Support NeoGAF

[makingmusic476]

The article appears pretty reasonable, but if you dig deeper it seems like it's attacking a strawman. Take this sentence:

thus should not let concerns about “cultural appropriation” constrain our creation of characters from different backgrounds than our own.

Then consider that authors write characters from different backgrounds than their own all the time. Her characters in particular were criticized for being awful caricatures.

Sure, if writers across the board were being criticized for any character they've created that weren't made in the mold of themselves, the author would have a point, but that's not the case.

 

[ClosingADoor]

why is the background and surrounding context of this story not germane? she wrote this entirely because of the criticism her book received, is examining that material irrelevant somehow?

No, she did not write this article entirely because of criticism on her book. Her book or any criticism towards it is not even mentioned.

It is a response to someone walking out of her speech at an event, that person writing about it, and that gaining traction.

 

[Infinite]

Yep. It's also lazy since it not a direct refutation of the points brought in the original piece. It's very common tactic of late.

Ad hominem attacks aren't always logical fallacy.

 

[aeolist]

No, she did not write this article entirely because of criticism on her book. Her book or any criticism towards it is not even mentioned.

It is a response to someone walking out of her speech at an event, that person writing about it, and that gaining traction.

the speech was literally based on critiques of the book. she wrote some shitty offensive characters and cannot let go of the fact that people didn't like it. she's not being silenced, which is evident from the fact that she's shown up in more major newspapers and magazines than all of her critics put together.

 

[ClosingADoor]

the speech was literally based on critiques of the book. she wrote some shitty offensive characters and cannot let go of the fact that people didn't like it. she's not being silenced, which is evident from the fact that she's shown up in more major newspapers and magazines than all of her critics put together.

I have not seen any reference to the book in either her piece, or the piece on The Guardian from Yassmin Abdel-Magied.

So your accusation that it is 100% and entirely based on criticism on the book - which can do with some criticism when I read about the characters she put in it - is going a bit far I think.

 

[Caelus]

Then consider that authors write characters from different backgrounds than their own all the time. Her characters in particular were criticized for being awful caricatures.

Yeah, there isn't really a widespread phenomenon among millennials that discourages authors from writing about backgrounds not their own, it's encouraged even. Any anti-discrimination legislation would take fiction into account, there's a clear line between a genuine desire to inhabit or write about another identity and the caricatures she supposedly has in her book.

 

[Oppo]

Ad hominem attacks aren't always logical fallacy.

what? when is this true?

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

 

[entremet]

Ad hominem attacks aren't always logical fallacy.

They're technically not ad hominem attacks either, to be fair. It just leads to little to no meaningful discussion.

All that happens is that some posters come in the thread and say, "Nope, not listening to her since this she said XYZ."

There's little to any elaboration on the points discussed in the OP. I get that discussion is fluid, but that's basically a shutting down of discussion by proxy.

If the argument is faulty, show it. This has been established in almost two thousand years of discourse, starting with the Greeks.

 

[Noirulus]

I like the phrase "weaponized sensitivity"....


Sad to see that the ad hominem attacks have already started, as opposed to discussing the details of the op ed itself.

Right? This is why a lot of Milenials are jaded by Liberalism today. We're sick of SJWs who attack others from a platform of perceived moral superiority, safe spaces, etc.

 

[aeolist]

I have not seen any reference to the book in either her piece, or the piece on The Guardian from Yassmin Abdel-Magied.

So your accusation that it is 100% and entirely based on criticism on the book - which can do with some criticism when I read about the characters she put in it - is going a bit far I think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/b...-appropriation-brisbane-writers-festival.html

Ms. Shriver noted that she had been criticized for using in “The Mandibles” the character of a black woman with Alzheimer's disease, who is kept on a leash by her homeless white husband. And she defended her right to depict members of minority groups in any situation, if it served her artistic purposes.

“Otherwise, all I could write about would be smart-alecky 59-year-old 5-foot-2-inch white women from North Carolina,” she said.

 

[ClosingADoor]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/b...-appropriation-brisbane-writers-festival.html

You got the wrong link, we were discussing this article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/opinion/will-the-left-survive-the-millennials.html

Now I don't agree a 100% with what she says. But there are valid points in it. For example the Australian law she mentioned and social media outrage going to far from time to time.

