3 ms·

Calling these cultures "radical subcultures" is dismissive. What you're seeing is a more complete expression of humanity. Past media have generally filtered out

Calling these cultures "radical subcultures" is dismissive. What you're seeing is a more complete expression of humanity. Past media have generally filtered out much of the diversity and angst inherent in human lives, and that tradition has been carried forward to varying degrees by many social media networks. Suicide is everywhere. Trans people are everywhere. Minorities are everywhere. Tumblr just isn't sweeping it under the rug as much as some other sites.

anigbrowl 12y ago
How is it dismissive? 'Radical subculture' just seems descriptive to me. 'Radical' is synonymous with fundamental, and gender identity definitely seems fundamental to peoples' subjective identity. 'Subculture' just indicates a distinct subset of a larger culture. The fact that subcultures can be voluntary, whimsical, or ephemeral doesn't mean they have to be, and I certainly don't assume any lack of seriousness or significance to the notion that someone is a member of this or that subculture.
- DasIch 12y ago
  I'm not a native english speaker but 'radical' to me has negative connotations that 'fundamental' does not.
  - Crito 12y ago
    From a native english (of the american variety) viewpoint: Neither have positive connotations, but "fundamentalist" is worse. Fundamentalism specifically invokes ideas of religious fundamentalism, particularly "religious right" style protestant beliefs. "Radical" on the other hand is used in a more diverse set of cases. It invokes thoughts of any number of political or religious beliefs that are either outside the mainstream or do not conform with progressive western values as they are traditionally stated. I don't think either is dismissive. Descriptive, with negative connotations, but being critical is not the same as being dismissive.
- ohkine 12y ago
  > 'Radical' is synonymous with fundamental That is not at all what 'radical' means in the context of 'radical sub-culture'. The definition you're looking for is one of: 2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company. 3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues. I guess you could argue that trans people fall under definition # 2 from the perspective of many (most?) people, but i also think that 'radical sub-culture' generally implies some kind of conscious action — i don't think that simply existing as a member of a minority makes you inherently 'radical'.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I'm not looking for a definition at all; I'm perfectly comfortable with the primary definition of 'of or going to the root or origin; fundamental.' I'm not going to dispense with perfectly reasonable vocabulary just because alternative interpretations of a term exist. If you're not sure what someone means, consider asking them rather than complaining about it. Transitioning to a different gender from one's birth default is (for the time being) a radical change involving extensive medical evaluation, a lifetime drug regimen and ultimately major surgery, to say nothing of the social difficulties.
Crito 12y ago
What isn't everywhere is making fan-art of suicide victims. I think it is fair to assert that there is a distinct subculture here. Furthermore, I reject the idea that identifying a subculture means that you are dismissing that subculture.
- jzymbaluk 12y ago
  I don't think identifying them as a subculture is the issue, it's the use of the word 'radical' which could come across as dismissive.
angersock 12y ago
Trans people are everywhere. [citation needed] EDIT: Reason I ask is that, when fighting for the cause of minority groups, it doesn't help to make claims that are easily shown to be false--it hurts your credibility, and by association, theirs. The "x are everywhere" is what, for example, brought us the Iraq War and the TSA and all the rest...just good marketing whipping people up into a frenzy. EDIT2: Fine, for the downvoters, here's some citations (because apparently that's too much to ask): Various studies show a rate of between 0.1-0.5% of people identifying as trans ( http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-size-of-the-transgender-population/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-siz... ). A 2011 study by the UCLA Williams Institute found there to be around 700,000 trans people ( http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/ http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-d... ).
- ohkine 12y ago
  How are you going to cite a study disproving the inherently subjective and hyperbolic definition of 'everywhere'? There is literally nothing in the universe that is 'everywhere'. Can you link an academic paper establishing a quantitative definition of when something can be referred to as being 'everywhere'?
  - angersock 12y ago
    Hydrogen is literally everywhere. Anyways, I don't think any reasonable person would say that 5 people in 1000 would be enough to support the claim the GP put forth.
    - ohkine 12y ago
      I am not a scientist but i don't think hydrogen occupies every single point in space everywhere in the universe Anyway, if 5 in 1000 (as your own link states, these numbers are inherently difficult to quantify — but i'll go along with it) is not enough to qualify as everywhere, what is? What's your exact limit on everywhere? 1 in 500? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? The suicide rate in the US is ~12 in 100'000, but you didn't seem to think mentioning it hurt OP's credibility (or, by association, the credibility of people who've committed suicide).

