389
Can you notice that it's a bit leaning to the right?
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
389 points (95.6% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35462 readers
750 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Basic Americans don't understand nuance or that other places have different ideas. To an American everything is done through America lens which frequently looks idiotic or poorly educated from outside.
I think any country would come asking questions if their political leaders were pictured with culturally sensitive stuff like this. Imagine if a mid tier US paper put modi in half Hindu half Muslim traditional clothing. To us it's a quick way to talk about the two biggest religions in that country. Modi would be pissed though.
Using a muslim and hindus here is funny, those guys can get riled over nothing burger fake shit spread on via social media... these clowns are not serious people but they do cause serious violence.
That was the point yes.
So rest of the world should be accommodating degeneracy?
Oh twisted takes! This is a fun game! Let me try!
Did you just suggest Hindus and Muslims are degenerate people?
The ones lashing out over dear leader depictions surely are!
Zero respect for this pathetic behavior.
Do you think they are justified in this savagery?
OK, but there is a context that can be analyzed 10 seconds before jumping to conclusions. To be clear, this newspaper is still shit, but the reason people are getting upset are superficial and based on a wrong interpretation.
So the process for me is: oh this image looks racist/culturally insensitive -> let me understand how is it possible that such thing has been used -> the image is supposed to have something to do with westerns, which are a cultural feature of the people who used the image -> my cultural interpretation that made it racist or cultural insensitive does not specifically apply.
So questions are definitely welcome, and I think people are right to question, but people (for example in this thread) didn't look for questions, arrived already with conclusions, assuming that their cultural lens was the only appropriate one to look at this fact, without even understanding the context (not even the cultural one, just what is written on the page).
This argument holds no water.
The idea that it's exempt from accusations of racism because it's unaware that it's being racist just doesn't track.
I would say that racism is not something that exists in a vacuum and instead has intent, has an ideology behind and in many cases has also a goal. So yeah, I disagree with you fundamentally.
Racism doesn't have to have intent. Racism can't exist in a vacuum- that's true- but the only context it needs is the concept of race.
A fantastic example would be rolling up all the Native American tribe into one group. Or attributing anything, even conceptually, to that group.
You don't have to be aware that this is incorrect for it to qualify as racism, and you don't have to have an intent about making that attribution to be wrong in doing so.
In which way this image rolls up every Native American into one group, considering that is a cultural reference to some specific movie genre (so it has to do with the group represented in those movies)?
Can you also point me to how you distilled this definition of racism? I just looked up https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
And I see:
To me in the definition above seems clear that there is some ideological scaffolding of racial superiority behind racism, or a precise goal of discriminate or oppress based on such ideology.
Could you maybe elaborate how this image is racist? Would have been as racist if they used a western hat instead?
EDIT: Ironically, the top level comment in this thread mentions "Europeans", compressing many different people and cultures into one single viewpoint. Is that racist?
"Indians" don't merely exist as a cultural concept in spaghetti westerns, and even if they did, fantastic racism is still racism.
Buuuut for fun, I'll engage with your pivot to definition, and I'll just add this quote for context that appears in the link you provided. Juuuust below your listed definitions.
Isn't that amazing? "They say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word." Your authority explicitly states that they shouldn't be used as an authority in this context! Remarkable...
And now, in addition, I'll provide the rest of that passage, which is also the absolute end of me interacting with you in this manner.
Not only not meant to be used as an authority, but also unlikely to settle any dispute you might have about the word.
I'll take their advice. You can reply however you like- my interest in this conversation has vanished. Hopefully someone more patient will come along.
But this is a referenced to those, specifically. You can't make a reference and at the same time capture the plurality, can you?
You can argue that western movies are racist, but using them as reference now that they are established culture is different.
Sure, but you will have noticed that I first provided my own view and you provided yours - which I disagree with - so if we want to have a conversation, we need to have some fixed points, otherwise it's impossible to understand each other if words mean different things to the both of us. I didn't use the dictionary definition to build my argument, I have simply shown how the definition I use is consistent in some aspects (the intent, for example) with a formal definition.
At the same time, I asked explicitly to provide your own, and instead you spent all the time to quote a fairly irrelevant (in this context) passage, without ultimately showing why I should accept your definition that to me seems completely arbitrary, way too vague and generic.
So let's just sit in this pit of ambiguity, in which anything can be anything, if you are creative enough.
Here is the fixed point they are arguing from, from an academic source, with a dive into the cognitive nature of it.
https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00349-3
Thanks, I don't have the time to read it all.
I checked the abstract and I read:
(and more). The focus seems to be very strongly on American culture, and on institutional racism against black people in America.
Then I read:
Considering that in this case there is no association of any characteristic with the race, it doesn't concern American culture nor black people, I am struggling to adapt this point of view to the case being discussed.
