Archinect
anchor

Should professors use the word sexy?

334
paperbottle

It's not a daily occurrence, but it is a bit tiring to keep hearing professors use sexy and sensual to encourage students for their studio work.  It's not really a good descriptor, and it just a reminder that there has been been no big progress in addressing shitty men of architecture.

 
Mar 6, 19 12:59 am
randomised

Do you maybe have a thesaurus/lexicon of the official permitted vocabulary / newspeak in architecture, or life in general? Thanks!

Mar 6, 19 3:05 am
Non Sequitur

I use it all the time at work. And used it constantly back in school. It’s a goood word.

Mar 6, 19 6:26 am
randomised

be careful, you might be blacklisted!

Non Sequitur

How so? School is well over 10y ago.

randomised

You might end up on a list of shitty men if the OP had anything to say about it.

Non Sequitur

I'll take my chances.

randomised

fingers crossed!

senjohnblutarsky

Better question:

Should people constantly look for reasons to be offended? 


Studios are places where words get overused.  It's a room full of people trying to sound more intelligent than they really are/more intelligent than the people around them.  I heard the word juxtaposition so much in school that I really have no desire to ever use it in conversation. Eventually, you'll get out in the real world and have to worry about phrases like "dumbass architect" coming from contractors.  Then you'll wish for the days when people called your work sexy. 

Mar 6, 19 8:05 am
Non Sequitur

A good flashing detail is sexy as fuck.

jla-x

The word flashing is offensive to people who have been flashed.

Non Sequitur

^good

Volunteer's comment has been hidden
Volunteer

I think buildings should be 'transgendery' instead. That pretty much shoots 'sexy' in the head.

Mar 6, 19 8:12 am
randomised

So are you saying transgender and sexy don't go together?

Volunteer

Yep.

randomised

That's a bit transphobic/sexist isn't it?

Volunteer

It is saying I don't find anything sexy about transgenders. Perhaps you do. If so, fine.

randomised

Okidoki, to each their own. Not so sharp today, could use a piece of pie.

tintt

Buildings should resemble slices of French silk pie.

tduds

"Transgenders" is not the preferred nomenclature, dude.

jla-x

Dude is an offensive term. Stop offending people.

randomised

"Stop" feels very obstructive and obtrusive, please rephrase!

SneakyPete

If people would stop phrasing their opinions as statements of fact, confusion would diminish. "I find that music bad." vs. "That music is bad." It's not difficult.

randomised

*You find it not difficult.

SneakyPete

I chose my words intentionally.

randomised

Me too!

tintt

Make sure you knock before entering the studio next time, mk?

Mar 6, 19 8:29 am
geezertect

If the server is rockin, don't come a-knockin.

geezertect

paperbottle:   Are you seriously equating the term sensual as a genuine example of workplace sexual harrassment?  Good god, what a dry, stifling, humorless world we are creating.  It's the New Puritanism.  To coin another old phrase:  Get a life!!

Mar 6, 19 8:44 am
tintt

Many young people today are asexual. It is a thing.

jla-x

I used to have to try hard to offend people...these snowflakes are making it too easy.

randomised

As a Caucasian I find the term snowflakes offensive...

jla-x

sorry I meant to say honkey.

randomised

As a ciscracker I feel much more comfortable with honkey, thanks.

SneakyPete

jla-x, nobody is surprised you try to offend, that's why you fail so hard at it.

"Many young people today are asexual. It is a thing." In the words of one of my favorite SNL Characters "Well isn't that Special"

rofl snowflakes.

I use the word about once every three years when I’m reminding (read: calm scolding) someone that it’s all the fussy details that make good work, not the rendering with the “sexy” settings (which really    reveals how superficial their project is).





Mar 6, 19 8:51 am
Koww

just say "that's hot" in paris hilton's voice

Mar 6, 19 8:55 am
curtkram

you professor is calling architecture sexy, not a person, correct?  i'll allow that.  same for 'architecture porn.'  only ok if you're referring to architecture, not ok in the office if you're talking about people.

Mar 6, 19 8:57 am

I too use the word "sexy" in professional (both academic and office) settings. But context is everything. It can absolutely be used in a way that could make someone uncomfortable, but the person who would use it that way also likely also uses other, more seemingly benign, words in an uncomfortable way, too.

Mar 6, 19 9:52 am
geezertect

We know it when we hear it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days who will take offense if you say " good morning". It's going to be very hard to maintain a good workplace in a multi-cultural, multi-lingual world where one person's mild joke is another's horrific insult.  Maybe we should think about dialing down our sensitivity meters just a notch.

paperbottle

Thank you, Donna. I guess that kind of person is a lost cause anyway. The place to start for me, ideally, is just making people more selfaware... somehow.

paperbottle

And geezertect, it's convenient that that frame of mind benefits you so greatly.

jla-x

Yeah, not being a wuss does benefit people...you should try it.

tduds

Donna your take is as usual the most sensible in the thread.

SneakyPete

If I set up a straw man slippery slope argument with no basis in reality, I CAN TURN MY BRAIN OFF LALALALALALA!!

tduds

"Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days who will take offense if you say " good morning"." 

No there aren't

"Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days who will take offense if you say " good morning". I think you are hanging around with a bad crowd. There are happy easy going people in the world, I know I've read about it in a blog.

Rusty!

I like to use the term "whore's bath" when describing poorly installed coating systems. Should I stop doing that? 

Mar 6, 19 10:43 am
geezertect

Sex worker's bath would be more appropriate, but then you have to worry about offending people whose religion opposes bathing. It's a complicated world.

I used the term "dog's breakfast" the other day and none of my coworker's had heard it.

jla-x

That is offensive to Koreans.

randomised

Koreans is offensive to Chinese

jla-x

LOL.

SneakyPete

I use "Dead dog space" a lot ...

SneakyPete

Grab bag of mashed ass is another favorite...

Finjohn

There's nothing wrong with using those words. Everyone has certain adjectives they prefer to use to describe things and in my opinion to be offended over them is childish. But sadly that is what Political Correctness has done to much of the world. It makes people fearful to ever say anything that might somehow offend someone somewhere. It slowly and subtly has attacked the freedom of speech and thought in an ever growing way. Personally, I think it is a great poison and that we need to expose it for what it is and remove it from our world. 

Mar 6, 19 10:57 am

How old are you, Finjohn?

Non Sequitur

I am deeply offended by people who are easily offend-able.

randomised

Yeah, fuck them!

SneakyPete

"Political Correctness" is a dog-whistle term that refuses to acknowledge nuance, difference, or the "other." Instead it allows people to fight back against the boogey man that's supposedly out to get you. Often this is achieved by getting you to vote against your best interests.

Replace it with "Giving a shit about people who aren't you" and you'll get closer to the truth.

jla-x

^^^“If people would stop phrasing their opinions as statements of fact, confusion would diminish. "I find that music bad." vs. "That music is bad." It's not difficult.“

SneakyPete

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

tduds

Some music is objectively bad, though.

Finjohn

Donna - I'm old enough to not be offended by someone using sexy as an adjective. But the overall context could make a difference. 

Mar 6, 19 11:33 am
paperbottle

Not offended actually. Just getting concerned...

paperbottle

For the future of profession actually being able to make substantive changes to school (and work place) environment

Finjohn

Change can be good or bad. But if we were to make a list of adjectives that may offend people and then try to shame people for using them as political correctness does then it is a bad change IMO. This has sadly already happened to much of society and I gave up keeping track of what is and isn't politically correct when I saw it for what it was. If I found myself offended for someone using the word 'sexy' to describe a building or building component I would think I'm the one that needs to change for being offended over something so trivial.

shellarchitect

former work place sent out a list of words that would be flagged in emails..... it was the end of productive work for the day

Steeplechase

Is it professional for a publicly traded automobile manufacturer to name their cars so that they spell sexy?

Mar 6, 19 11:39 am
paperbottle

TIL. Thank you.

