6 ms·

> This show is post-racism, but still believes in “culture” with a Victorian faith in white mythologies I'm fairly literate in Liberal Arts English, but I don'

by ashark 9y ago

> This show is post-racism, but still believes in “culture” with a Victorian faith in white mythologies I'm fairly literate in Liberal Arts English, but I don't follow what this means, especially as the context around it seems to complain about portrayals of race. What does it mean to "believe in 'culture' with a Victorian faith in white mythologies"? What does that modifier mean about one's belief in culture (whatever that even means, all on its own—do the scare quotes mean we're not supposed to think culture's a thing anymore, or is this a hardcore we-can-never-judge-a-culture-as-inferior thing the writer's assuming we all buy?). How does that relate to the rest of the paragraph?

occultist_throw 9y ago
I just attributed it to standard SJW virtue signalling. It's meaningless aside to others who understand the same lingo, and agree with it. Edit: Ah, the usual SJW refrain. Silence any criticism via flags, -1's and other tools available, instead of discussing why the quote is right/not and what it means.
- ashark 9y ago
  A nod-ignore-and-keep-reading Lit Crit academese filler thing, then? I guess it stood out to me because the review doesn't have much of that, otherwise, and because the paragraph it's in seemed to be making some kind of point, though I couldn't decipher what it was in such a way that that sentence contributed anything.
  - occultist_throw 9y ago
    Truthfully, these days if I see SJW buzzwords, I just skip over the rest of the text. It's not worth subjecting oneself in that sort of groupthink - lest you eat babies. Because if you don't agree with them, you must assuredly agree with rape, sex crimes, and eating babies. There is no middle ground. There is no discussion. Only fuming mouths. Are there wrongs? Absolutely. But we can tackle those when we have clear evidence and direct corrective action. Striking out at anyone with a will to discuss and have legitimate concerns is not a way to bridge the communication gap.
    - acover 9y ago
      I think you are being downvoted because there is little information in what you are saying. Off topic. Well known argument. Tone seems angry. Just a guess
    - DanBC 9y ago
      > I just skip over the rest of the text. You could also skip over the step of posting in comment threads.
      - occultist_throw 9y ago
        You're indeed right. I could. But this stuff is everywhere, whether you want to read it or be part of it, or not. 1. Donglegate. Told a dongle joke, got fired. 2. Meritocracy Rug, Github. 3. "CodeOfConduct.md" 4. GamerGate 5. Throwing fits about pronouns: https://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ https://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate... 6. NodeJS leadership splitting at the seams https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72dff4/nodejs_leadership_is_a_toxic_mess/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72dff4/nodejs_... 7. Demonization if you are a "White male in tech" - regardless if you are for equality or not 8. Google Memo/"Anti-diversity Screed" So you're right. I could stay quiet about this. But these problems aren't going to go away with silence. And they aren't going to go away by shaming people into submission or silence under threat of job loss. These things are affecting the whole industry, and it's about high time to confront these issues head-on, without fear of losing your house, your food, and your livelihood. (Why do you think I run under a pseudonym?)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - cholantesh 9y ago
      There is an entire thread of meaningful, respectful discussion that follows your initial remark, and you haven't even tried to engage with it.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I've not read Lit Crit. I have read history. The European colonial period was justified using logic very similar to the argument described in this article. British colonialism specifically argued for Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the Kipling's "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" used a similar logic to argue that the US should take over the Philippines.
    - ashark 9y ago
      I get what "a Victorian faith in white mythologies" means re: racist colonialism and cultural imperialism, I just don't get what it means for the show to "still [believe] in 'culture' with a Victorian faith in white mythologies". The scare-quoted (I think?) "culture", in the context of the rest of the sentence, is what's getting me. To believe in "culture" with a victorian faith in white mythologies. That's some badly criss-crossing modifiers and a really unclear use of quotes, as I see it, standing out in an otherwise fairly comprehensible paragraph. I guess I'm also a little confused that the review complains in such strong language[1] about what looks to be the most interesting thing in the show, assuming the writers have lead with this material for the reason that they intend to return to it though the rest of the season and need, you know, somewhere to go with it, so they can't just start at the end. If it finds a way to retain aliens-as-projections-of-human-psyco/social-demons of traditional Trek (and much popular sci-fi) but also address the definitely-smells-of-racism problems that naturally come with doing that for as long as Trek's done it... god, that'll be among the most interesting things Trek's ever done, and if the writers are competent then they sure seem to be setting up for something along those lines. It's easily the most promising thematic direction the first part of the series has set up, judging from this review, so wow, should they ever not clean it up, please. Dig in, get dirty, and find a way out that's a little more novel and nuanced than "hur hur see it was racism all along and now our protagonist learned a lesson!" and this'll be one for the ages. [1] "We shall see. But to get there—and I have to say this as clearly as possible—this show needs to clean up its fucking act with respect to the deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons."
      - eesmith 9y ago