 

[krazen]

The article appears pretty reasonable, but if you dig deeper it seems like it's attacking a strawman. Take this sentence:



Then consider that authors write characters from different backgrounds than their own all the time. Her characters in particular were criticized for being awful caricatures.

Sure, if writers across the board were being criticized for any character they've created that weren't made in the mold of themselves, the author would have a point, but that's not the case.

Thats the thing, in the speech that started the whole thing she mentioned that if the characters aren't "true" so what, they should be allowed to make mistakes.

The problem is we've got hundreds of years worth of pop culture where they fuck it up; the geneic hip-hop thug, nobody from east asian can speak without an accent, asian or latina female sexpot, gay roommate with the super lisp, etc and win awards for fucking it up...making those stereotypes self fulfilling because those are the only images of those groups that people see.

I get her point on censorship; I see great comedians telling smart nuanced(and ironically anti-bias) jokes getting hung out to dry because they get taken out of context and its off to the races. But those jokes are honed for months and they know what they are doing.

For an author to write outside of their wheelhouse is fine...but there better be more then a *kanye shrug* given if they are fucked up stereotypical portrials with no depth. And it would be nice if those same groups could also tell their story as opposed to traditional white writers getting to tell the story.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Sho_Nuff82 you made me click this link. You should feel bad.

 

[Jintor]

a refusal to listen is not the same as destroying freedom of speech

 

[Caelus]

Right? This is why a lot of Milenials are jaded by Liberalism today. We're sick of SJWs who attack others from a platform of perceived moral superiority, safe spaces, etc.

I would be too, if they were more prevalent. They're not.

 

[-COOLIO-]

The progressive movement (nb. word choice) has forgotten positivity. People should try engaging others with more than "you are a horrible person because..."

Yup.

 

[nynt9]

You literally cannot discuss the piece without the context of the author's previous work. It entirely informs their perspective

why is the background and surrounding context of this story not germane? she wrote this entirely because of the criticism her book received, is examining that material irrelevant somehow?

No, you can form your critique around the past context. But to say "nothing to see here, they're just mad about prior events" is disingenuous.

 

[aeolist]

You got the wrong link, we were discussing this article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/opinion/will-the-left-survive-the-millennials.html

that link is about her speech at the brisbane festival. her op-ed in the op is a response to criticism of that speech.

we are several layers deep here but don't try to pretend this isn't about her book. she brings up other examples of aggrieved white people not being silenced by uppity minorities but it pretty clearly stems from her own experience.

as to her points in the op-ed, i think it's largely ridiculous strawmen. some people get mad at everything but it has little effect on anyone. she's allowed to write books and is massively successful, and the other examples she raised were also of people not being censored or denied success and prestige.

 

[MUnited83]

"I wrote a shitty book and got criticised for it. Milennials are clearly to blame"

I'm not surprised to see people immediately rushing to dismiss the author based on past slights instead of trying to critique the argument being made by the article.

She literally made this article on the back of being criticised for her bullshit and needing a imaginary boogeyman to blame it on.

 

[Ekai]

.......Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or that another's free speech should be limited because you don't like their criticism.

And at the end of the day why is respecting another person's humanity considered radically left-wing? This is why I find the right-wing to be extremist. Well, this among many other reasons. The article is ridiculous. Especially considering the catalyst for her writing this is another thing she wrote that was offensive on multiple levels for how much she misrepresents facts. This article just comes across as another rightie lamenting that they can't insult people, particularly minorities, and get away with it.

 

[Brinbe]

This isn't new, freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism. Oh no, people hate my book, obviously society is wrong and needs to change.

Exactly 100% right and that's what people always seem to miss, even on GAF. No one is trying to censor you or throw you in jail, but you can't just spout out some bullshit and expect people to not have an opinion on it.

 

[darkace]

Is it being enforced in an overzealous manner or is it worried it could be?

It's not so much the enforcement but what it represents. These sort of laws will destroy legitimate reporting before it even comes out for fear of breaching them.

Also, I'm not from Oz so I can't speak as if I know the social climate but isn't there still issues regarding treatment of aboriginals?

Yea massive issues. For context this is the law: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

I have no issue with the areas surrounding humiliation or intimidation, and I'd like to see it expanded to include harassment, vilification and incitement against. But the idea you can legislate offence or insult is utterly ridiculous.