SneakyPete

Musk is a smart human with the maturity level of a middle-schooler.

jla-x

Why not?

Oh shit I can't stand Elon Musk but did he really make his cars all spell sexy because that makes me laugh. Life is complex.

Steeplechase

Donna, he really did. Tesla’s models are the S, 3, X and Y. Ford owns the trademark for ‘Model E’ which is why Tesla switch to the Model 3.

chigurh

I prefer to have my project called a piece of shit   

Mar 6, 19 11:42 am
gibbost

My favorite--slightly inappropriate, but often valid term--is 'pervert pocket'.  Those sorts of nooks and crannies in or around a building where a person might find themselves out of the line of sight and thus, may be inclined to do something bad.   

Mar 6, 19 12:04 pm
Non Sequitur

I don't even circle the subject and instead call them rape spots / corners. Gets the message across very well.

Steeplechase

I prefer to you the term “murder corner.”

Steeplechase

*use, not you

tduds

My first year professor called them "Dead Cat Spaces", which is a far better term.

jla-x

Very very offensive to PETA and to cats. Also, to be inclusive to live cats we should call it “ Schrodinger spaces” as the cat in that space may be alive or dead. STOP Assuming the quantum state of cats!

tintt

Those spaces are where dogs go to die.

tduds

or cats.

paperbottle

Well, semantics is very much part of architecture school and I didn't start that. It can derail juries, and again, not that I enjoy that either.  I am just holding my professors to the same standard. 


Sexy is not objectively descriptive and if it does so depend on the contex, why not just kill it the same way architects love to kill other words. It might actually make some people feel more comfortable and make you learn what you actually want to say. 


Words professors are triggered by : typology (so 90s right?), public/private (what does that mean anyway), elegant, different, interesting 


Words I think can go : sexy, sensual, masturbation, big.dk

Mar 6, 19 12:24 pm
Non Sequitur

Those are all great words. News flash, the entirety of school (and design in general) is subjectif. You can't just pick and choose which adjectifs people can use when they try to describe something. IF it's not reflective of your intent, you've either failed at communicating design or you need to ask the one making the sexy comment to clarify their intent.

Also, you must not be very good in studio if you don't get public/private.


randomised

I once described my project to my American professor as panty-like or something which included the word panty/panties, while panties are underwear in English of course, got some strange looks and giggles. I actually meant stockings which in Dutch are called 'panty' after pantyhose...

paperbottle

That's the point. We are already so picky about language in architecture, why not go for ones that have actual consequences in our immediate environments? The public/private thing comes up often, and each professor has their own attachment to these terms .

paperbottle

One professor said he has been trying to not use the word public space in teaching students anymore because it there is better work to be done in theorizing public space. If this is already being done for defining and describing speculative spaces in our pedagogy, maybe we can work at looking what language we use that contribute to a toxic culture.

jla-x

Maybe we could actually work on fixing real problems rather than invent new ones. Your speech policing has no endgame does it? I mean, can we ever ban all the offensive words...or will new ones become offensive? It’s like telling a kid to clean his room. It’s obvious when it’s really dirty...like clothes on floor, old pizza boxes...eventually though you need to define “clean”. What kind of totalitarian parenting would it take to make it suitable for surgery? Do we take out the microscope? Is there really a “clean” or is the point to constantly have something to scold people over...

paperbottle

I am for questioning the norm as a way to fix the problem of a pervasive toxic culture. It's only one way, but it's a start. Unless you have a better idea?

paperbottle

big.dk, sexy, sensual, masturbation are only markers of where we are at right now. and they are useless and not helping anyone.

jla-x

“Pervasive toxic culture” is a subjective statement. I find language policing to be pervasive and toxic. Why is your version of “toxic” more sanctimonious than mine?

jla-x

for instance I don’t find the term sexy offensive. It’s far more offensive that someone would regard themselves so morally correct and absolute as to tell me what I can and cannot say.

paperbottle

Well, then go after language policing all around then. Again, it's already happening, so why take issue with the one instant that it could address an actual occurring problem - school and workplace culture that is apathetic in the face of male sexual misconduct.

jla-x

Again, “sexual misconduct” is subjective. You want to police language and can’t ground your position. You are more interested in virtue and control than fixing anything. Only academia falls for this shit...normal people are laughing at the ridiculous illogical religion it’s become.

jla-x

Smiling is sexual misconduct. Prove me wrong or stop smiling. That’s essentially your argument. You get to choose the offense and everyone has to change their behavior. The offenses are of course endlessly small and ever changing...so you endlessly get to dictate morality... like a spoiled little brat...”ban things I don’t like and protect things I do like

jla-x

My solution is very simple. If you are that fragile...wrap yourself in padding rather than try to turn all of society into a giant padded room for the liberally insane.

Non Sequitur

This is great. Jla doing a volley-ball style spike with the microphone. I'm rather aroused now.

jla-x

Go hump a building :)

Non Sequitur

Jla, I am not as young as I want to be. It'll take me a few minutes.

randomised

What's offensive about "public space"? Or Bjarke Ingels Group dot Denmark?

senjohnblutarsky

A sexy building?

jla-x

Non, well done control joints usually get me going...

Non Sequitur

^ I am attending a seminar on control joints (not a joke) next week. I think I'll need to pack a spare pair of work pants.

Volunteer

I vote for keeping sexy and sensual. But 'diversity', 'inclusion', 'safe spaces', and your horrible 'triggered', which is about as hackneyed as you can get, really do need to be canned.  

Mar 6, 19 12:37 pm
Non Sequitur

safe space is all the rage right now in gov projects... that and active shooter. I kind you fucking not. Remember, I don't like in 2nd Amendment crazed usa.

Insert X sensibilities also.  I swear, in your typical gov staff pool, there is at least one person allergic to everything.  Carpet? Nope... Vynil floor? nada... what about sexy moss living walls? big fat no (am I fat-shaming no with that comment?).  Next thing we'll need to design for is zodiac signs and people's colour auras.  If anyone is offended by me shitting on their aura sensibilities, then I say good.  I am happy that I offended your nonsense.  Almost a true story... likely to become true at one point in the not so distant future.

  

Finjohn

Agreed

jla-x

+++volunteer

randomised

Not to mention the curtailing of freedom of speech and the press in an attempt to attack dissident opinions that question the status quo under the guise of "preventing" fake news to spread. That is what the EU or American tech companies are doing these days.

paperbottle

Did you forget positionality on purpose or is that just reflective that you don't know you own?

randomised

What's positionality

senjohnblutarsky

Positionality? Sounds kinky. Or even... sexy.

jla-x

There are people who are sexually attracted to buildings.  It’s called objectum sexuality.  The op is discriminating against this gender group.  They need to be blacklisted ASAP!  Sexist objectumphobic bastard!!! I’m highly offended by their claim that buildings cannot be sexy.  



Mar 6, 19 1:19 pm
Non Sequitur

I admit, I've caressed more than one building in highly inappropriate ways. Where is my Netflix documentary?

jla-x

Hey man, as long as you keep your junk away from the MEP stuff it’s no ones business...MEP fetishes are for perverts and engineers.

Non Sequitur

I call bullshit on that. Show me one MEP who actually gives a fuck about MEP.

Finjohn

Does anyone find this building sexy or offensive?

Mar 6, 19 1:54 pm
jla-x

Offensive. I like vaginas

Finjohn

LOL!

Non Sequitur

I prefer more pronounced ribbing.

jla-x

And it looks like it has testicular cancer which is offensive to survivors. And not circumcised which offends some religions. The stripes are also racist.

randomised

Offensive. I like architecture.

BulgarBlogger

The word "sexy" is reserved for those who can't express what they mean. Its a trendy word with zero substance.

Mar 6, 19 2:21 pm
randomised

That's a sexy comment!

BulgarBlogger

What does that even mean? Sexy is extremely subjective. You are fetishizing something that may be attractive to one person, but not another.

