4 ms·

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the criticisms here come from a place of actual concern rather than a cultural distaste for the kinds of people th

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the criticisms here come from a place of actual concern rather than a cultural distaste for the kinds of people the author perceives as buying "tactical" stuff.

rayiner 4y ago
- miguelazo 4y ago
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I think what white people who wear Lululemon have defined as “white supremacy” has no relationship to the views or interests of non-white people: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  The only reference to race I could find in that article is this, describing people who "roll coal" i.e. intentionally polluting as a way to own the libs: > “Burning fossil fuels can come to function as a knowingly violent experience,” Daggett writes, “a reassertion of white masculine power on an unruly planet that is perceived to be increasingly in need of violent, authoritarian order.” Now I don't know that statistics of coal rollers, but to me nothing in that article says pickup trucks are solely the domain of white people or that the problems with pickups only extend to white people. I think your characterization is completely off, nothing in that article says that black people don't buy pickups, and it certainly doesn't say that they cause any less damage than a white person buying one.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I think it’s completely fair to characterize the quote—which talks about the “reassertion of white masculine power”—as trying to create an assertion with “white supremacy.” (In the modern academic sense of the phrase, not literal KKK members.) The completely gratuitous association with “white masculinity” is, in fact, at odds with the fact that pickup trucks are popular with Black and Hispanic people too, for the same reasons they’re popular with white people. Yes it’s about masculinity, but there is no racial component to it. As to “rolling coal”—that’s the example in the immediately preceding text, but it’s in the context of several paragraphs discussing climate and the environment, under the bolded subheading of “petro-masculinity.” I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the quote about “white masculine power” is directed at the fuel inefficiency of pickup trucks generally, rather than rolling coal specifically.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      You just conceded, one sentence before, that the bolded subhead is accurate. The burden is now on you to establish that "rolling coal" isn't racially coded behavior. I don't know for sure whether it is or it isn't, but I know where I'd bet. Pickup trucks are popular for reasons distinct from the popularity of deliberately creating plumes of noxious gasses as a protest against pollution regulations. Again: a deeply weird thing to bring into the discussion. And none of the subtlety you're providing now was in your original comment, which strongly implied that a Bloomberg article said that pickup trucks were coded white supremacist, which it clearly did not.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        I think it’s entirely fair to read the quoted reference to “white masculine power” as referring to the subject of the article as a whole rather than the specific reference to “rolling coal.” I think your missing the forest for the trees in reading that quote. And the sentiment is in the same vein as this article against tactical gear. The author isn’t trying to create a moral panic about Bangladeshis buying tactical gear.
- tptacek 4y ago
  This article, from a year ago, on a subject not related to the thread, does not declare pickup trucks to be a manifestation of "white supremacy", and, indeed, never once uses the term "white supremacy". This is a weird thing for you to have written, Rayiner. Are you OK? This comment is epsilon from literal trolling, which is unlike you.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    The two articles are directed at the same people—there is a huge overlap between folks who buy pickup trucks and folks who wear tactical gear. And both take an aesthetic preference and characterize it as something sinister and dangerous for society. As @some_random observes, it’s entirely fair to ask whether there is a real danger here, or whether the article reflects the “cultural distaste” of the author. The Bloomberg article I cited is another example in the same genre.
    - enragedcacti 4y ago
      > And both take an aesthetic preference and characterize it as something sinister and dangerous for society. Even taking this at face value, nothing about these pickups being an aesthetic choice negates their impact on their surroundings. If anything, the ever-expanding grills are primarily aesthetically driven and increase a truck's danger to pedestrians. Preferences being aesthetic don't preclude them from critique, and aesthetic preferences don't occur in a vacuum. > As @some_random observes, it’s entirely fair to ask whether there is a real danger here, or whether the article reflects the “cultural distaste” of the author. The Bloomberg article I cited is another example in the same genre. If your counterargument requires questioning motive of the author rather than the substance of the piece then I think you've already lost.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        Questioning the author’s perspective is a fundamental aspect of being an intelligent reader, especially for work that is social and political commentary rather than mathematical or scientific analysis.
enragedcacti 4y ago
I don't really think that level of skepticism is warranted without cause, but humoring it for just a bit: does it really matter what the authors motives are? We have a long and detailed piece including interviews with SMEs and quotes from CEOs and marketing materials. It's takeaway is relatively soft: should we, as brand leaders, think more carefully about this?. If we can't learn something from this without understanding the authors motives then I'm not sure what media is left to safely learn from.
derbOac 4y ago
I respect "tactical" products and sort of look for them purely for functional reasons: they tend to be more durable, aren't laden with logos, and are relatively neutral in color and appearance. They are very functional in general, and I've purchased them. Having said that, I've been puzzled by the "tactical" label. It used to be that the tactical label just meant it meant some durability requirements and was free of logos or advertising. Now it's really vague and sometimes does come with military functions that no one in civilian life would really care about, but sometimes just seems to be a sort of... cultural signifier? Kind of like how traditional camo started showing up everywhere? People I know have started discussions because they're not even sure what "tactical" means anymore. So I think it's fair to ask why that particular label, or any label at all. It used to be you could just go to a brand and expect quality and no-nonsense characteristics. There are plenty of brands like that but they're harder to find. So why the police-military association in particular? I guess I had a different reaction to it, which is that it's about time someone asks what is going on with this "tactical" label. I don't think it's necessarily a cultural distaste issue, it's something that's a little weird to a lot of people, even to people who buy this stuff. I don't know that I think it's a good or bad article, it's just an important question to ask. And if you're being complete in exploring the question, I think it's fair to ask about cultural climate and so forth, because language is cultural. Another way I look at it is this: "tactical" has become sort of a useless term to me because it's overused. How did it get this way?