 

[dave is ok]

.......Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or that another's free speech should be limited because you don't like their criticism.

And at the end of the day why is respecting another person's humanity considered radical? This article is ridiculous. Especially considering the catalyst for her writing this is another thing she wrote that was offensive on multiple levels for how much she misrepresents facts. This article just comes across as another rightie lamenting that they can't insult people, particularly minorities, and get away with it.

I don't think she's a 'rightie'. And the book she's most known for is about a teenage white character who murders his family and kills a bunch of people at his school.

 

[aeolist]

It's not so much the enforcement but what it represents. These sort of laws will destroy legitimate reporting before it even comes out for fear of breaching them.



Yea massive issues. For context this is the law: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

I have no issue with the areas surrounding humiliation or intimidation, and I'd like to see it expanded to include harassment, vilification and incitement against. But the idea you can legislate offence is utterly ridiculous.

if this law has been on the books since 1975 i assume you'd be able to point to case law around it to demonstrate that it's a problem. the text of a piece of legal code is almost irrelevant if it's not being literally and strictly enforced.

 

[ClosingADoor]

that link is about her speech at the brisbane festival. her op-ed in the op is a response to criticism of that speech.

we are several layers deep here but don't try to pretend this isn't about her book. she brings up other examples of aggrieved white people not being silenced by uppity minorities but it pretty clearly stems from her own experience.

as to her points in the op-ed, i think it's largely ridiculous strawmen. some people get mad at everything but it has little effect on anyone. she's allowed to write books and is massively successful, and the other examples she raised were also of people not being censored or denied success and prestige.

You said it was entirely about her book. I disagree. She brings up multiple points, some of which I agree with, others that can be a bit more nuanced and some I disagree with. Her point that someone doesn't need to come from the exact background as the characters you write about is a valid one. As is the complaint about some social media outrage going on from time to time. And actual laws in place that limit free speech.

She is not free from criticism and should certainly get her fair share of it when I see the characters she put in her book. But dismissing all her points just because of that is taking it a bit too far.

 

[Geist-]

This is hilarious. Did she really just write this because she can't take criticism for her book?

"Damn you Millennials! You're ruining this country because you say my book is bad!"

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

Yeah no.... I assumed this was going to be about cultural relativity and the thoughts that stuff such as Human Rights is innatly a european concept that shouldnt apply outside of the European sphere which is a common thought at least in my International Relations class but no her Argument is crap.

 

[spekkeh]

The radical left has never been clamoring for free speech. Press according to many of them is propaganda and controlled by the elite.

What's interesting is that the radical left has gotten so much traction. Either because millennials have no memory of the cold war, because the third way politics have eroded the moderate left, because of the internet, or because millennials have on average a lot lower empathetic skills than previous generations and just think it's their way or the highway. Everything is Marxist dialectic now.

 

[Caelus]

or because millennials have on average a lot lower empathetic skills than previous generations and just think it's their way or the highway.

Where are you getting this conjecture from? I'd say it's the reverse.

 

[entremet]

Yeah no.... I assumed this was going to be about cultural relativity and the thoughts that stuff such as Human Rights is innatly a european concept that shouldnt apply outside of the European sphere which is a common thought at least in my International Relations class but no her Argument is crap.

How is her argument crap?

 

[meltingparappa]

Yeah, there isn't really a widespread phenomenon among millennials that discourages authors from writing about backgrounds not their own, it's encouraged even. Any anti-discrimination legislation would take fiction into account, there's a clear line between a genuine desire to inhabit or write about another identity and the caricatures she supposedly has in her book.

I think the reason I find it hard to outright dismiss her article as the result of her own tone deaf writing, is that I've seen swarms on tumblr lose their minds and pen sprawling manifestos for much smaller offenses. Granted, tumblr is basically a self-righteous youtube comment section, but at least where I dare to tread, there is definitely a visible online presence actively promoting the viewpoint she's writing about.

This isn't just a made up strawman, the people she decries definitely exist, though it's hard to separate "the crazies" from the ones calling a spade a spade in this case.