Definition of fetish: a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.

BulgarBlogger

When a prof. asks you to create something "sexy" they mean do something that will catch attention or be "edgy" in the most peripheral non-substantive way possible. The prof is essentially telling you that he's not excited by your work and doesn't know how to explain why...

jla-x

I would totally take that as a form of sexual harassment and sue the school and ruin the profs life....because we must remove nuance from speech!!! Sexy only means one thing- we fuckin...isn’t it funny how people complaining about nuance like Sneakypeter are trying to remove the
nuance from language and behavior?

jla-x

And my interpretation IS THE reality because I am the center of the universe...meh what do u expect from the narcissistic me me trophy generation...

tduds

Yes, a building can be 'sexy'

No, this isn't an example of PC Culture run amok.

Both extremes in this debate are annoying and wrong.

Mar 6, 19 2:43 pm
jla-x

Can PC culture ever go too far? If so, where is the line?

Non Sequitur

I am offended by the term line. It implies limitation and I am morally and spiritually opposed to limits.

randomised

The line is right behind you

jla-x

Thats deep. It’s “Vector” from now until infinity

Finjohn

PC culture has already gone too far. Either we have freedom of speech or we don't. Of course people need to be sensitive of others but it has gone so far that so many are so easily offended over so many things. Now they are even talking about eliminating pronouns for goodness sake! That is definitely crossing the line.

SneakyPete

Nuance is totally fucking lost on some.

Finjohn

Great vid about where PC is leading us and how wrong it can be: https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM

jla-x

How about tolerating how other people talk rather than trying to dictate speech? I find it highly “offensive” when Ivy League elites try to dictate the speech of other cultures and sub-cultures that they deem vulgarians.

Finjohn

Agreed

SneakyPete

Aww, you guys. It's a love fest of carelessness up in here.

Finjohn

What have we said that is careless?

tduds

PC Culture doesn't exist. It's a made up term that's been weaponized by assholes who are too fragile to face the accountability and social ostracization that comes with being an asshole.

tduds

We have freedom of speech. What you're asking for is freedom from consequence, which is dumb.

SneakyPete

tduds is correct.

tduds

That video is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed to have shared it.

tduds

"The progressive liberal agenda isn’t about being nice. It’s about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death. It’s about acknowledging the ways systemic power, systemic oppression, systemic evil, work in our world around us. I’m not fighting for diversity. I’m not fighting for tolerance. I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression." https://medium.com/@tuckerfitzgerald/intolerant-liberals-4ecd712ac939

jla-x

Can I decide what offends me and demand others accommodate or do I need to be an ally of the authoritarian left to qualify?

jla-x

“It’s about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death.” Ahhh so your “good” and people who disagree are “evil”. Do you realize how seriously insane and self serving that sounds?

jla-x

“We have freedom of speech. What you're asking for is freedom from consequence, which is dumb.“. No we are just exercising our freedom of speech by pointing out how dumb, unhelpful, and biased most pc bs is. We are also fighting against this shit from being codified by administrators and used to turn the university into a monoculture of religious loonies.

tduds

You're whining about imaginary problems. Ironically.

tduds

Ahhh so your “good” and people who disagree are “evil” 

Swing and a miss.

tduds

Why are people who haven't been in college for decades so obsessed with the minutia of speech on college campuses? What a bunch of fake outrage.

jla-x

“I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression." This statement needs to be grounded. How do we know when this goal has been accomplished? Like the example of the messy room and the never satisfied parent....how much dirt are we willing to accept? Some? None? Do we demand that the room is never clean and impose the impossible goal of total sterilization..?

Of course declaring that our society is equal would render Marxism no longer necessary. It’s existence relies on the struggle of power between the oppressed and the oppressor. So as society becomes more and more just and equal the microscope keeps focusing on smaller and smaller specks of dirt....the more ridiculous the claim the more fair the society is.

Vox: “Knitting is racist!”
Normal person “My god that’s one fair society you must have there!”

The university is the most liberal place the world has seen...so no surprise the Leftists will find the most ridiculous claims of oppression to keep the narrative alive...It’s all about power anyway...the open ended goals are a means to keep it.

tduds

LOL

tduds

The fundamental misunderstanding here (so fundamental I have trouble believing it's not a deliberate misunderstanding) is that a request is interpreted as a demand and consequence is interpreted as oppression. 

There's a difference between a law that prevents someone from shouting the N-word in public and common decency that suggests it's a horrible thing to do.

It's not illegal to be an asshole, but that doesn't make one any less of an asshole.

Again, tduds, you are fighting the good fight - also the right one, the one that follows the logical conclusion of any thinking person who wants to live in a functional society - but you're whistling in the wind when it comes to changing the minds of some people. Still, I appreciate you writing your thoughts because they are so clearly stated!

jla-x

tduds, I fully understand the difference...where did I say anything about free speech being violated?

randomised

I don't know if labelling something the 'good' or even 'right' fight is that helpful, it immediately disqualifies other(s') as bad or wrong, no?

tduds

jla-x: Finjohn said it. I'm responding to the argument and not you personally.

tduds

Thanks Donna. My goal in debate is not to change the mind of the person I'm debating, but to sway a neutral / susceptible audience member. Just here to provide a counterpoint.

jla-x

tduds, I don’t believe that people are truly offended by the word “sexy” in reference to a building. I think it’s bullshit. It seems like many people in academia are simply trying to exert social and cultural control. The virtue signaling is mostly self serving nonsense. I’m not saying that it’s some conspiracy, but rather a social phenomenon that has been worsened by social media. As Johnathan Hiaght has said in “the coddling of the American Mind” there seems to be a social game in play where the offended are trying to gain social points with peers...a sort of virtue signaling that looks ever deeper for smaller and smaller things to be upset about...And...a longing to be the underdog/victim in a world where they have seen more privilege than anytime in human history... I simply refuse to play this dumb game. I’m not going to walk on eggshells at the expense of real debate, humor, fun, art... to please some brat looking to find the smallest most obscure offense...”wow buddy if that offends you...you must be really really sensitive therefore really really good!” It’s a bs manipulation designed to simply get ones way and feel as if they are affecting the system..controlling the public like they controlled their moms and dads. Little brats can kiss my ass. Social and cultural norms in language change over time naturally...they aren’t demanded and mandated by 20yo’s and cowering administrators.

paperbottle

:insert kavanaugh face meme here:

tduds

Lot to unpack here... *cracks knuckles*

tduds

Sigh... post got deleted. This interface needs some fixing, Archinect.

tduds

I don’t believe that people are truly offended by the word “sexy” in reference to a building.

Me either! That, in fact, was my original post in this thread.

It seems like many people in academia are simply trying to exert social and cultural control.

No they're not! In this case, one person made a suggestion. It was pretty universally countered. End of discussion. 

I’m not saying that it’s some conspiracy, but rather a social phenomenon that has been worsened by social media.

It's worsened by traditional media who are inclined (& in some cases mandated) to give "both sides" of an argument. In cases where an opposing side doesn't really exist, they often unwittingly give equal stature to a radical and insignificant voice. This is what's happening in this thread. One person made a suggestion which, again, was nearly universally shut down, and a few folks pounced on it as evidence of a big scary trend. Any statistician can tell you that one data point does not a trend make. If the responses in this thread were overwhelmingly in favor of banning the word 'sexy' from Architectural discussion, maybe you'd have a point in our objection. But that's simply not happening.

I simply refuse to play this dumb game.

You are playing the game though. By taking a righteous stance against an imaginary villain, it reinforces the false narrative that these two sides are somehow equal, or that the danger of word policing in Architectural academia even exists (it doesn't). 

The way to play the game is to recognize this thread for what it is: A well-meaning but misguided suggestion, for which the answer is a simple dismissal. That you're on a soapbox about The Kids Today is, in fact, you playing the game.

tduds

My original rant was better. Sorry y'all.

tduds

Yes professors can use the word "sexy", but they should recognize that there are social dynamics and contexts in which 'sexy' is not the best word to use. This doesn't require legislation, but simple social awareness of the weight their authority carries and the responsibility expected of someone in a position of authority / education. 