        I do not believe it is a scare quote. I think it's an actual quote. The more complete quote from the show follows immediately afterward: “It would be unwise to confuse race and culture.” I believe "culture" is used to pull out that one term for further discussion. The review assumes that the reader has watched the show. I have not. I cannot comment further on this point, nor on the "deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons". I can point out that http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/07/star-trek-discovery-trump-political-divide/ http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/07/star-trek-discovery-trump-politi... says: > “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things. It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it. It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.” and various people have asserted that the new Klingons are supposed to be like Trump supporters.
- krisdol 9y ago
  Can you rephrase what you said? Whenever I see "SJW" or "virtue signaling" in a post, I immediately stop reading and move on. Those terms are meaningless to those who don't subscribe to the groupthink of a devout cult of sheltered sexists.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    There is no other word to describe the groups behind the wave of petty but vicious activism in the last decade or so. The people calling for "safe spaces" and trigger warnings, literally shaking from micro-aggressions, trying to ruin people's careers for holding common opinions, and always claiming to be the victims of some -ism. What would you call them?
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Calling for a safe spaces? "Trump demands safe space for Mike Pence after he was booed at Hamilton" - https://news.avclub.com/trump-demands-safe-space-for-mike-pence-after-he-was-bo-1798254655 https://news.avclub.com/trump-demands-safe-space-for-mike-pe... ("The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!") Trying to ruin someone's career? "Donald Trump Casually Threatens To ‘Destroy’ The Career Of State Lawmaker" who promoted asset forfeiture reform. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-destroy-state-lawmaker_us_5899fde8e4b09bd304bdd5b9 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-destroy-state-lawm... . I believe most people are for forfeiture reform. Or more recently, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a b---- off the field right now. Out," Trump said amid applause. "He's fired. He's fired!" - https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-protests-donald-trump-a-team-by-team-look-at-week-3-national-anthem-protests/ https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-protests-donald-trump... . This form of silent protest against discrimination is increasingly common. Always claiming to be a victim (though not from some -ism)? "Trump claims to be victim of ‘witch hunt’ following appointment of special counsel in Russia case" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/18/trump-claims-to-be-victim-of-witch-hunt-following-appointment-of-special-counsel-in-russia-case/?utm_term=.83c7b49b90a6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05... "Trump on sex assault allegations: 'I am a victim'" - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexu... ("As you have seen, I am a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country") "Trump paints himself as the real victim of Charlottesville in angry speech" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/donald-trump-arizona-rally-phoenix https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/donald-trump... "Trump: IRS audits me because I’m a “strong Christian”" - https://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/trump-irs-audits-me-because-im-a-strong-christian/ https://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/trump-irs-audits-me-b... Is Trump an SJW?
cannonedhamster 9y ago
It means that the Victorian appeal of claiming oneself above the "savages" of wherever the British Empire was conquering. The writer is equating the story of Discovery with the story the British told themselves about colonialism. The reference is that The Federation is the British and the Klingons are the savages.
- ashark 9y ago
  (Belief in) cultural superiority as racism, then? OK. I'd be (genuinely) curious to see what form Klingon-hating in the show could have taken that would have been similar in form but different enough that the writer'd not have labeled it white and Victorian. I'd like to know what the diff looks like between the two. Is "they have always attacked us before, so better to start shooting if you see them and skip the trying-to-talk-then-being-fired-on-anyway bits" necessarily white and Victorian? [EDIT] and if it's not necessarily so, then what about the show's actual depiction was?
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    > white and Victorian Those are racist/culturalist jabs meant to signal ingroup status to other bigots. There is no deeper meaning behind why white and Victorian as opposed to Arab and working to establish the Caliphate or numerous other examples we can draw. It's simply safe to express that kind of bigotry (and even popular in some groups).
  - slachance 9y ago
    Good question. I'd say that the ties back to imperialist days on Earth are there because (1) it's a popular idea to hate this part of history, and (2) despite having lead characters who are asian and black, the show is still implied to be "white enough" for the comparison to be justified. The claim is that Star Trek's premise is a problem because it makes the flawed assumption that one culture can be better than another, and by extension, that all cultures must be valued and respected equally. Without going into the cultures of humanity in Star Trek versus the Klingons, you can examine similar claims closer to home even where some cultures are deeply invested in medieval-level cruelty like stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, female genital mutilation, and inhumane punishment by knife and cane. But these realities don't fit the author's narrative, and therefore must be ignored for the purposes of the thesis. Like Klingons, they're a benign minority who are simply misunderstood by their would-be cultural oppressors. The article's ostensibility about science-fiction, and managed to stay on point for the first couple paragraphs, but it quickly devolved into the author's pet theories on race and gender. I really had trouble with these sorts of broad and totally unfair generalizations: > Uhuru was a service worker and Worf was a punching bag; when the show made a black captain, was it a coincidence that the show also became “darker” and less optimistic, when its characters started to be “flawed” and “ambiguous”? Voyager had a female captain, but it marooned her to the farthest reaches of the galaxy (and the less said about the garbage politics of the reboot movies, the better).