 

[aeolist]

Her point that someone doesn't need to come from the exact background as the characters you write about is a valid one.

this is exactly what i'm talking about. people don't have a problem with white writers putting black characters in their books, they had a problem with her particular book having a bunch of shitty racist caricatures. that's a different thing and the context is important.

if she wanted to point out some brand of ridiculous millenial hypersensitivity maybe she should have chosen an example of a well-written empathetic black character from a white writer who actually saw some meaningful negative consequence for writing them, but i'm guessing that's a tough ask.

As is the complaint about some social media outrage going on from time to time.

"people yell at me on twitter" isn't going to inspire much sympathy with me. this happens across all age groups and political affiliations and none of it has much of an effect on the real world.

again, there's maybe a point to be made here. mob mentality and harassment are real problems in social media but that's not what she's talking about.

And actual laws in place that limit free speech.

please provide examples of this 40 year old law limiting speech and why it's the fault of 20 year old leftists.

 

[Caelus]

This isn't just a made up strawman, the people she decries definitely exist, though it's hard to separate "the crazies" from the ones calling a spade a spade in this case.

The strawman part is overstating the prevalence of over-sensitive progressives complaining over trivial things. You will always find a concentrated fringe element on the internet, a more accurate picture of millennial progressives will be on college campuses, where as a group we hear uncomfortable things all the time and try to figure out ways to mobilize change. People yelling things on tumblr isn't a helpful picture of a group, this applies to both the left and the right.

 

[Mr. X]

It's not so much the enforcement but what it represents. These sort of laws will destroy legitimate reporting before it even comes out for fear of breaching them.



Yea massive issues. For context this is the law: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

I have no issue with the areas surrounding humiliation or intimidation, and I'd like to see it expanded to include harassment, vilification and incitement against. But the idea you can legislate offence or insult is utterly ridiculous.

So it's fear mongering in the guise of "the principle of it" since there are no past or current examples of possibly going too far with the law.

 

[JP_]

People keep bringing up this Australian law. If it's so bad, why couldn't she bring up any examples of it going too far? It didn't seem to stop her from doing anything.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

If I'm reading this right, infractions of the quoted part aren't even criminal offenses -- you'd just have a complaint filed.

 

[krazen]

I think the reason I find it hard to outright dismiss her article as the result of her own tone deaf writing, is that I've seen swarms on tumblr lose their minds and pen sprawling manifestos for much smaller offenses. Granted, tumblr is basically a self-righteous youtube comment section, but at least where I dare to tread, there is definitely a visible online presence actively promoting the viewpoint she's writing about.

This isn't just a made up strawman, the people she decries definitely exist, though it's hard to separate "the crazies" from the ones calling a spade a spade in this case.

A bunch of outrage culture is also clickbait culture though; lets not act as if the left is above Coulter "barz" where you just say outlandish shit in hopes it makes waves. My issue is that she combines lets say a campus not allowing speaker to speak because of "triggers" vs some suburban white writer writing "Shifty D and His Hoes, A True Tale From Da Hood"

 

[darkace]

if this law has been on the books since 1975 i assume you'd be able to point to case law around it to demonstrate that it's a problem. the text of a piece of legal code is almost irrelevant if it's not being literally and strictly enforced.

Firstly that's just not true. The mere fact the law exists (and it's one of the most high profile law in Australia) will have an effect on the citizenry.

Secondly it's only been in place since 1995.

Third we've seen a few cases, including the entire Government of Victoria being sued, Pauline Hanson being sued twice, and Andrew Bolt being successfully sued after he insinuated that light-skin Aboriginals associated as Aboriginals for personal gain.

All that aside, you cannot legislate offence. You just can't. I have no idea how you can even defend the idea that governments can legislate what offends people.

So it's fear mongering in the guise of "the principle of it" since there are no past or current examples of possibly going too far with the law.

I personally don't think Bolt should have been liable for an offence despite the fact that I vehemently disagree with what he said.

Also this is exactly what the author was talking about. The left is fine with authoritarianism when it's removing dissent about things they like.

 

[The Technomancer]

again, there's maybe a point to be made here. mob mentality and harassment are real problems in social media but that's not what she's talking about.

Exactly. This is the actual talk the "millennial left" has to be having with itself, about how its allowed harassment, enabled by the structures of social media, to become acceptable tactics when aimed at the "correct" targets

Criticizing authors for the contents of their work? Get the fuck out of here

 

[web01]

The extreme left is disgusting and is sadly becoming the mainstream left.
Yell and scream down anything they do not agree with while hypocritically parroting ideals like tolerance and understanding. The article is absolutely correct.

