As for larger conclusions: I blame post-modernism. No, really.
Post-modernism taught that statements are only true or false within a community, not true or false in any larger sense. It also taught that all speech is really about power, not about truth. These college students are living that out. Seeing if I'm going to play soccer? That's really a power play, not a request for information.
And it must really stink to have to live like that. Choose not to play soccer for a semester because somebody used the wrong word in an email asking if you were playing? Enjoy your nice sense of victimhood, because that's about all you're going to have. You aren't going to have much of a social life, or much of an open mind, or much peace and contentment...
What strikes me is the overbearing sense of nativism and ethnonationalism that the Hispanic student embodies. Hispanic is instantly equated with non-white and thus all aspects of Hispanic culture, including the Spanish language and minutiae like how sports are played, are considered sacred aspects of heritage being infringed by the white "hordes".
With a little reductio ad absurdum, it's easy to make her words indistinguishable from a sympathizer to an organization like the Ku Klux Klan.
The victimhood culture began in the US with the victim's rights movement during the Regan Revolution. Victims of crimes became more under the law than ordinary citizens. On this of all days, it is fitting to leave recognizing the scars of its evolution on the American psyche as an exercise for the reader.
The only sensible response to either side of this debate is to ignore it. Both parties are seeking attention, without which, the debate would be extinguished.
It is worth noting that Spanish for "foot" is "pie" and for "ball" is "balon". So by calling it "futbol" and not "piebalon" who is actually culturally appropriating whom eh?
To drag this into the Australian sporting arena. There is an Australian Rules Footballer here named Adam Goodes, (its not rugby, soccer, or NFL its only played in Australia). He is a very good and very famous footballer. He has won the Brownlow medal not once but twice (MVP) for the league and last year he was honored as Australian of the year by the Prime minister. But most importantly for this discussion recently he has been booed every time he gets the ball and he is an Aboriginal.
During his year as Australian of the year he was outspoken about racism and Aboriginal issues. Which are numerous, health care, incarceration rates, prison deaths, violence, alcohol etc and have never been successfully addressed.
He called the booing racism and took a week out of the game, there was a lot of support for him but also a large negative reaction. And part of this reaction seems to be a reaction to the culture of victim hood. Other players have been booed before mercilessly, he is a good player, other good players get booed. Particularly high profile ones.
Is he a victim of racism? partly. Are supporters just booing the other sides good player? partly. Has he made himself a target with some of his speeches? Probably.
Australian rules football and Gaelic Football are not the same thing although there used to be an international rules series every year between Ireland and Australia.
The discussion between these two students is youthful and stupid. That said, it's good that things are out in the open and discussed. It's too bad that it's now a permanent record tied to their identities. Her words are clearly racist though. Racism, when not physically threatening, always strikes me as being foppish. Maybe anything exclusion-oriented is this way.
It's a big problem and politicians use it to their full advantage. Don't agree with a person's politics? It MUST be racism, sexism, or bigotry. Oh, and don't worry, not only will you be called a bigot/racist, your career will be gone and you will be bullied into submission (who cares about the family that suffers as a result).
But bullying someone who is gay is wrong..mmmkay!
The ex-Mozilla CEO is a good example of this. You can't just disagree with his ideals. He can even run a great company and be fair to his employees. But because he did something that many people didn't agree with, he had to be destroyed.
It just means that people like me can easily sway public opinion by getting a bunch of twitter hashtag warriors to re-tweet something and get "outraged".
It's now used as a tool to immediately silence opposing viewpoints and the freedom of speech and it's not doing anything to help society. The result is a growing anger for a segment of the population that is tired of the bullshit (me included).
11 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 37.8 ms ] threadAs for larger conclusions: I blame post-modernism. No, really.
Post-modernism taught that statements are only true or false within a community, not true or false in any larger sense. It also taught that all speech is really about power, not about truth. These college students are living that out. Seeing if I'm going to play soccer? That's really a power play, not a request for information.
And it must really stink to have to live like that. Choose not to play soccer for a semester because somebody used the wrong word in an email asking if you were playing? Enjoy your nice sense of victimhood, because that's about all you're going to have. You aren't going to have much of a social life, or much of an open mind, or much peace and contentment...
With a little reductio ad absurdum, it's easy to make her words indistinguishable from a sympathizer to an organization like the Ku Klux Klan.
He called the booing racism and took a week out of the game, there was a lot of support for him but also a large negative reaction. And part of this reaction seems to be a reaction to the culture of victim hood. Other players have been booed before mercilessly, he is a good player, other good players get booed. Particularly high profile ones.
Is he a victim of racism? partly. Are supporters just booing the other sides good player? partly. Has he made himself a target with some of his speeches? Probably.
It's also played in Ireland, they call it Gaelic Rules there. I can't believe you'd unvalidate a whole culture like that, you monster :-p
But bullying someone who is gay is wrong..mmmkay!
The ex-Mozilla CEO is a good example of this. You can't just disagree with his ideals. He can even run a great company and be fair to his employees. But because he did something that many people didn't agree with, he had to be destroyed.
It just means that people like me can easily sway public opinion by getting a bunch of twitter hashtag warriors to re-tweet something and get "outraged".
It's now used as a tool to immediately silence opposing viewpoints and the freedom of speech and it's not doing anything to help society. The result is a growing anger for a segment of the population that is tired of the bullshit (me included).