tripu @tripu@qoto.org
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
tripu
boosted
@tripu It is the gold standard for replacing a missing personality. Works pretty well from what i have seen.
Adult human males discussing in all seriousness whether some soccer player is very good or not so good after all, whether he got the minutes he deserved last night or not, each one so sure about his ideas and about the importance of his ideas.
tripu
boosted
It seemed natural for #genuary17 to render some rotating nested square grids. It's a little annoying to get this to render nicely; I ended up computing explicit quad intersections using polybooljs (https://github.com/velipso/polybooljs), which is a bit slow (and there's still some shimmer in the thin lines). #genuary https://editor.p5js.org/isohedral/sketches/uh3twEzz4
Probably, yes. I haven’t reviewed the graph in detail. I just liked the way to present relations and at least some of the subgraphs seemed obviously true to me.
Actors who play their part in a film about X and suddenly become experts and advocates for X 😒
#TIL about Yuri Bezmenov and found this illuminating video (from 198x!):
@anthropoid@101010.pl
I imagined :)
Definitely, we see things very differently! 🙂
I interpret “of yours” in this context differently. My demonym, my sexual orientation, my religion… those things are “mine” only in the same way the street where I live is “my street”: I say “mine” to indicate attachment or preference — but everybody else is free to use it too, and I can’t claim any special rights over it.
Culture matters to me as well. But I want cultures to grow and combine as people see best. I want all cultures to be available to everyone. That to me is the truly progressive, enlightened approach. (Almost?) every restriction seems arbitrary or conservative to me.
wrt feelings: in political and moral matters, I think we should leave feelings out of the public conversation whenever possible. Feelings muddle reason. When feelings clash, there’s little room for compromise or for rational argumentation: it’s either the strongest side wins, or eternal conflict. There’s a reason legal codes strive to be objective and to define transgressions accurately, instead of appealing to feelings and other subjective factors.
No need to keep on arguing if you don’t feel like it, of course. I want to put my thoughts in writing — for my future self, if nothing else :)
(Yes, we have some special, narrow types of “culture” and “identity” that can be owned, and that property is protected by the law: patents, brands, trademarks, copyright, etc. But none of that applies here, right?)
“Heritage”: we use it to refer to two very different types of things: stuff that is physical and scarce (property), and cultural items (tradition, folklore). We all agree that property can be unjustly appropriated. But since the #ASF clearly has not “stolen” anything physical or scarce from the Apache, by “heritage” here we mean the latter class of things. But then again, culture, memes, tradition… all that can be copied infinitely without causing damage to anyone. Those things aren’t owned by anybody.
I think I bite the bullet: yes, “we can use anything of yours we want”.
I honestly don’t know what you could “use” from “my” culture(s) that would offend me or affect me negatively. In fact, in most situations I can imagine, I would see normal usage (as opposed to mockery) as a sign of appreciation.
“Identity” (“the distinguishing character or personality of an individual”). I honestly don’t know how someone or something can hurt or diminish my identity or the identity of a group I belong to. We alone create our identity. If someone imitated the way you speak, the dishes you cook, or the books you pay attention to… First of all, I think you could be flattered (isn’t it worse to be ignored?). Second, you could argue that you identity would be a bit diluted, since you would be a bit less distinguishable — but that would be so only because your character or personality had become better appreciated and more popular among other people (again, that sounds positive). Third, if having a strong identity were important to you, you could always change your character or personality to move away from what is mainstream or trendy.
I always struggle to understand how the “identity” of groups of people can be “erased” or “denied”.
“Culture” (the making of meaning, iirc from my Cultural Studies MA): culture is immaterial, infinitely reproducible, and owned by nobody. In my view, nobody owns or has special rights over culture of any kind. Cultures thrive when people are eager to use and rework their items, and nobody has to ask permission to do so.
You know how someone effectively “declare[s] ‘no, your culture doesn’t matter’”? Ignoring that culture and not using its artefacts — not the opposite! The Apache culture became one tiny bit bigger and healthier when a non-profit chose to name itself after it.
I appreciate those ideas, Amy! Some thoughts about the words you suggest to replace “offence”:
Of course that one sports team changing their name is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
What I say is impossible is to broadly apply those stringent criteria to always avoid “cultural appropriation” and offence towards groups or individuals. To never use cultural items when we “[know] nothing about the culture, [make] stereotypical caricatures” or impose “expectations onto it”.
“It’s just a brand name.”
Precisely. Why all the fuss?
“The only people qualified to debate this ain’t here to do so.”
Linguists? Historians? Psychologists? Lawyers?
/cc @hughster
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