Some people have become so deep in this culture they cant see any other view.
They think internet lynch mobs and extreme outrage are not only a reasonable but a just reaction to ideas and beliefs they find "troublesome."
And of course anyone that doesn't support that gets dismissed and personally attacked just like the writer of this article.

The worst is when they twist the words, ideals and actions of people. All they are doing is alienating mainstream who read what they write and think they are crazy. I am not American and I don't support Trump, but what you read online here and other places about Trump is just absurd.

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

How is her argument crap?

It appears her problem is that people are upset about her book... so what people are free to criticize her book and bookstores are free to not supply said book.I have not read the full article but that what I got from the excerpts on Gaf. If she talking aboug laws that prevent her being able to publish her books well the politicians making those laws arent millinials.

 

[aeolist]

Firstly that's just not true. The mere fact the law exists (and it's one of the most high profile law in Australia) will have an effect on the citizenry.

Secondly it's only been in place since 1995.

Third we've seen a few cases, including the entire Government of Victoria being sued, Pauline Hanson being sued twice, and Andrew Bolt being successfully sued after he insinuated that light-skin Aboriginals associated as Aboriginals for personal gain.

All that aside, you cannot legislate offence. You just can't. I have no idea how you can even defend the idea that governments can legislate what offends people.

i do not personally agree with the text of that law as i see it written, but again i've seen enough from the complex legal systems derived from english courts to know that case law is mostly more important than what's literally on the books. i agree that you should not try to legislate offense, but unless those particular court cases have had that particular result i don't think it's much of a problem.

 

[Caelus]

The worst is when they twist the words, ideals and actions of people. All they are doing is alienating mainstream who read what they write and think they are crazy. I am not American and I don't support Trump, but what you read online here and other places about Trump is just absurd.

Trump is very much framing his campaign on notions of racism and xenophobia, describing the reality of his campaign is twisting his words now? I'm not buying this and your statement that the radical left is becoming the mainstream left, there is no radical left candidate that exists, unlike Trump whose campaign panders to the radical right.

 

[ElNarez]

Protecting freedom of speech involves protecting the voices of people with whom you may violently disagree. In my youth, liberals would defend the right of neo-Nazis to march down Main Street. I cannot imagine anyone on the left making that case today.

oh no not the rights of neo-nazis

oh no whatever will we do without neo-nazis walking down our streets

oh noooooo

 

[entremet]

oh no not the rights of neo-nazis

oh no whatever will we do without neo-nazis walking down our streets

oh noooooo

That's actually not a radical message. The ACLU agrees with it.

Obviously this may not be case in countries with hate speech laws.

 

[darkace]

oh no not the rights of neo-nazis

oh no whatever will we do without neo-nazis walking down our streets

oh noooooo

How do you not realise this is her point entirely. The left, which was once the bastion of free speech and tolerance, is normalising authoritarianism when it's discriminating against areas they feel should be discriminated against.

Neo-Nazis have a right to non-violent protest, just as Black Lives Matter do.

 

[Caelus]

How do you not realise this is her point entirely. The left, which was once the bastion of free speech and tolerance, is normalising authoritarianism when it's discriminating against areas they feel should be discriminated against.

Discouraging the spread of fascist, racist etc. views is a part of free speech, not normalizing authoritarianism.

 

[dave is ok]

Discouraging the spread of fascist, racist etc. views is a part of free speech, not normalizing authoritarianism.

When it gets to the point you're criticizing/discouraging fictional antagonists in novels based on what race they were written- it's gone too far.

 

[jakonovski]

It is, as always, dependent on who gets to decide.

 

[aeolist]

i don't really think it's a problem to discriminate against belief systems that openly advocate for genocide. it doesn't seem different to me than issuing credible threats against a specific individual, which everyone agrees should be illegal.

if that makes me regressive or whatever so be it, it's not like neo-nazis don't have their safe spaces out of the public eye.

 

[metalslimer]

I'm not going to comment on the book after having not read it and I do think some people take the criticisms of cultural appropriation a little too far but it seems like a lot of people are upset that young minorities finally have a voice to criticize things that they don't find acceptable.