Strange American Things.

[sus]

Ivy League South Korean, in case people are curious.

 

[luka]

stuffed to gills with american university bullshit and such a good student she dont even question it

 

[sus]

Yeah that halal example demonstrates, to me, someone simply being oversensitive, a veritable snowflake I would say, and externalizing this turmoil onto the intentions of others. But hey, we are all liable to have snowflake moments, no big deal.

Yeah sure, it's definitely on the more ridiculous side of things, no question. But I think it's an effective example, because it's so blatant, of (1) the way people have different speech norms, and stuff offensive in one ought not to be in another, (2) that intent really does matter, (3) that she unnecessarily ruined her own afternoon with her interpretation, (4) that an certain top-down ideological lens for interpreting speech and sociality colored her perception to make such miscalculated reads. I think subtle versions of this probably happen a fair amount.

Again which isn't AT ALL to say "they're making it up, just close your eyes cyber bullying isn't real." It's just to say that the subtle thing is actually subtle!—requiring thoughtful handling, instead of a hammer—and that the ideology can hurt as much as it helps.

 

[sus]

And it's not like this is something that just happens to social justice activists and snowflakes.

The idea is that this is how all interpretation works. We all have self concepts and ideological constructs that are fucking with our ability to understand other people. So just a touch of humility applies everywhere.

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah, and its also tough to balance careful consideration with not overthinking things / making mountains out of molehills.

 

[Clinamenic]

But I think a critical tenet of liberalism and progressivism is to give the more vulnerable party the benefit of the doubt, in interpreting whether or not they are making a mountain of a molehill.

 

[luka]

yeah its a little bit hard for us being the whitest men in the world properly assess it granted btw how does Stan manage to be so white and his own nan is one if the worlds most celebrated african american artists?

 

[luka]

its just intriguing isnt it. no judgement.

 

[sus]

More problematic is that stereotyping is how all interpretation works—thay we build types based on experience, and then understand new people based on this type portfolio. (Even if that type is "grandma with dementia" or "LA skater kid" or "red carpet grifter" or whatever. We are surprised if the red carpet grifter turns out to read 19th C Russian literature.) Schutz talks about this in his social phenomenology.

Now, there are definitely bad stereotypes—if you're security, pegging a suit-and-tie Harvard professor as a burglar because he's black, you're brain-addled. But if the guy is dressed as a gang-banger, carrying a crowbar, and has a $500 car idling in the driveway at 2am, it's a pretty reasonable profile to initiate police contact. I can't in good faith tell a woman walking alone through a neighborhood late at night that she shouldn't size men up. So we have to figure out: not "stereotype bad, never profiling or making inferences good" but "what is a bad stereotype and what is a good stereotype."

I think "whether the basis of the stereotype is voluntarily chosen by the stereotyped subject" (race is not, clothing mostly is) and "is the stereotype predictively powerful or crude and inaccurate" are decent heuristics. But they don't quite satisfy me. Neither is quite right, I want a better conceptual rationale. Probably in part because class is such a contributor to decisions we might consider "voluntary."

 

[Clinamenic]

yeah its a little bit hard for us being the whitest men in the world properly assess it granted btw how does Stan manage to be so white and his own nan is one if the worlds most celebrated african american artists?

Mild autism, maybe?

 

[sus]

Yeah, and its also tough to balance careful consideration with not overthinking things / making mountains out of molehills.

Totally, which is a problem that applies so much more broadly beyond microagressions or even just social interaction.

 

[sus]

yeah its a little bit hard for us being the whitest men in the world properly assess it granted btw how does Stan manage to be so white and his own nan is one if the worlds most celebrated african american artists?

Brits are whiter than Americans that's a fact. They're all pasty and colonial and own lapdogs.

 

[Clinamenic]

More problematic is that stereotyping is how all interpretation works—thay we build types based on experience, and then understand new people based on this type portfolio. (Even if that type is "grandma with dementia" or "LA skater kid" or "red carpet grifter" or whatever. We are surprised if the red carpet grifter turns out to read 19th C Russian literature.) Schutz talks about this in his social phenomenology.

Now, there are definitely bad stereotypes—if you're security, pegging a suit-and-tie Harvard professor as a burglar because he's black, you're brain-addled. But if the guy is dressed as a gang-banger, carrying a crowbar, and has a $500 car idling in the driveway at 2am, it's a pretty reasonable profile to initiate police contact. I can't in good faith tell a woman walking alone through a neighborhood late at night that she shouldn't size men up. So we have to figure out: not "stereotype bad, never profiling or making inferences good" but "what is a bad stereotype and what is a good stereotype."

I think "whether the basis of the stereotype is voluntarily chosen by the stereotyped subject" (race is not, clothing mostly is) and "is the stereotype predictively powerful or crude and inaccurate" are decent heuristics. But they don't quite satisfy me. Neither is quite right, I want a better conceptual rationale. Probably in part because class is such a contributor to decisions we might consider "voluntary."

And I also think the exhaustive consideration is, for many, either infeasible or otherwise too much of a liability or expense.

 

[luka]

More problematic is that stereotyping is how all interpretation works—thay we build types based on experience, and then understand new people based on this type portfolio. (Even if that type is "grandma with dementia" or "LA skater kid" or "red carpet grifter" or whatever. We are surprised if the red carpet grifter turns out to read 19th C Russian literature.) Schutz talks about this in his social phenomenology.

it very rarely happens actually. really basically never bacuase personalities come off the shelf and as a package

 

[luka]

Brits are whiter than Americans that's a fact. They're all pasty and colonial and own lapdogs.

im more tanned than you cos i actually go outside. you just stay in and do coding.

 

[Clinamenic]

Brits are whiter than Americans that's a fact. They're all pasty and colonial and own lapdogs.

"ruddy" is a great word here.

 

[sus]

I live in the woods I'm basically Johnny Appleseed or Davie Crockett or Jim Bowie

 

[luka]

"ruddy" is a great word here.

i bet wash your hands is 'ruddy' you can tell that guy eats plenty of red meat

 

[luka]

I live in the woods I'm basically Johnny Appleseed or Davie Crockett or Jim Bowie

this is true but you dont leave the log cabin. you just stay indoors coding. and then the delivety boy rings the bell with the pizzza

 

[sus]

Nico makes me Ethiopian and Indian dishes usually it rules. Spinach cheese things and red lentil berbere dishes. She cooks for me because she's a girl.