's important to recognize that there will always be problems in the world. There will always be a BUT in your lifetime. Once you can accept that, it becomes a lot easier to not feel discouraged by every bittersweet victory. If you can't accept it, than prepare to feel disappointed and burned out for the rest of your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, but I need to get some thoughts out and please feel free to tear me down if I deserve it. I just don't quite know how to process some of the thoughts I'm feeling today. Despite so much good social justice shit happening (in the scheme of things), I can't help but feel a little hopeless in other ways, as though everything is cheapened by this propensity to just social justice SO HARD or be just SO CYNICAL about everything.

For instance, a bunch of anti-capitalist people (for whom I identify with) are shitting on brands/companies that have adapted their logos to make light of the gay marriage decision today at the Supreme Court. They're saying that by doing this, they're just trying to make a quick buck because it'll improve their brand image, or something like that. Which is undoubtedly true, which is undoubtedly part of the business strategy of these companies. But isn't it also possible that the company culture actually does support these broad cultural victories? Also, is it really bad that various huge companies are outwardly showing support for gay marriage? Like, isn't a potential good outcome of this that other smaller companies might be a little more tolerant on the whole of queer folk if they see that other companies have a pro-LGBTQ stance? (Edit: I want to stress that there are really, really shitty things happening with some brands, I saw Chipotle's "Homo Estas?" thing and it's so bad. But I'm saying that other companies have just updated their logo, tweeted a #LoveWins thing and haven't made a big deal about it. Can't see the harm there.)

My biggest problem with any personification of a culture (specifically brand engagement here) is that it's an inherently appropriative act. Corporations care about making money. That's pretty much it. Everything else comes second. They're only being all yay gay because engaging with their brand otherwise means you might engage with their brand financially.

Another bad part about it is that it's pinkwashing. No corporation doesn't commit bad acts, but if you see that they're engaging in pro-gay rhetoric that you agree with you're going to be more likely to forgive them for not supplying workers with health care or paying a living wage or for exploiting workforces in developing countries. They wash over all that with a pretty pink triangle and hope you don't notice.

Edit: Personification of a corporation. Sorry, phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience with today's corporate appropriation was seeing Crunchyroll's Twitter avatar had changed into a rainbow pattern and then going to the website (which I do frequently enough anyway, so it's not like that enticed me into doing something I wouldn't otherwise do), and then seeing this advertised on the front page. Warning: big-boobed anime figure.

 

If that's not a punch-in-the-face reminder that some things are still shitty, I dunno what is! (though this just blatant weirdo sexism, so at least it's not homophobic, right?!!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, everything is either way too cynical or way too shiny and happy. I just can't stand how we can only seem to be focused on one thing at a time. Either capitalism sucks or capitalism is a potential tool for social change. Social change is good, unless a brand acknowledges it in which as it's bad. A politician is great because he scored a lot of points lately, but if you look at his career as a whole he probably just breaks even or gets a little bit in the green on social justice.

 

Anyways, I'm just so conflicted and bothered by all this shit. Anyone have any thoughts on my essay?

 

I know how you feel. I'm trying really hard to disengage as much as possible from the overwhelming mass of opinion I get during high-volume times like this. But none of the things that you said are contradictory - capitalism is both incredibly sucky and a powerful tool for social change, and the latter doesn't excuse the former - but the former also doesn't stop the latter from being true. President Obama has been disappointing at many, many turns, but I challenge anyone, when they watch the eulogy he gave in Charleston, to keep their eyes dry. I'm furious at him, and I still wept.

 

These are complex systems, complex people. It's okay, even necessary, to have complex and often contradictory feelings about them. They're not monoliths, and monolithic thinking is necessarily reductionist. They deserve more. For me, I do my best to engage at the level that allows me to preserve my mental and physical health, and past that, hey, there's always Dota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with any personification of a culture (specifically brand engagement here) is that it's an inherently appropriative act. Corporations care about making money. That's pretty much it. Everything else comes second. They're only being all yay gay because engaging with their brand otherwise means you might engage with their brand financially.

 

While that is certainly usually true, I think you're being overly cynical to say that all corporations are doing it for financial reasons. When Chick-Fil-A makes some public statement of homophobia, they're doing something they have to know will reduce their earning potential. If Chick-Fil-A is so anti-gay that they're willing to cost themselves money in order to make a statement, surely some corporations can be pro-gay enough that that's their motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, people do have to exist in a capitalist society on a day-to-day basis, and one thing marginalized people want is the ability to live day-to-day without being made to feel weird, abnormal or like an outsider.  Macy's advertising His&His and Her&Her wedding supplies is the kind of thing that's a step in achieving that, that a gay couple can just go shop for the same wedding crap that a straight couple has and waste ridiculous money on a mementos that will sit on the top shelf of a closet for years to come. 