Replace black, and America, with African refugees, and Italy, or whatever. Just because it uses this particular instance as the example, does not mean that it doesn't apply to systems of power everywhere. This is specifically how it went down in the US. However this template of behavior can be seen everywhere. If you read the whole thing you will find that it is discussing how a society's majority, that is in control (a population minority can be the ones for whom the system is built, so it is those in the majority of positions of power, that matter), builds its structures, and, consciously or not, this negatively impacts minorities within their borders, as it selects a preferential treatment of the majority demographic of it's power structure.
Sure, I am very well aware of racism towards immigrants and other symilar dynamics. I am also conscious of fascist history and the consequences of African inferiority in general in culture. I understood the general gist of the source you shared.
Still this doesn't explain to me how a cultural reference to a group of people as per a popular movie genre, that have absolutely no contact point with Italian culture fits into the same dynamic.
That's because there's a large part of the US that's done coddling racism. Whether it's intentional, ignorance, or systemic. It's 2024, the Internet is available. There's no longer an excuse for this.
I think I am stopping one step before you. Which is understanding whether something is racist or not. Using purely your cultural understanding to define it is going to lead to misunderstandings. In this case, understanding the context and the real intent of the picture makes it pretty clear that race has nothing to do with it. If you choose not to understand the context and just mark as racist anything that if done in another context would be racist, be my guest, I will just disagree.
Race has everything to do with it.
Can you elaborate how?
I provided at the very least an interpretation that is coherent, conscious of the cultural context and that makes sense considering the content of the text/article for what the image is used for.
Americans are done coddling it.
This doesn't answer the question.
You said "it has everything to do with race", how?
looks at picture of Black Woman in Native paraphernalia.
Looks at sudneo.
The Internet is right there man. Don't be ignorant.
So you refuse to elaborate, because your opinion is self evident, even though it is based on a lack of cultural context, and lack of understanding of the content of this very page.
My opinion, which I shared and elaborated, which is based on understanding the cultural background, the content of this page, knowing this rag, knowing what newspapers use and do in general, is automatically invalid - without argument - because it doesn't fit your view. It doesn't matter that I explicitly shared an interpretation that has nothing to do with race, which is plausible, coherent (I.e. matches the content) and context-aware. You are right by default because your cultural lens is the only thing you ever need to interpret the world.
Colonial mindset. That's what I get from this.
Cya
Lmao. Colonial mindset? While defending racism against black people and indigenous people?
That's hilarious. At least I got a good laugh out of this.
Yes, colonial mindset refers to the refusal of accepting other cultural backgrounds and cultural lenses, possibly due to an inherent belief that your own is superior or absolutely correct. This is not so uncommon in people coming from an imperial and hegemonic culture (like US). Edit: the colonial nature results evident from the fact that such position translates to the desire/pretense to impose a specific cultural lens or perspective even to facts, discussions etc. that belong to completely different contexts. The same attitude that colonizers have over the colonized.
I have already discussed the merits of the conversation, you refused to elaborate your thought in any way and you are limiting yourself to meta-comments that do not add anything to the conversation. In fact, you wasted several replies not saying anything but implying that your opinion is self-evident, which is a consistent symptom of that colonial mindset I was talking about.
You have been provided with a different, context-aware interpretation and you refused to engage with it at all, including challenging it, because being different from your own is automatically wrong and not deserving even of consideration. In fact you are still stuck on "racism against black people and indigenous people", which means you didn't even take into consideration that your interpretation of something happening in a cultural context you don't understand might be wrong. Of course you also refused to elaborate on the way this is racist, or better, you did in another comment in this post with an explanation that has to do with how racial stereotypes have historically been used to discard opinions of minorities, which while being true doesn't apply at all to this particular event and in general is quite tangential in Italian history, due to a completely different history compared to that of the US, especially when it comes to indigenous people.
So yeah, all in all I think you are showing a classic colonial mindset. Quite common in internet spaces where US culture is dominant, if it is of any consolation.
What's ironic is you're displaying exactly what you're critiquing. This joke is a bit funny, but it's on par with something like "Prince Charles asks NRA to fix his car". There's just baggage. And lord knows Italy has plenty of its own.
Not when it comes to Native Americans though.
Considering that this is a national newspaper meant for locals, I don't think other culture's baggage should necessarily be taken in consideration.
You do you, it's just in poor taste. It's not the end of the world or anything, it's just funny to me that it's the same thing "boorish Americans" get flack for.
Personally, if I think about reversed roles (I.e. some US newspaper putting an Italian gangster hat - a-la The Godfather to some politician with some offer-related pun) I wouldn't think of it as racist, I would understand it's not a statement about Italians in general. This also considering that being a gangster of course has plenty of negative connotations.