anigbrowl 12y ago

How is it dismissive? 'Radical subculture' just seems descriptive to me. 'Radical' is synonymous with fundamental, and gender identity definitely seems fundamental to peoples' subjective identity. 'Subculture' just indicates a distinct subset of a larger culture. The fact that subcultures can be voluntary, whimsical, or ephemeral doesn't mean they have to be, and I certainly don't assume any lack of seriousness or significance to the notion that someone is a member of this or that subculture.

DasIch 12y ago
I'm not a native english speaker but 'radical' to me has negative connotations that 'fundamental' does not.
- Crito 12y ago
  From a native english (of the american variety) viewpoint: Neither have positive connotations, but "fundamentalist" is worse. Fundamentalism specifically invokes ideas of religious fundamentalism, particularly "religious right" style protestant beliefs. "Radical" on the other hand is used in a more diverse set of cases. It invokes thoughts of any number of political or religious beliefs that are either outside the mainstream or do not conform with progressive western values as they are traditionally stated. I don't think either is dismissive. Descriptive, with negative connotations, but being critical is not the same as being dismissive.
ohkine 12y ago
> 'Radical' is synonymous with fundamental That is not at all what 'radical' means in the context of 'radical sub-culture'. The definition you're looking for is one of: 2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company. 3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues. I guess you could argue that trans people fall under definition # 2 from the perspective of many (most?) people, but i also think that 'radical sub-culture' generally implies some kind of conscious action — i don't think that simply existing as a member of a minority makes you inherently 'radical'.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I'm not looking for a definition at all; I'm perfectly comfortable with the primary definition of 'of or going to the root or origin; fundamental.' I'm not going to dispense with perfectly reasonable vocabulary just because alternative interpretations of a term exist. If you're not sure what someone means, consider asking them rather than complaining about it. Transitioning to a different gender from one's birth default is (for the time being) a radical change involving extensive medical evaluation, a lifetime drug regimen and ultimately major surgery, to say nothing of the social difficulties.

Crito 12y ago

What isn't everywhere is making fan-art of suicide victims. I think it is fair to assert that there is a distinct subculture here. Furthermore, I reject the idea that identifying a subculture means that you are dismissing that subculture.

jzymbaluk 12y ago
I don't think identifying them as a subculture is the issue, it's the use of the word 'radical' which could come across as dismissive.

angersock 12y ago

Trans people are everywhere. [citation needed] EDIT: Reason I ask is that, when fighting for the cause of minority groups, it doesn't help to make claims that are easily shown to be false--it hurts your credibility, and by association, theirs. The "x are everywhere" is what, for example, brought us the Iraq War and the TSA and all the rest...just good marketing whipping people up into a frenzy. EDIT2: Fine, for the downvoters, here's some citations (because apparently that's too much to ask): Various studies show a rate of between 0.1-0.5% of people identifying as trans ( http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-size-of-the-transgender-population/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-siz... ). A 2011 study by the UCLA Williams Institute found there to be around 700,000 trans people ( http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/ http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-d... ).

ohkine 12y ago
How are you going to cite a study disproving the inherently subjective and hyperbolic definition of 'everywhere'? There is literally nothing in the universe that is 'everywhere'. Can you link an academic paper establishing a quantitative definition of when something can be referred to as being 'everywhere'?
- angersock 12y ago
  Hydrogen is literally everywhere. Anyways, I don't think any reasonable person would say that 5 people in 1000 would be enough to support the claim the GP put forth.
  - ohkine 12y ago
    I am not a scientist but i don't think hydrogen occupies every single point in space everywhere in the universe Anyway, if 5 in 1000 (as your own link states, these numbers are inherently difficult to quantify — but i'll go along with it) is not enough to qualify as everywhere, what is? What's your exact limit on everywhere? 1 in 500? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? The suicide rate in the US is ~12 in 100'000, but you didn't seem to think mentioning it hurt OP's credibility (or, by association, the credibility of people who've committed suicide).