That's the consensus here. If you disagree with that, at least disagree with that. Don't make up something else to disagree with and then accuse me of taking the side of your imagination.

senjohnblutarsky

There was a professor at my school who insisted we couldn't just "like" something.  We weren't allowed to use that word in his presence, or we'd get a fucking boring lecture.  

You know what?  I like sexy buildings.  And no, that can't possibly tell you anything specific about my feelings or about the buildings.  But ima keep doing it.  Ima keep liking my sexy buildings.  

Mar 6, 19 3:17 pm
paperbottle

That's fine. I want my buildings to be elegant too, even though I shouldn't. I am just asking for the professors to be more aware of their behavior. Especially in light of multiple faculty being on that list.

tduds

"There was a professor at my school who insisted we couldn't just "like" something." 

From a pedagogical standpoint, I support this. He's teaching you to think critically about your opinions, which is how one becomes a designer.

If he pulled that at a cocktail party, sure I'd think it's pedantic & condescending. But that kind of critical instigation is why you go to design school. 

randomised

To stop this endless discussion let's just look at some art:


https://www.theguardian.com/ar...

Mar 6, 19 3:23 pm
jla-x

speech is cultural.  There are many cultures and sub cultures that have varying speech norms.  Dictating speech is ethnocentric.  PC is ethnocentric.  



Mar 6, 19 4:41 pm
Volunteer

The quartz standard definition of "sexy".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Mar 6, 19 4:45 pm
randomised

.
Mar 6, 19 4:49 pm
shazaaammm

y do u all state your opinions like yall are the most enlightened lads in the room


i feel like tduds got it right "sexy" can be fine in contexts, but it can also be wrong in some contexts, just read the room. both extremes (too PC, too anti-PC) are toxic in some ways. 

some of yall sound straight up victimized by people who are trying to figure out what things are offensive and what are not. maybe yall never had anything to be offended about cuz society is built in a way that protects your interests and your race/culture/creed/class. But nothings one size fits all so why is it so wrong to want to try and accomodate everyone. CHILL


Mar 7, 19 4:48 pm
jla-x

Society (western) is built in a way that protects everyone’s interests. This is why we have rights that apply to “the individual” not to every intersectional group imaginable (which happens to eventually reduce to the individual anyways because everyone is different:) Your post actually gets to the core of the issue- Identity politics and the emphasis on intersectional groups rather than the individual taking over academia and half of society. Our society has progressed and become more fair because of the idea that the individual is the primary unit. The left is trying to undo this and put the emphasis on the group. This is dangerous and counterproductive. If you view the world as a battleground between groups, rather than a collection of individuals, then I can see why you would push this kind of pc leftist agenda. micro aggressions, offensive language, etc...only works if you believe that group identity of paramount. If you believe that individual identity is paramount (as I do) the idea of “accommodating everyone” is problematic as each person has individual grievances and perspectives that determine offensive
.

jla-x

*speech and actions. The implications on this ideology has damaged architecture and landscape architecture education and less so practice...which is why I gripe about it so much.

jla-x

Spelling and grammar is a mess...sorry

tduds

shazaaammm: Thanks.

jla-x: Lol no

tduds

.

paperbottle

shazaaammm & tduds

paperbottle

Oops. Well, just wanted to say I appreciate your insight and sort of see where I went wrong. Of course, I can't attack a single set of words, and also I shouldn't believe something like an archinect discussion will fix anything. From where I stand, I do feel lack of accountability or even acknowledgement of the inappropriate behaviors the shitty architecture men list documented, for my faculty at least. Even though not all of my professors were on there, the reactions on this forum are pretty reflective of the "protect the old guard" attitude that is looming over. It is imaginative, yes, but given that we all know who was on that list and have to inhabit the same space daily, questioning why, imagination is one place to resort to.

paperbottle

The nuance is a bit of a work around, and no, my skin is not as thin as some have suggested. But at the current state, erring on the side of being proactive seems necessary to move the conversation forward.

paperbottle

Your words definely haven't fallen on deaf ears. Just hope that clarified my thoughts.

tduds

100% agree that Architecture is riddled with toxic culture and toxic humans. There are a whole lot of issues to be fixed, especially in prestigious universities and prestigious offices. Between burnout culture and persistent misogyny / sexism / racism, something has to change. I think there is a lot of good commentary to be found in this thread between the bouts of heated exchange.

jla-x

^misogyny/sexism/racism cannot be reduced through pc word control, or by further feeding identity politics (which is actually the force behind racism.) getting back to actual liberal ideals that respect Individuality above all else, and that focus on individual betterment rather than social engineering will.

jla-x

The thing is, when you try to tell people what to do, and label them as “bad” they usually will tell u to fuck off and double down on whatever it is that they did. It’s basic human nature to rebel against authority. When something good is being forced you end up with people rebeling by doing the opposite. Anyone with kids knows this. Force feeding veggies will produce really bad eating habits.

RickB-Astoria

Oppressive anything is always going to intensify polarization. There are jackasses on both sides and all they do is intensify polarization.

paperbottle

Said above that I get the whole word point. If starting any conversation about toxic culture is oppressive to you, that says more about you than me.

paperbottle

Seriously, why are the old boys' club ways so important to you all?

RickB-Astoria

My reply wasn't targeting you. I wasn't even thinking of you with my message. I was actually replying to jla-x's comment (no, he's not a target of my points, either) but I wasn't placing names or inferring names of individuals here. I was talking about the concept and principle of assholism happens on both sides of controversial topics with extreme views. When assholes (jackasses) try to force their view on others with oppression, it doesn't serve the benefit. Forcing anything with oppressive tactics and no compassion does nothing but begets evil by evil. It only hardens and polarizes people and this is really how wars actually happened in the past and even in the present.

paperbottle

Ah, my bad . I'm an asshole.

RickB-Astoria

Why do you think you are the target?

paperbottle

It seems like j-lax cannot reach any level of acceptable accountability, and wants to dismiss it outright as authoritarian. I Read your comment following that strain of thought.

paperbottle

Change can't be forced down anyone's throat and should be natural in some sense. But the way it is being ignored and resisted particular in light of a major cultural moment is unnatural.

paperbottle

I feel that the arguments on here, by a select few, have been MRA-adjacent. Sorry to loop you into that.