The whole thing feels to me like the attitude that is made fun on in Parks and Recreation and the Wamapoke. But anyway, the newspaper is shit and to be honest I find the substance of the article way worse than the image.
I mean you're spot on, it's really not the end of the world, and you're correct on the parks and rec.
I think people get prickly because of what you mentioned about the substance of the article probably being way worse, everyone's just primed these days lol. We're kind of sorting some shit out over here...
Anyway thanks for the conversation, it's always fun to see your own culture through someone else's eyes.
This is the issue @sunzu@kbin.run is getting at. You saying it's "in poor taste" is through the lens of what is considered "good taste" for Americans.
For instance, in my country, Finland, there'd be a lot of things Americans would generally find "in poor taste". The most obvious example being that we don't consider the naked human body to be inherently sexual, whereas Americans are really prudish about that sort of thing. So a lot of things related to sauna and mökki culture would be considered "in poor taste" for Americans, but they would not be so here. We also never tip (because we actually pay our workers.)
It's ironic how you're incapable of imagining another viewpoint in a debate where someone is trying to point out how bad Americans are at imagining other viewpoints.
"You do you." Yeah. We do do we, that's why the cultural values and what is "in poor taste" is different..?
I guess what it comes down to is there a plenty of things, big and small, that I don't have an issue with as an American but I know matter to the other person. Usually it's small stuff (how people comport themselves in relation to work, the line between direct and rude, etc) , but when it comes to things where people died, I think it's best to defer to the people involved.
Maybe that's a trap of my upbringing as well but I don't see that as American lens, I see that as recognizing there are a lot of lenses.
And again, the original joke is decent, its a role reversal and punches up not down, but I wouldn't want an American paper making jokes about Finnish biathalon Olympians spanking the Russians.
Any joke with cultural baggage carries the risk you miss context. Again, I don't think that's just true for Americans.
But you don't. You don't see how ingrained your perspective is. You can't see your blind spots, that's tje definition of a blind spot.
So you're saying that any time anyone wants to refer to native Americans in any way, they should ask... Americans? Not even native Americans (a term which, incidentally, is also an example of this perspective lacking American perspective
What's the offensive part here? Acknowledging Kamala's heritage? Making a joke headline? What?
I'm pretty sure you can't answer that without an exceedingly American perspective on it.
Here in Europe, we do consider these things. For one, it's literally illegal to be a Nazi in Germany and do nazi salutes and whatnot, but that's allowed in the US. A tit flashing on TV, however isn't. The Washington Redskins only relabeled themselves "the Washington Commanders" in 2022.
What? Why would that offend anyone? This is exactly what we mean when we talk about your American perspective. You just can't imagine someone having different values and practices apparently.
It would be an amazing day for Finns if a huge American newspaper did a frontpage story about something like that.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of illustrations in Finnish newspapers when it comes to stories about saunas and mökki culture would be downright unacceptable in print media in the US.
And when you manage to half-understand someone elses reasons for doing something, you still don't understand their motivation and then conclude by some highroading about being insensitive to death or something, implying your moral framework is superior. When the moral framework of the person who raised you probably included "segregation is just normal everyday business" at least in their childhood.
Because racism has been such a massive thing in the US for such a long time, some of you have become a little too sensitive and are eager to point out how racist other places are according to you. Simplest examples would be getting mad at the Spanish word for "black", or the Korean word 네가 [nega]
"Any joke with cultural baggage"
Again, you can't see that the cultural baggage is American. It's not Italian. There's no cultural baggage here, when viewed without your American perspective. That's what I try to keep iterating.
Honestly, you don't think you miss context when you probably don't understand the cultural framework this was created in at all?
This isn't coming from a naive, "regular Joe" Italian. News papers should be a bit better about international sensitives.
You literally missed the point I am making here lol
They did on purpose and you are still getting bent out of shape to fit his into American world view.
Why would you think a news paper in italy would give two fucks about "international sensitivities" around a foreign state's leader? Where does this idea come from?
Further down the threat, a local revealed it was from a grocery store rag, not a legit news paper. So the imagery makes more sense.
As far as way a legit, local news paper would want to care about “international sensitivities”, Professionalism would be one. As an American, if an American news paper used Chinese stereotypes or Yellow Face in an article about Japanese politicians, I would expect both Americans and Japanese People to be outraged.
Not really, it is a legit newspaper. A shitty one, but still a newspaper.
This is more like making an image of some politician who "joins the fight" with Bruce Lee pose, or suit, or something.
Bruce Lee is a specific person, not a racial stereotype.
You can replace it with any "asian martial artist in movies", it is probably a better comparison to "Native Americans in spaghetti western". I would say both are not really a statement on asian/native american people in general, and it's a clear cultural reference. Definitely different from a Yellow Face
Still missing the point lol