 

It is absolutely capitalizing on this specific moment to get attention, basically turning it into a crass advertising opportunity.  Except for those companies who have been solidly pro-gay for quite awhile before now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that is certainly usually true, I think you're being overly cynical to say that all corporations are doing it for financial reasons. When Chick-Fil-A makes some public statement of homophobia, they're doing something they have to know will reduce their earning potential. If Chick-Fil-A is so anti-gay that they're willing to cost themselves money in order to make a statement, surely some corporations can be pro-gay enough that that's their motivation.

 

I don't think it is a cynical statement at all. For publicly traded companies they actually have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits, and anything they do that damages that goal opens them up to lawsuits from shareholders. When large companies make public statements like this you better believe they did studies evaluating how their target demographics would react to these statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a cynical statement at all. For publicly traded companies they actually have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits, and anything they do that damages that goal opens them up to lawsuits from shareholders. When large companies make public statements like this you better believe they did studies evaluating how their target demographics would react to these statements.

 

This is a myth

 

The funny thing is that this supposed imperative to “maximize” a company’s share price has no foundation in history or in law. Nor is there any empirical evidence that it makes the economy or the society better off. What began in the 1970s and ’80s as a useful corrective to self-satisfied managerial mediocrity has become a corrupting, self-interested dogma peddled by finance professors, money managers and over-compensated corporate executives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that is certainly usually true, I think you're being overly cynical to say that all corporations are doing it for financial reasons. When Chick-Fil-A makes some public statement of homophobia, they're doing something they have to know will reduce their earning potential. If Chick-Fil-A is so anti-gay that they're willing to cost themselves money in order to make a statement, surely some corporations can be pro-gay enough that that's their motivation.

I lived in Rome, GA for a time, where Chik-Fil-A sends their executives and some employees for retreats every now and again. From my interactions with those people, I can say that their only mistake might be misunderstanding who buys their products. They don't hide their Christian beliefs -- they're closed every Sunday, after all -- but they hid their hate for a while.

Also, people do have to exist in a capitalist society on a day-to-day basis, and one thing marginalized people want is the ability to live day-to-day without being made to feel weird, abnormal or like an outsider. Macy's advertising His&His and Her&Her wedding supplies is the kind of thing that's a step in achieving that, that a gay couple can just go shop for the same wedding crap that a straight couple has and waste ridiculous money on a mementos that will sit on the top shelf of a closet for years to come.

It is absolutely capitalizing on this specific moment to get attention, basically turning it into a crass advertising opportunity. Except for those companies who have been solidly pro-gay for quite awhile before now.

You then have the problem of catering to a demographic, which basically boils down to deciding that this marginalized group makes enough money to be worth catering to while another isn't... and the fact that my local Macy's doesn't have that stuff, so market research must have said it wasn't profitable to represent me in stores in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's part of navigating an intensely complex, shitty system, Jon. After a while, you get used to seeing how it's all mixed up from time to time. People who are on either end of the spectrum in terms of takes tend to be reacting in the moment and I think most of us fall in the same place with regards to how big things can do shitty and great acts. 

 

As for me, the most mind-bending corporation to support Pride was Playboy. Ah yes, that great supporter of Pride: the porn company that has banked on fetishizing queer women for their consumer base of straight men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JonCole I want to throw my support behind the idea others have mentioned that sometimes an individual needs to just take a break from the news-feed. It's important to recognize that when you are jacked-in to the net, these surges can take an emotional toll. I was feeling kinda crazy from all the news from the past week and the surge from today that you described. My wife and I went for a nice long walk after taking an hour long nap and eating a vegetable dinner. I didn't check my phone during that time and I feel much better. 

I'm here and going to check Twitter in a second though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice and feedback, friends. It really helped me think about all this stuff and I definitely needed a break if even for a few hours, so I went to the pet store to stock up on supplies and toys, went to dinner with my wife, chilled out, bashed my head against some Destiny, and everything feels a lot better.

 

I was actually ranting a little bit to my wife shortly after I wrote my post (I didn't mention that I wrote it) and she said "you really shouldn't read Twitter after things like this, post to the Idle Thumbs forum or something where cooler heads prevail." She kinda stalks the forums a little bit because she likes some of the social justice-related threads here, but posting is not really her thing. Just thought you all should know that you have a good reputation in my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me, the most mind-bending corporation to support Pride was Playboy. Ah yes, that great supporter of Pride: the porn company that has banked on fetishizing queer women for their consumer base of straight men.

 

But then Hugh Hefner was (to an extent unusual for the 50s but would be seen as weaksauce or problematic now) arguing against homophobia in Playboy.

 

Given how easy it would be for a brand to stay politically neutral, I'm not going to begrudge them this fleeting moment of pinkwashing. It's just as easy to accuse the people changing their avatars to rainbows of being johnny-come-latelys as well, but that's a dangerous road. I'd prefer to focus on the idea that - well, I think even most homophobes acknowledge the hurt that same-sex couples feel at this point, it's just that they believe the cost of changing society is much greater than the cost of gay people changing themselves. In this specific issue, at this specific time, that big statement does mean something, as it's a bunch of brands starting to pay that cost of changing society, and it's nowhere near as onerous as homophobes make it out to be.