RickB-Astoria

cultural movements that are taking place at the pace it is is unnatural including by historical accounts. The modern media technology and now social media is pushing the movements at pace that is sub-century timeframe. The historic natural pace is lifetimes in duration. People need to naturally die off and that was how the old ways ended by passing away. Natural cultural changes are about making small incremental changes and gradual not radicalism. What is unnatural is condemning and demonizing people for actions they may have done (as it is all accusations) when it was cultural acceptable and expected. Even the women of the 60s were very much sexual in their ways and they were just as much about using their sexualism to attract or even manipulate men that found them sexually attractive. We aren't talking about Holy Saints of purity. Men and women are both concurrently sinners and saints in their nature as all humans are. They are not perfect sinless beings. We have things like courts and judicial principles like the presumption of innocent until proven guilty not guilty upon accusation and have to prove yourself innocent. That is the EVIL of accusations and social media injustice based condemnation. I'm afraid people will be taking law into their own hands and actually start killing people accused. Anyone can make accusations. Whether it is true or not can't be easily seen. People who know they are lying will eventually tell the same lie enough times to themselves that they belief it. There are truths. There are lies and there are facts. Truths may not be lies but also may not be fact. I have my concern of the social disarray that is happening that will on its logical progression lead to destruction of civilization. I argue that there needs to be BOTH an increase in sensitivity of each other but also more tolerance and emotional self control. We need to build the RELATIONSHIP of our society that is sadly broken. Why tolerance and emotional self-control? First, we need to not jump to the worst conclusion about each other and not let words break you. There is no such thing as a social law to guide us. We have everyone's own opinion but no leadership. What is socially acceptable? How can anyone know that of all places at all times. We also tend to retroactively look on the past in our contemporary lenses and we are condemning people for that. In fact, there was a time when women wore mini skirts and micro-skirts proudly. This doesn't mean all women but that some portion. I use the word women in the previous sentence first as mere plural and not all because the word 'all' is not used. Grammatically correct and it is logical fallacy to throw in a word that wasn't there to imply a meaning. That's distortion. In my experience, I seen a bit of that. So what is wrong with the word "sexual"? For what it is worth, it is my opinion that asexuality is biologically abnormal (and don't mean it in a demonizing way) with regards to adult humans. However, I do believe it is natural to have some various levels of sexuality. I don't expect men to be attractive to all women and women to be attractive to all men. However, sometimes the degree of sexual interest between people may vary but also situational. I expect children to be less sexualized at their pre-adolescent (pre-teen) years. As for LGBT community stuff, I don't want to demonize them but they certainly don't fit the statistical biological norm. However, there may be a sort of fad of sort going on with some in the LGBT. Some are born naturally leaning with an non-typical sexual orientation but some are not and there are factors to it. The validity is not my place to judge so no judgment on my part as I am not placing a verdict. Yet in all the dynamic scope of discussion since the first post, when it comes to use of certain wordage in the context of architectural form is something I just don't really find it sensible to me but others chose to use it to reference the curvature of structural form that resembles the curvature of human body form like that which maybe sexually arousing like the curvature from of a the model sexual woman's hip and leg with smoothness and elegance. In other cases, it is just down right baffling. Here, I'm not talking about "boobs" and phallus.

paperbottle

Haha ok I get. Don't be so serious. Lesson learned in the weirdest kind of way.

jla-x

“Said above that I get the whole word point. If starting any conversation about toxic culture is oppressive to you, that says more about you than me.“. You dope! The whole point is that “toxic” is subjective. I don’t impose my version of toxic onto others...you are suggesting that we do for your version...sorry doesn’t work like that.

tduds

The whole point is that “toxic” is subjective. 

...but there's a bell curve. It's not like everyone's idea is so individual and incongruous that we can't collectively agree on a more or less mean definition of "toxic." Suggesting otherwise might mean that your version is far outside the mean and you'd rather not come to terms with that reality.

RickB-Astoria

The majority of words have quasi established meaning while they maybe interpreted like the different flavors of ice cream but have some general congruence (hence all still ice cream). The bell curve of sort as you expressed it is the statistical normal pattern. There are some strays in the plot but they can be statistically discounted as their are statistically insignificant. All words in English and pretty much in any language is this way. The more we don't bastardize the language, the clearer our meaning and communication would be.

tduds

Thanks for... defining a bell curve?

RickB-Astoria

lol... ok.

paperbottle

Your post actually gets to the core of the issue- Identity politics and the emphasis on intersectional groups

Centrist intersectionalist?  Interesting...

Mar 7, 19 6:06 pm

The entire culture is based on sex - not procreation, but advertising and consumption. How many ads have scantily clad young women or buff young guys in varying degrees of undress specifically intended to make products more attractive? The great irony is that sex in media is restricted while people getting their brains blow out is the basis for a vast entertainment industry.

And someone has their panties in a twist because 'sexy' was used to encourage design?  LOL

Beyond that, tduds for the win with an absolute backboard-smashing slam dunk.


Mar 7, 19 6:35 pm
shazaaammm

jla-x : "society isn't created to protect the interests of an individual"

Today: Manafort gets 47 months

Society protects the interests of certain individuals more than others. And it protects corporations and certain socioeconomic classes far more than other individuals. This isn't about "identity politics", but its interesting that that is what mainly is used to dismiss arguments against right-leaning politics. 

Well, we're pretty far from the discussion about the word "sexy" at this point, but the presupposition that Western society protects everyone equally assumes that everyone starts at a level playing field in the eyes of institutions that hold power in Western society, which is just not true.

This isn't to say that Americans have it worse than most, because that is of course not true, but this mentality of being totally enamored with the status quo of society is just...bizarre. 

Mar 8, 19 9:26 am
Non Sequitur

your comment is not sexy.

The purpose of government is to protect us from each other. Libertarians like jla-x see this as a violation of their personal freedom, but only when it used to protect someone else. This is one of the fundamental contradictions of libertarianism.

jla-x

Miles, that shows your ignorance on the subject.

jla-x

Shazaaaammm, that’s not my quote. You are Fake news.

jla-x

Miles, libertarians believe that the governments job is the protect individual liberties and rights....you can do as you please so long as you don’t violate the rights and liberties of others. You don’t have a right to be not offended. I do have a right to free speech. You are completely misunderstanding political philosophy.

Non Sequitur

...now watch my inbox implode due to the dozens of response. Hopefully Mr. Balkinator does not get a whiff of this.

shazaaammm

You are right, I misquoted. You said "Society (western) is built in a way that protects everyone’s interests."

The intention of my comment was to say that Western society protects some peoples/groups/corporations/institutions interests more than others. 

Apologies for the misquote....but I believe my point still stands. 

jla-x

Individual rights and liberties are guaranteed under the law. Is the law equally and fairly applied at all times, no. This is mostly because judges have a certain degree of discretion. Manafort got off light maybe, but this happens with all kinds of people for all kinds of crimes including violent and heinous ones. I agree with your main point though. The problem is, and I addressed this in the “clean room example” are we judging society based on impossible standards of perfection, or relative to other societies and periods of history? The get a 100% perfect society would require an enormous amount of authority and render a dystopian nightmare. We have to accept (not condone but accept) a certain degree of undesirable things in order to have a freedom. The Omar issue is interesting because it’s a leftist being attacked by PC police. She imo has the right to criticize Israel, whether I agree or not, without being accused of bigotry. This is a perfect example of PC bs stifling debate and silencing dissenting opinions. I really didn’t see anything anti-Semitic in her statements. Seemed she was critical of the regime, not the people. PC is often weaponized to shut people up. That’s anti-intellectual and counterproductive. Why wouldn’t we want people to speak their minds? Even if they have terrible ideas, how can we debate them and educate them if they are keeping those ideas in the closet out of fear from social and economic repercussions?

jla-x

Also, you implication that the justice system is racist/classist is the problem with identity politics. Some individuals within it likely are racist/classist, but you are suggesting that racism permeates eventually throughout the System. This isn’t true, and it demonizes the mostly good people who try to apply the law fairly. A few bad apples in the police force for instance doesn’t render all police racist. This tendency to lump people into groups based on a few attributes and then vilify them all based on the bad seeds in the group rather than judge everyone as an individual is identity politics. It is not a recipe to undo racism, it is the root of all racism.

tduds

Our country was literally built on genocide + slavery and just because we don't currently practice genocide or slavery doesn't mean those ideals aren't baked into our societal structure.

tduds

Are all your takes this bad, or are you just looking for buttons to push?

jla-x

Name a society that wasn’t.

tduds

"The US isn't racist" 

"Yes it is" 

"Yeah well, all the other countries are racist too." 