by ashark 9y ago

occultist_throw 9y ago

I just attributed it to standard SJW virtue signalling. It's meaningless aside to others who understand the same lingo, and agree with it. Edit: Ah, the usual SJW refrain. Silence any criticism via flags, -1's and other tools available, instead of discussing why the quote is right/not and what it means.

ashark 9y ago
A nod-ignore-and-keep-reading Lit Crit academese filler thing, then? I guess it stood out to me because the review doesn't have much of that, otherwise, and because the paragraph it's in seemed to be making some kind of point, though I couldn't decipher what it was in such a way that that sentence contributed anything.
- occultist_throw 9y ago
  Truthfully, these days if I see SJW buzzwords, I just skip over the rest of the text. It's not worth subjecting oneself in that sort of groupthink - lest you eat babies. Because if you don't agree with them, you must assuredly agree with rape, sex crimes, and eating babies. There is no middle ground. There is no discussion. Only fuming mouths. Are there wrongs? Absolutely. But we can tackle those when we have clear evidence and direct corrective action. Striking out at anyone with a will to discuss and have legitimate concerns is not a way to bridge the communication gap.
  - acover 9y ago
    I think you are being downvoted because there is little information in what you are saying. Off topic. Well known argument. Tone seems angry. Just a guess
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > I just skip over the rest of the text. You could also skip over the step of posting in comment threads.
    - occultist_throw 9y ago
      You're indeed right. I could. But this stuff is everywhere, whether you want to read it or be part of it, or not. 1. Donglegate. Told a dongle joke, got fired. 2. Meritocracy Rug, Github. 3. "CodeOfConduct.md" 4. GamerGate 5. Throwing fits about pronouns: https://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ https://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate... 6. NodeJS leadership splitting at the seams https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72dff4/nodejs_leadership_is_a_toxic_mess/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72dff4/nodejs_... 7. Demonization if you are a "White male in tech" - regardless if you are for equality or not 8. Google Memo/"Anti-diversity Screed" So you're right. I could stay quiet about this. But these problems aren't going to go away with silence. And they aren't going to go away by shaming people into submission or silence under threat of job loss. These things are affecting the whole industry, and it's about high time to confront these issues head-on, without fear of losing your house, your food, and your livelihood. (Why do you think I run under a pseudonym?)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    There is an entire thread of meaningful, respectful discussion that follows your initial remark, and you haven't even tried to engage with it.
- eesmith 9y ago
  I've not read Lit Crit. I have read history. The European colonial period was justified using logic very similar to the argument described in this article. British colonialism specifically argued for Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the Kipling's "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" used a similar logic to argue that the US should take over the Philippines.
  - ashark 9y ago
    I get what "a Victorian faith in white mythologies" means re: racist colonialism and cultural imperialism, I just don't get what it means for the show to "still [believe] in 'culture' with a Victorian faith in white mythologies". The scare-quoted (I think?) "culture", in the context of the rest of the sentence, is what's getting me. To believe in "culture" with a victorian faith in white mythologies. That's some badly criss-crossing modifiers and a really unclear use of quotes, as I see it, standing out in an otherwise fairly comprehensible paragraph. I guess I'm also a little confused that the review complains in such strong language[1] about what looks to be the most interesting thing in the show, assuming the writers have lead with this material for the reason that they intend to return to it though the rest of the season and need, you know, somewhere to go with it, so they can't just start at the end. If it finds a way to retain aliens-as-projections-of-human-psyco/social-demons of traditional Trek (and much popular sci-fi) but also address the definitely-smells-of-racism problems that naturally come with doing that for as long as Trek's done it... god, that'll be among the most interesting things Trek's ever done, and if the writers are competent then they sure seem to be setting up for something along those lines. It's easily the most promising thematic direction the first part of the series has set up, judging from this review, so wow, should they ever not clean it up, please. Dig in, get dirty, and find a way out that's a little more novel and nuanced than "hur hur see it was racism all along and now our protagonist learned a lesson!" and this'll be one for the ages. [1] "We shall see. But to get there—and I have to say this as clearly as possible—this show needs to clean up its fucking act with respect to the deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons."
    - eesmith 9y ago
      I do not believe it is a scare quote. I think it's an actual quote. The more complete quote from the show follows immediately afterward: “It would be unwise to confuse race and culture.” I believe "culture" is used to pull out that one term for further discussion. The review assumes that the reader has watched the show. I have not. I cannot comment further on this point, nor on the "deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons". I can point out that http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/07/star-trek-discovery-trump-political-divide/ http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/07/star-trek-discovery-trump-politi... says: > “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things. It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it. It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.” and various people have asserted that the new Klingons are supposed to be like Trump supporters.
krisdol 9y ago
Can you rephrase what you said? Whenever I see "SJW" or "virtue signaling" in a post, I immediately stop reading and move on. Those terms are meaningless to those who don't subscribe to the groupthink of a devout cult of sheltered sexists.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  There is no other word to describe the groups behind the wave of petty but vicious activism in the last decade or so. The people calling for "safe spaces" and trigger warnings, literally shaking from micro-aggressions, trying to ruin people's careers for holding common opinions, and always claiming to be the victims of some -ism. What would you call them?
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Calling for a safe spaces? "Trump demands safe space for Mike Pence after he was booed at Hamilton" - https://news.avclub.com/trump-demands-safe-space-for-mike-pence-after-he-was-bo-1798254655 https://news.avclub.com/trump-demands-safe-space-for-mike-pe... ("The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!") Trying to ruin someone's career? "Donald Trump Casually Threatens To ‘Destroy’ The Career Of State Lawmaker" who promoted asset forfeiture reform. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-destroy-state-lawmaker_us_5899fde8e4b09bd304bdd5b9 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-destroy-state-lawm... . I believe most people are for forfeiture reform. Or more recently, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a b---- off the field right now. Out," Trump said amid applause. "He's fired. He's fired!" - https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-protests-donald-trump-a-team-by-team-look-at-week-3-national-anthem-protests/ https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-protests-donald-trump... . This form of silent protest against discrimination is increasingly common. Always claiming to be a victim (though not from some -ism)? "Trump claims to be victim of ‘witch hunt’ following appointment of special counsel in Russia case" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/18/trump-claims-to-be-victim-of-witch-hunt-following-appointment-of-special-counsel-in-russia-case/?utm_term=.83c7b49b90a6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05... "Trump on sex assault allegations: 'I am a victim'" - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexu... ("As you have seen, I am a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country") "Trump paints himself as the real victim of Charlottesville in angry speech" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/donald-trump-arizona-rally-phoenix https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/donald-trump... "Trump: IRS audits me because I’m a “strong Christian”" - https://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/trump-irs-audits-me-because-im-a-strong-christian/ https://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/trump-irs-audits-me-b... Is Trump an SJW?

