Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
Christ centrists love slippery slope arguments that miss the point.
It's not an issue of being offensive because some rando finds it offensive.
It's an issue of offensive because it makes light of/unflatteringly depicts/punches down on something that someone is.
Literally everything you listed is a choice and/or learned behavior, not an inborn trait.
|
While I'm typically very attuned to logical fallacies I think the slippery slope argument is very prescient here. I'm not saying its a bad thing, but the goal post has been repeatedly moved over and over again on issues of political correctness. And sometimes in calling out a logical fallacy you are opening yourself up to criticism since you're already stuck arguing in a place with weak logical foundations.
In the case of Offensive/Unflattering language/symbols/brands, I don't think there is an objective standard, and consensus is basically unattainable. There are obviously clear cases of offense or punching down, but the there is also a very big grey space. Most people who are actively advocating for these changes are not arguing for a factual interpretation of history, but some kind of noble savage myth, where we protect these delicate societies from all of the harm and oppression that has been inflicted upon them by colonialist powers. I think burying the history of racist institutions and not giving the opportunity to evolve or change will almost certainly have a backfire effect on these advocates, setting unattainable standards on topics that people will not agree upon is doomed to inflame problems.
As for something like the Blackhawks, I think if done well and being careful not propagate obvious negative stereotypes, it is probably a positive thing to have an institution with the reach of the NHL to highlig]ht and honour their history and culture. Guarding and hiding their heritage and symbols from the popular imagination has to be the opposite of what they are looking for. But the Blackhawks would have to do this accepting that going forward there will always be some loud voice that doesn't like their treatment of the symbol.
In the case of Aunt Jemima, I think many ways the brand has outstriped its origins in cultural awareness, and that could have been seen as a good thing. It is important that people are aware and reminded of the institutions that this caricature grew out of. But I think proper treatment of the character in the future, guided by the people she represents could have been a great way to turn these institutions around on themselves. Removing a black face from everyones pantry shelf so we don't have to think about these things in the future just seems counter productive.
Allot of this conversation should be boiled down to just generally making an effort to be respectful, and honestly engaging with history, rather than whitewashing or censoring it. So like most things if you find yourself falling strongly on one side of the conversation, you are hastily missing half the point.
My prediction is there will be a day they come for the Name Blackhawks or Eskimos. These things will not have the concessous of even the people who are "harmed", and they will continue find new things to come after, because we are really bad at nuanced conversations, we are really bad at reminding ourselves of historic context, and we are really bad at accepting that you can't make everyone happy.