rayiner 4y ago

miguelazo 4y ago
- rayiner 4y ago
  I think what white people who wear Lululemon have defined as “white supremacy” has no relationship to the views or interests of non-white people: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/
enragedcacti 4y ago
The only reference to race I could find in that article is this, describing people who "roll coal" i.e. intentionally polluting as a way to own the libs: > “Burning fossil fuels can come to function as a knowingly violent experience,” Daggett writes, “a reassertion of white masculine power on an unruly planet that is perceived to be increasingly in need of violent, authoritarian order.” Now I don't know that statistics of coal rollers, but to me nothing in that article says pickup trucks are solely the domain of white people or that the problems with pickups only extend to white people. I think your characterization is completely off, nothing in that article says that black people don't buy pickups, and it certainly doesn't say that they cause any less damage than a white person buying one.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I think it’s completely fair to characterize the quote—which talks about the “reassertion of white masculine power”—as trying to create an assertion with “white supremacy.” (In the modern academic sense of the phrase, not literal KKK members.) The completely gratuitous association with “white masculinity” is, in fact, at odds with the fact that pickup trucks are popular with Black and Hispanic people too, for the same reasons they’re popular with white people. Yes it’s about masculinity, but there is no racial component to it. As to “rolling coal”—that’s the example in the immediately preceding text, but it’s in the context of several paragraphs discussing climate and the environment, under the bolded subheading of “petro-masculinity.” I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the quote about “white masculine power” is directed at the fuel inefficiency of pickup trucks generally, rather than rolling coal specifically.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You just conceded, one sentence before, that the bolded subhead is accurate. The burden is now on you to establish that "rolling coal" isn't racially coded behavior. I don't know for sure whether it is or it isn't, but I know where I'd bet. Pickup trucks are popular for reasons distinct from the popularity of deliberately creating plumes of noxious gasses as a protest against pollution regulations. Again: a deeply weird thing to bring into the discussion. And none of the subtlety you're providing now was in your original comment, which strongly implied that a Bloomberg article said that pickup trucks were coded white supremacist, which it clearly did not.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I think it’s entirely fair to read the quoted reference to “white masculine power” as referring to the subject of the article as a whole rather than the specific reference to “rolling coal.” I think your missing the forest for the trees in reading that quote. And the sentiment is in the same vein as this article against tactical gear. The author isn’t trying to create a moral panic about Bangladeshis buying tactical gear.
tptacek 4y ago
This article, from a year ago, on a subject not related to the thread, does not declare pickup trucks to be a manifestation of "white supremacy", and, indeed, never once uses the term "white supremacy". This is a weird thing for you to have written, Rayiner. Are you OK? This comment is epsilon from literal trolling, which is unlike you.
- rayiner 4y ago
  The two articles are directed at the same people—there is a huge overlap between folks who buy pickup trucks and folks who wear tactical gear. And both take an aesthetic preference and characterize it as something sinister and dangerous for society. As @some_random observes, it’s entirely fair to ask whether there is a real danger here, or whether the article reflects the “cultural distaste” of the author. The Bloomberg article I cited is another example in the same genre.
  - enragedcacti 4y ago
    > And both take an aesthetic preference and characterize it as something sinister and dangerous for society. Even taking this at face value, nothing about these pickups being an aesthetic choice negates their impact on their surroundings. If anything, the ever-expanding grills are primarily aesthetically driven and increase a truck's danger to pedestrians. Preferences being aesthetic don't preclude them from critique, and aesthetic preferences don't occur in a vacuum. > As @some_random observes, it’s entirely fair to ask whether there is a real danger here, or whether the article reflects the “cultural distaste” of the author. The Bloomberg article I cited is another example in the same genre. If your counterargument requires questioning motive of the author rather than the substance of the piece then I think you've already lost.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Questioning the author’s perspective is a fundamental aspect of being an intelligent reader, especially for work that is social and political commentary rather than mathematical or scientific analysis.

enragedcacti 4y ago

I don't really think that level of skepticism is warranted without cause, but humoring it for just a bit: does it really matter what the authors motives are? We have a long and detailed piece including interviews with SMEs and quotes from CEOs and marketing materials. It's takeaway is relatively soft: should we, as brand leaders, think more carefully about this?. If we can't learn something from this without understanding the authors motives then I'm not sure what media is left to safely learn from.

derbOac 4y ago

I respect "tactical" products and sort of look for them purely for functional reasons: they tend to be more durable, aren't laden with logos, and are relatively neutral in color and appearance. They are very functional in general, and I've purchased them. Having said that, I've been puzzled by the "tactical" label. It used to be that the tactical label just meant it meant some durability requirements and was free of logos or advertising. Now it's really vague and sometimes does come with military functions that no one in civilian life would really care about, but sometimes just seems to be a sort of... cultural signifier? Kind of like how traditional camo started showing up everywhere? People I know have started discussions because they're not even sure what "tactical" means anymore. So I think it's fair to ask why that particular label, or any label at all. It used to be you could just go to a brand and expect quality and no-nonsense characteristics. There are plenty of brands like that but they're harder to find. So why the police-military association in particular? I guess I had a different reaction to it, which is that it's about time someone asks what is going on with this "tactical" label. I don't think it's necessarily a cultural distaste issue, it's something that's a little weird to a lot of people, even to people who buy this stuff. I don't know that I think it's a good or bad article, it's just an important question to ask. And if you're being complete in exploring the question, I think it's fair to ask about cultural climate and so forth, because language is cultural. Another way I look at it is this: "tactical" has become sort of a useless term to me because it's overused. How did it get this way?