This is a weird hill to defend, even for you.

jla-x

I’m not defending it. I’m stating a fact. Name a racist/sexist policy baked in the books and I am with you that it needs to change. To simply declare the whole thing flawed because of past injustices, despite the fact that the overall ideals/tenents have tended towards, and allowed for, the pursuit and success of a “more perfect union” is counterproductive.

jla-x

You are positioning the US as having a uniquely horrible history. I simply stated the fact that it is not unique in that regard unfortunately. Therefore if all societies have flawed roots, shouldn’t we judge by their ability to progress beyond them rather than past atrocities committed by people mostly long dead.

jla-x

Correction....*rather than judge them on those atrocities committed by people mostly long dead.

tduds

"You are positioning the US as having a uniquely horrible history." No I'm not.

tduds

Housing policy, for an easy start, is riddled with the vestiges of racism. Redlining 75 years ago persists through inequalities in land value, home ownership, and inter-generational wealth accumulation.

tduds

Education gap is another big one.

tduds

Here's a great lecture about the implicit racism baked into transportation policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HHKx5OVJ7w

tduds

If you're interested, Tamika Butler (linked above) and Antwi Akom (linked here) are both fantastic speakers on societal structural racism and how the built environment reflects (and can remedy) our racist history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdpDdyJI3_s

tduds

"Therefore if all societies have flawed roots, shouldn’t we judge by their ability to progress beyond them rather than past atrocities committed by people mostly long dead." 

Ok. By this standard, we still haven't progressed much. For a timely microexample, state legalization of marijuana so far has largely benefitted white business owners while countless black men remain in prison for possession of a now-legal substance. Where are their pardons? 

Repealing the unjust law without making attempts to remedy the lives of those harmed by the law is not justice.

jla-x

Housing policy, for an easy start, is riddled with the vestiges of racism. Redlining 75 years ago persists through inequalities in land value, home ownership, and inter-generational wealth accumulation.“. Yes, but you are conflating cause and effect. Past policies have present effect. True. No one is arguing that society is currently perfect. The problem is what do you do about it? The recent debate about reparations is a relevant example of the left relying on loose identities to correct effects of past policies. The complexity of that would be ridiculous.

jla-x

And about the weed...the libertarians have been on that page for a while.

curtkram

"what do you do about it?" affirmative action.

b3tadine[sutures]
Volunteer

The whole "hate speech" thing is absurd. Anyone who uses words from a long (and ever-changing) list of offensive words will be socially ostracized - and that is enough. If you start forbidding certain words it will invariably lead to political censorship. We don't need a Ministry of Truth to OK or not OK certain words.

Mar 8, 19 10:48 am

Political censorship, supported by the corporate media: Rep. Omar told the truth and was labeled "anti-semetic". This is used to derail any criticism of AIPAC, Israel, and Israeli interests.

jla-x

Yup

Non Sequitur

#allwordsmatter

randomised

#allwordsmattetbutminealittlemorethanyours

randomised

Crap! I fucked up my hashtag :(

Non Sequitur

matte is always sexier than glossy

randomised

True, glossy quickly turns cheap/trashy. Except when it's Mies' glossy chrome column obviously.

tduds

"We don't need a Ministry of Truth to OK or not OK certain words." 

Is anyone *actually* advocating this? I only encounter arguments against it, usually as a bad-faith derailing attempt when someone suggests we add a word to the list mentioned in your opening sentence. You know who you are.

Non Sequitur

thou shall not speak ill of our lord Mies (pbuh)

Miles, I'm glad you brought up the Rep. Ilhan Omar kerfuffle. I'm of course a huge fan of her! But I'm trying to be fair, so I've been trying really, really hard this week to think about how often I give a knee-jerk condemnation to people on the right when they say something careless that can be easily pumped up to being perceived as offensive. It's hard. I mean, it's not hard to find examples of it - on both sides! - but it's hard to put in the constant energy to *really think carefully and generously* about what someone means when they speak, and what the context is, and what a fair response is.

jla-x

tduds, you are pretending that administrations don’t have actual lists of offensive words/gestures and that people are being held accountable for using them. Most are ridiculous. This stuff is being institutionalized. It’s not paranoia to question such a system especially on a college campus that is in charge of facilitating thinking...ESPECIALLY if they are state schools recieving tax dollars.

tduds

Gonna need a link there.

tduds

Nevermind that universities aren't the government and the principles of the constitution don't apply to them. Losing your job is not equivalent to being convicted of a crime, so it follows that being fired for something your employer deems a fireable offense is not a violation of your rights.

Of course anyone is always welcome to challenge this principle in the courts, but - ironically thanks to Republican policy - 'Right to Work' pretty much guarantees the employer will win the case.

RickB-Astoria

Public community college, college, and universities are public agencies of the appropriate public government entity and hence the public. In those cases, the U.S. Constitution does apply to them. There are layers of laws that makes it a little more convoluted. Private colleges are private institutions much like religious institutionally owned colleges. In the latter, there is more degrees of separation of government oversight on the matters. Totally separate matters. In any case, private and religious colleges, the Constitution does not apply but it doesn't mean they are totally free of consequences. In reality, it's just not cut and dry.

jla-x

^I never said it did. I also support the rights of a private entity to create its own speech policy within its own space. Archinect can censor whatever it wants. I’m not criticizing the institutions freedom to curtail speech. I am criticizing the culture that would want to.

jla-x

With state schools it’s different...

tduds

I've finally grown tired of chasing these moving goalposts. I'm out - for now.

Gotta go design some sexy canopy details.

RickB-Astoria

jla-x, my previous reply wasn't directly replying to what you said but what tduds wrote. Now, he may have meant private universities but it wasn't explicit so it could be assumed or not assumed so I rather not assume words were implied that weren't stated.

jla-x

I know

jla-x

I should be more clear picking at the left, because they control academia, but identity politics and pc bs is played by the authoritarian/nationalist right as well obviously.  





Mar 8, 19 11:48 am
tduds

All politics is Identity Politics. We just don't call it that when the identity is white men.

Mar 8, 19 12:20 pm
( o Y o )

"the left controls academia"

keep making shit up ... it really adds to your credibility. also lovely contradiction to your statements above

is political partisanship a form of classism? evidenced by the congressional and media response to Rep. Omar it is racism, which is what she is being accused of

Mar 8, 19 1:20 pm
jla-x

Lol. Academia is overwhelmingly left. I don’t understand the question.

tduds

"All the smart people are liberals!" is my favorite self-own.

jla-x

She didn’t make a racist statement. She criticized a regime. The mental gymnastics perpetrated by the ones wanting to silence her expanded the definition of racism to suit their needs. This is a clear issue with a loose ended subjective declaration of offensive speech.

tduds

Kinda weird how forming a political coalition based on anti-intellectual resentment results in the majority of intellectuals ending up in an opposing political coalition. 

We're so far off topic but I'm kind of enjoying knocking down these easy targets while my Friday brain struggles to turn on.

Mar 8, 19 1:26 pm

You can depend on jla-x to keep tossing up softballs for you to hit out of the park.

jla-x

Citations or didn’t happen

Pretty much every response tduds made to you in this thread. I'm sure you feel like you came out on top despite the overwhelming lack of support for your positions. Anarchistic individualism triumphs over the collective! LOL

jla-x

LOL. Every collectivist society has failed miserably while individualism has led to the greatest advances in everything since the enlightenment...therefore collectivism wins by Miles logic. From the gulags of Long Island.

jla-x

By Lack of support for my positions

jla-x

I’d say most people on earth would support individualism over collectivism...even the North Koreans if they had the freedom to think like an individual...

"Every collectivist society has failed miserably" except for China (about 1/4 of the planet's population) and many other countries. Your limited knowledge of the world around you is appalling, but a good basis for your political beliefs.

"I’d say most people on earth would support individualism over collectivism" Did you conduct that survey yourself?

Opinion is not fact. You should learn the difference. Here is a fact: many collective societies such as Native Americans and others were eradicated by "individualist" societies.

Society only functions because of collectivism. Which was the point that you misconstrued in an absurd attempt to advance your idiotic, inhumane political ideology.

I will admit to making a mistake here - unblocking you to address your nonsense. Rest assured that has now been corrected.

jla-x

you are mistaking cooperative for collective and selfish for individualist. Valuing individuality and applying rights and liberties to individuals rather than groups is more just. Goodnight. Thanks for playing.

archi_dude

Doesn't the fact that individualistic societies eradicated many collectivist societies sort of prove his point that collective societies stagnate and don't innovate?