cannonedhamster 9y ago

It means that the Victorian appeal of claiming oneself above the "savages" of wherever the British Empire was conquering. The writer is equating the story of Discovery with the story the British told themselves about colonialism. The reference is that The Federation is the British and the Klingons are the savages.

ashark 9y ago
(Belief in) cultural superiority as racism, then? OK. I'd be (genuinely) curious to see what form Klingon-hating in the show could have taken that would have been similar in form but different enough that the writer'd not have labeled it white and Victorian. I'd like to know what the diff looks like between the two. Is "they have always attacked us before, so better to start shooting if you see them and skip the trying-to-talk-then-being-fired-on-anyway bits" necessarily white and Victorian? [EDIT] and if it's not necessarily so, then what about the show's actual depiction was?
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  > white and Victorian Those are racist/culturalist jabs meant to signal ingroup status to other bigots. There is no deeper meaning behind why white and Victorian as opposed to Arab and working to establish the Caliphate or numerous other examples we can draw. It's simply safe to express that kind of bigotry (and even popular in some groups).
- slachance 9y ago
  Good question. I'd say that the ties back to imperialist days on Earth are there because (1) it's a popular idea to hate this part of history, and (2) despite having lead characters who are asian and black, the show is still implied to be "white enough" for the comparison to be justified. The claim is that Star Trek's premise is a problem because it makes the flawed assumption that one culture can be better than another, and by extension, that all cultures must be valued and respected equally. Without going into the cultures of humanity in Star Trek versus the Klingons, you can examine similar claims closer to home even where some cultures are deeply invested in medieval-level cruelty like stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, female genital mutilation, and inhumane punishment by knife and cane. But these realities don't fit the author's narrative, and therefore must be ignored for the purposes of the thesis. Like Klingons, they're a benign minority who are simply misunderstood by their would-be cultural oppressors. The article's ostensibility about science-fiction, and managed to stay on point for the first couple paragraphs, but it quickly devolved into the author's pet theories on race and gender. I really had trouble with these sorts of broad and totally unfair generalizations: > Uhuru was a service worker and Worf was a punching bag; when the show made a black captain, was it a coincidence that the show also became “darker” and less optimistic, when its characters started to be “flawed” and “ambiguous”? Voyager had a female captain, but it marooned her to the farthest reaches of the galaxy (and the less said about the garbage politics of the reboot movies, the better).