 

We tend not to handle the idea of society changing particularly well - more than one person has commented how if you'd said in 2005 that in ten years America's black president would bring in universal healthcare and same-sex marriage would be legal, you'd have been scoffed at - so I think it's unreasonable to expect that people should be acting as if we already live there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a queer woman who is frequently fetishized for her sexuality, I am going to begrudge them, even if it's privately. 

If I don't have the ability to freely side-eye things sometimes, I would go mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a queer woman who is frequently fetishized for her sexuality, I am going to begrudge them, even if it's privately.

If I don't have the ability to freely side-eye things sometimes, I would go mad.

Oh no, you do what you need to. It'd be hypocritical of me to say they don't have to be perfectly thoughtful but you have to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this article makes some interesting points about how unmoderated anti-establishment internet-culture awakens the misogynistic white-supremacists. While I appreciate that being pointed out, the article gives me the impression that misogynistic white-supremacy is growing faster than compassion and reason (which I doubt). Also, I don't think I know what fascism means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this article makes some interesting points about how unmoderated anti-establishment internet-culture awakens the misogynistic white-supremacists. While I appreciate that being pointed out, the article gives me the impression that misogynistic white-supremacy is growing faster than compassion and reason (which I doubt). Also, I don't think I know what fascism means.

 

That article is kind of a mess.  It uses a lot of wiggle words and ambiguity as it tries to address the scope of the issues, which is always a giant red flag that the data doesn't exist, doesn't say what the reporter wanted or the reporter didn't do the research in the first place. 

 

It's also just so....both focused and blind.  It would be easy to walk away from that article and think that a lot of the racism in America is rolling out of 4chan first, and Reddit second.  And that's hardly true.  There's an entire culture of racism, and at the top of that heap are powerful politicians and Fox News.  Not to say that 4Chan and Reddit don't play a role, but it's way more complex than that and I question the amount of weight and power that article hands to them while not even mentioning the dozens of other powerful sources of hate in our culture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article on how Dollhouse is a parody of Joss Whedon's own problematic feminism is my everything this week. 

 

http://thoughtcatalog.com/arthur-chu/2015/06/someone-already-did-the-definitive-pop-culture-parody-of-joss-whedon-it-was-joss-whedon/

 

The TLDR of it is that the character of Topher (who runs the tech in the titular Dollhouse) is a representation of Joss himself, doing damage and fueling the systems of oppression while also believing he's genuinely helping, stuck in a loop of self-sabotaging 'feminism' of sorts. As someone who watched every episode of that show (yes I know) it was a pretty compelling read that I agree with totally. It even seems self-aware of this notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article is kind of a mess.  It uses a lot of wiggle words and ambiguity as it tries to address the scope of the issues, which is always a giant red flag that the data doesn't exist, doesn't say what the reporter wanted or the reporter didn't do the research in the first place. 

 

It's also just so....both focused and blind.  It would be easy to walk away from that article and think that a lot of the racism in America is rolling out of 4chan first, and Reddit second.  And that's hardly true.  There's an entire culture of racism, and at the top of that heap are powerful politicians and Fox News.  Not to say that 4Chan and Reddit don't play a role, but it's way more complex than that and I question the amount of weight and power that article hands to them while not even mentioning the dozens of other powerful sources of hate in our culture. 

 

 

I completely agree with you.

 

Still, I value articles like this not because of their reliability, but because the get me thinking of the potentials of systems or complex relationships. How could the author have contextualized the article in a way that it would be seen as more of their personal speculation, where they are trying to figure out their own hypothesis? Let's suppose for a moment that further research is not possible, but the author has this idea of how the evolution of particular forums (with similar styles of moderation) have popularized media-tactics which are being used by hobbyist activists on both sides of the left-right spectrum? I think part of the gamble with an writing an article like this is that the folk-history account is not necessarily reliable, but helps to understand how those embedded in the places described see their community's history. Does that make sense? I don't even know what to call an article like this, but it reminds me of things like This American Life and RadioLab where the entire thing seems like some heavily edited anecdotes in the terms of an experimental hypothetical to tie it all together. Reality television would be another similar example. 

It's a bit unrelated, but this is a useful opportunity since I know you have some history in journalism and I write like the author of this article. I often ask myself if I should keep or remove unconfident language like "it seems that" and "I think" and "in my opinion". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the children are punished for their terrible parent(s)? I don't understand what the crime is they actually comitted. Not wanting to see their father? That's against the law? Law aside, if it's allegedly the mother's fault that the kids don't want to see him, because, as is suggested, she indoctrinated them, then, uhm, shouldn't she be held responsible? I'm probably just stating the obvious, but I can't make heads or tails of it.

How nice of the judge to force the kids to be with a likely abusive parent. Why the onus is put on the kids to have a healthy relationship with their father eludes me. What an absurd judgment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×