That's a provocative question, archi-dude. To me it brings to mind the quote about growth for the sake of growth being what a cancerous tumor does. I'm not anti-innovation, but I'm also a big fan of The Lorax! Seriously, destroying your host is not a good strategy. I read a novel recently (The People In The Trees by Hanya Yanagihara) that was about an indigenous society and how existence can become terribly unbalanced terribly quickly (it's a harrowing book, for a lot of reasons, but the anthropological aspect of the story was fascinating).

Is genocide - the most extreme form of racism - innovation?

I don't think anyone is saying that it is, Miles. But genocide definitely seems like a cancer, a pathological drive to change an existing balance, regardless of outcome.

jla-x

Individualism is not about being a selfish asshole, it is about valuing individuality above group association. It is about protecting the ultimate minority, the individual. It is about judging people for who they are rather than the group they belong to. This used to be the ideal of the liberals. It seems that now, group identity is being elevated to greater importance. This is dangerous imo as it leads to tribalism, racism, and ignorance. The nationalist alt right and the new left is toying with a dangerous game. History proves that it never ends well.

Donna, you need to read that post again. The direct inference is that collective societies stagnate and don't "innovate" (definition required), thereby providing justification for their eradication.

Those savages stand in the way of progress! This is as racist as you can get.

jla-x

Tribal societies work perfectly. Large modern collectivist
societies do not.

jla-x

*tribal societies often work...that’s not to say oppression doesn’t exist within them...as well as war.

b3tadine[sutures]

Again with this bullshit "Rugged Individualism" trope, it's sooo, 8th grade.

jla-x

Leftist: “we must protect minorities! They are the most vulnerable yay for intersectionality” Classical liberal: How many intersections are there? Leftist: “an infinite amount” Classical liberal: “like one for each person?” Leftist: “I guess” Classical liberal: “I agree, let’s protect the individual!”

b3tadine[sutures]

Rugged individualism, derived from "individualism", is a term that indicates the virtuous ideal where an individual is totally self-reliant and independent from outside assistance. Often associated with the notion of laissez-faire and its supporters, the term was actually coined by the interventionist American President Herbert Hoover, a Progressive Republican who presided over the beginning of the Great Depression.[1][2]

Hoover, yup, that great Americant


paperbottle

jla-x - what is your definition of intersectionality? just curious...

jla-x

paperbottle, see the new post below...

jla-x

b3, you are debating individualism with a definition of a different term “rugged individualism”. I’m not familiar with the latter meaning. I’m guessing it’s a survival of the fittest thing. I don’t think that is a good thing. We can value individuality (as MLK clearly did) while maintaining charitable and altruistic behavior. I’m not sure where this idea came from that individualism is synonymous with selfishness? I also don’t understand this idea that libertarianism mandates selfishness. Both simple give the individual free will to be or not to be selfish. The alternative is forced altruism. How do you force altruism without oppressing? How do you remove free will without diminishing good will to obedience?

jla-x

that’s the problem with PC. It supposes people are “good” or “correct” for not saying words that carry personal consequences, rather than simply acting out of obedient and self interest. It’s a form of coerced behavior.

paperbottle

beta, that quote! I have also seen another non-MLK version, 'the rich has state help, and the poor have self help'.

paperbottle

*have, idc.

b3tadine[sutures]

"Tribal societies work perfectly. Large modern collectivist societies do not." 

About as nonsensical as it gets.

Tribal society is the stable social system with a division of labour organised around extended family relations, in which people lived before the rupture into social classes.

“The population is extremely sparse; it is dense only at the tribe’s place of settlement, around which lie in a wide circle first the hunting grounds and then the protective belt of neutral forest, which separates the tribe from others. The division of labour is purely primitive, between the sexes only. The man fights in the wars, goes hunting and fishing, procures the raw materials of food and the tools necessary for doing so. The woman looks after the house and the preparation of food and clothing, cooks, weaves, sews. They are each master in their own sphere: the man in the forest, the woman in the house. Each is owner of the instruments which he or she makes and uses: the man of the weapons, the hunting and fishing implements, the woman of the household gear. The housekeeping is communal among several and often many families. What is made and used in common is common property-the house, the garden, the long-boat. [Origins of the Family, Chapter 9]

“Tribal society” is a description which covers a vast array of societies, from the earliest humans who first stood upright and who have long since disappeared from the Earth, up to the citizens of the early Greek polis before about 600 B.C. and indigenous people in many remote parts of the world today, who maintain herds, live in settled villages and engage in a certain amount of trade.

What characterises tribal society is that there are no social classes; for this reason the earliest stages of tribal society is sometimes referred to as “primitive communism”.

Marxist

Stop playing yourself.

jla-x

I edited what I wrote below what you quoted...as you saw...Tribal societies are all very different...yes. What I was saying in response to Miles was that “collective” societies are only stable with very small populations that engage in subsistence living...within tribal societies there are hierarchies...wars...oppression...etc. He implied that tribal societies are collective. Not necessarily true, but yes, on a small scale it can be stable.

jla-x

No “social classes” every anthropologist on the planet would disagree.

jla-x

There are many many “tribal societies” that have social strata and hierarchy. What’s your point?

jla-x

The debate wasn’t about tribal societies...it was about collectivist vs individualist ones....his example of tribes is moot...also over simplified...and idealized... comparing apples and oranges

Volunteer

Forget "sexy" I think the word "racist" should be the next "N-word". People that use the "R-word" should be socially shunned. It has come to mean anything not uber-liberal. Politicians like Bernie and Maxine scream the word about Trump but never seem to offer any examples and ignore the blacks and Latinos who do support Trump. If the word was non-gratis the entire on-air staffs at MSNBC and MSN would be struck dumb. The Washington Post and New York Times would be printing mostly blank newsprint. The level of public discourse would be as elevated as it was when people stopped having to hear the N-word.  

Mar 9, 19 8:30 am
paperbottle

Enlightening

paperbottle

"Politicians like Bernie and Maxine scream the word about Trump but never seem to offer any examples and ignore the blacks and Latinos who do support Trump."

curtkram

is the reason you don't like the term 'racist' because people are using that word in reference to yourself? likely because of a political identity you try to associate yourself with? if that is the case, i think it would make more sense for you to try understanding the other person's perspective and why they think that tag applies to you rather than attacking the word used to describe you. liberals typically aren't trying to insult you, they're trying to reduce or eliminate racism in their communities.

Volunteer, it might help to think of the word racist being used not only as in "Bob is *a* racist" but as in "Bob embraces as 'just common sense' a lot of ideas that are based on racist societal structures, and he will understand how they are racist as soon as he learns more about how systematic disadvantages are common in our society." I have hope for Bob - he'll figure it out!

RickB-Astoria

Trump is a racist. His whole life is full of racist actions. His treatment of tenants who were cuban or hispanic (he can't tell the difference). His policy itself is right out of the KKK political playbook.

In short, where do we begin. His father was associated with KKK if not an outright member but he had to be significantly close with the KKK to be at their rallies. They were very protective. Fred Trump was arrested in 1927 when he was at a KKK rally.

Donald Trump is all the same. He might not be into beating black people or Cubans/Hispanics with his own hands when he could just be like the mob and used hired hands to do that. Trump is not a good guy. He is a bad guy....a villain.

b3tadine[sutures]

Seriously? I don't know if you're a racist, or just plain ignorant.

https://www.rollingstone.com/p...


RickB-Astoria

It's both. He could be the first one as the poster child of the death penalty for his actions against the United States. 

Donny, boy, be careful what you wish for as there is still death penalty for capital crimes.

jla-x

The cure for racism is cosmology. Anyone who understands the vastness of space can easily measure the insignificance of race and nationality.

jla-x

“Racist” should be replaced with the word “imbecile”....it’s more accurate as the root of racism is chronic small mindedness...not being a “racist”

tduds

Shoot racists into space.

( o Y o )

a word that describes a behavior is very different from a word that only has derogatory connotation. 'racist' may be used to denigrate but so can many adjectives

the problem here is with how words are used (intent) as well as with your own narrow view that implies that such language is exclusive to the so-called 'left': NYT, WaPo - which shows both ignorance and bias on your part

Mar 9, 19 9:44 am
Volunteer

And how does either the N-word or the R-word describe behavior? They both describe a completely unacceptable attitude toward a human being. Perhaps you should go look in the mirror if you want to see ignorance and bias.

RickB-Astoria

N-word is different than the R-word. The R-word indicates the person is ascribing to beliefs in racial superiority which also ascribes to the belief that there is racial inferiority. A person need not be torturing people, of races seen as inferior, in their basements to be a racist. They need only ascribe to racial bigotry.

( o Y o )

'nigger' is derogatory slang, it does not describe behavior

'racist' is an adjective that describes discriminatory behavior

racist may be used accurately to describe behavior (David Duke) or inaccurately to denigrate (Rep. Omar is antisemitic [racist]). thus we arrive at intent, as stated above

your bias is evidenced by your citing only "liberal" media, your ignorance by your failure to recognize that corporate media is neo-liberal propaganda and your failure to understand the difference between derogatory slang and an adjective. use of a dictionary may help

Mar 9, 19 11:43 am
Volunteer

Both words are normally nouns. The R-word is dripping with hate and invective so I say make it as socially unacceptable as the N-word. The R- word stops conversation and discourse every time it is used. It is the 'virtue signaling' word self-anointed elites use to show their self-nominated superiority and to avoid discussing the issues. Time for it to go. But not legally. If you want to keep using the R-word and make a complete ass of yourself go right ahead.

Volunteer, I hadn't read this comment of yours before I made my comment above in which I talk about racist as an adjective. If someone says "That's racist" don't think of them saying *YOU* are racist (unless you're David Duke, which I'm pretty sure you're not).

Non Sequitur

Prejudice?

nuf'said, probably.

Volunteer

Donna, no worries.I just get tired of all these snowflakes getting 'triggered' when someone sneezes yet feel free to dump the R-word on anything that moves.

RickB-Astoria

It all blown out of proportion ever since dickhead in chief is in the oval office. How about all you fucking snowflakes on each side of the issue just kill the dickhead in chief and get over it (PS: I am NOT paying you or ordering you to do so). Yeah.... snowflake him to death. Whatever. Maybe don't elect stupid, racist, misogynist, dickheads in 2020. USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN AND USE YOUR RATIONAL SENSES FOR FUCK SAKE.

b3tadine[sutures]

Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton: Mine’s bigger. My cucumber. It’s bigger. I think vegetables can be very sensuous, don’t you?
Marion Wormer: No, vegetables are sensual. People are sensuous.
Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton: Right. Sensual. That’s what I meant. My name’s Eric Stratton. People call me Otter.
Marion Wormer: My name’s Marion. People call me Mrs. Wormer.
Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton: Oh, we have a Dean Wormer at Faber.
Marion Wormer: How interesting. I have a husband named Dean Wormer at Faber. Still want to show me your cucumber?

Mar 9, 19 2:17 pm

OMG beta we just watched Animal House last night! After watching the excellent movie about Douglas Kenney, A Stupid and Futile Gesture.

b3tadine[sutures]

Donna, that was a very good, but sad movie.

I loved it, thought it was beautifully made with so many cool narrative devices and excellent performances - I literally felt like I was watching young Chevy and Gilda.

( o Y o )

jla-x never went to public school

he doesn't get municipal garbage pickup, doesn't drink city water, doesn't ride public transit, and doesn't walk on public sidewalks

he has never used public police and fire services, never been to a public hospital, and never had a government subsidized student loan

on principle he will never collect Medicare and Social Security because taxes are a violent assault on the individual by the state

jla-x is a self-made man who has never relied on anyone for anything

Mar 9, 19 11:43 pm
jla-x

Your point? You are purposely confusing libertarianism with anarchy. These two things are not synonymous. Libertarianism is also not opposed to social programs or even saftynets. Its just opposed to state violence to achieve it. It’s also a misnomer that libertarians are primarily concerned with welfare. They are far far more concerned with corporate welfare, subsidies, and military spending. Food stamps are way down on the list.

jla-x

Also, the idea that we don’t rely on anyone is stupid. You can be an individual and still live in a society of other individuals who all play their part. Your statement is hyperbolic.

curtkram

i think the libertarian ideal is that it's good for government to fund and maintain the roads jla uses, but putting jla's tax dollars into roads other people use is wasteful. we should only support the programs that help him.

jla-x

No curt.

SneakyPete

state violence. lol.

jla-x


Intersections are different for each individual. There are infinite combinations of circumstances that shape a person.   “Intersectional groupings” is reductionist.  Take any of those traits in the pic, and the endless others that aren’t included, and I can promise you that no one shares any exactly.    Even traits that are similarly shared can impact different people differently.  Our friggin dna is completely unique from anyone who has ever lived.  Everyone is different.  That’s a beautiful thing.  It’s a liberating thing as well.  


We share some common paths with people, but those paths don’t define us, determine our destiny, predict our thoughts and actions, or guarantee our failure or success.  At times throughout history race, class, and sex have obviously been used to oppress.  Of course not denying that, but the way past that, the way to fight against that tide, is not to divide into those groups as they would want, but to destroy those designations and embrace radical individuality.           


The logical conclusion of intersectionality pushed to its end is individualism.  The western philosophers figured this out long ago.  Dr. MLK also knew this.  He called for people to be judged not by their skin color but by “content of their character”.  This is an individualist statement.  


To cherish individualism is not to shun community.  Quite the opposite.  A community can be composed of a group of individuals.  The NY art scene in the 1980s, Woodstock, etc etc.  so many examples of healthy and creative and vibrant communities that cherish individuality while functioning as a community.  


Communism is very different.  Communism destroys individuality at all costs.  It cherishes the collective over the individual.  It reduces intersections to a few basic categories.  It’s logocally reductive in its subletting of intersections.  


Community can exist in a society that holds individuality as a virtue, but individuality cannot in a society that holds the collective as a virtue.  

Mar 10, 19 1:04 am
jla-x

Damn this weed is strong...

RickB-Astoria

There isn't exactly an infinite combination of circumstance per any one person but there is still that potential for an infinite number of people. There is a finite number of humans and finite number of experiences within a finite period of time. The output will still be a finite number no matter how big that number may be.

RickB-Astoria

True communism is basically a commune. Dictatorships, which all the communist countries were in reality (including Cuba), were subject to destroying individuality. It should be noted that there is a difference between destroying individuality and suppressing our inner self-centered impulses to serve our own self beyond our basic human needs to live. In the latter, it is about centering ourselves around lives of selflessness. Individuality in and of itself does not mean a person will be selfish but individuality in anarchy does for there is no rules governing and control our inhibitions which are grounded on self-centered focus. There needs to be balance.


paperbottle

that's good

paperbottle

I would say maybe intersectionality is more about what happens to the person than who they are at their core being

paperbottle

It's the whole

paperbottle

Ugh sorry. Well, anyways, I was going to give an example from Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins, but it is easily accessible and an easy read and there is no way I could do her work justice.

jla-x

I’m mildly familiar with that text, but will take another look when I get a chance. I think her argument was about the categories within social categories (women, Black, Latino, etc). All I’m saying is that “what happens to a person” is always unique to that person, AND how it shapes “their core being” depends on factors unique to the individuals specific brain structure. I know brothers who lived almost identical lives...one is in jail, the other is very successful. One acts like a jackass, the other is the nicest guy.

randomised

Which one is the jackass?

tduds

My father once knew a man!

What a curious thread.

Mrs. Wormer is correct.  Buildings are sensual, not sensuous. And buildings can’t be sexy.  

I call aspects of buildings “sensual” all the time. 

Mar 10, 19 11:24 am
paperbottle

thanks prof

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: