#reverse discourse

[silver-and-ivory]

Colorblindedness can be understood as the (failed and sabotaged) attempt to cause everyone to be unmarked; current identity politics can be understood as the (failing) counter-attempt to cause everyone to be marked.

Identity politics recognizes that ignoring identity altogether brushes differences under the rug and allows actual discrimination and structural inequality to flourish. Ideally, identity politics would allow people to recognize the unique facets of people’s differing perspectives and experiences as shaped by their marginalizations, privileges, and general position in society. People from both marked and formerly-unmarked groups could recognize and discuss the limitations and value of their experiences, forming alliances and coalitions for mutual gain.

In practice, due to reasons discussed in previous posts, people from marginalized groups are often considered to be better and more legitimate than people from privileged groups. Privileged perspectives and people are assumed to have all limitations and no value, whereas marginalized perspectives and people are assumed to have all value and no limitations. Someone’s privilege and marginalization are haphazardly and arbitrarily assumed to be at particular levels, often more for purposes of social convenience or power than for truth or for reaching better understanding. Rather than decentering the unmarked to place the marked and unmarked on equally centered footing, this dynamic marginalizes the now-marked unmarked and privileges the marked, recreating oppressive power structures.

I don’t actually know what to do about this.

[proustianrevelry]

Lrb it would be really fun to see a "dragonology" type book that's a deliberate reverse of western homogenization

"Dragons, most commonly depicted as kings of the deep sea ruling over all marine life..."

"Other examples of dragons around the world include the Greek god Poseidon and Marvel comics character Namor the Sub-Mariner.

[silver-and-ivory]

Mocking white people’s names is bad mainly because mocking anyone’s name is bad.

A lot of people who mock white people’s names would be really upset if a nonwhite person’s name was being mocked. Often they explain this double standard by explaining that making fun of nonwhite people’s names occurs in a different context and reinforces oppressive structures.

It is true that, generally, it probably is more harmful to make fun of nonwhite names than of white names. However, making fun of white names still (1) makes people feel bad (2) excludes and Others some people and (3) is a totally baseless reason to make fun of someone. Even though it may not be as harmful, it is still somewhat harmful.

Developing a habit of making fun of people for no reason whatsoever is also probably bad. This is because making fun of people is mean and makes people feel excluded and Othered. Also, it might make you scared and nervous of ever becoming like the other. You might feel a lot of pressure to perform blackness or some other variety of non-whiteness. It could create or reinforce a tendency to judge yourself for doing things which are not actually bad, but which you associate with the outgroup.

When white people’s names are made fun of, but no one else’s name can be made fun of, in practice this positions white people as an Other, exempted from normal protections against mockery. This is really, really bad, not least because it will harm other nonwhite people, one’s white friends who are trying very hard to be good allies, some neurodivergent or otherwise vulnerable white people, and people in interracial romantic relationships.

When marginalized groups recreate structures of oppression with themselves at the top, no good will come of it. The structure itself must be destroyed and replaced; it must not simply be rearranged.

[dirklite]

[post-makhno]

The appearance in nineteenth-century psychiatry, jurisprudence, and literature of a whole series of discourses on the species and subspecies of homosexuality, inversion, pederasty, and “psychic hermaphroditism” made possible a strong advance of social controls into this area of “perversity”; but it also made possible the formation of a “reverse” discourse: homosexuality began to speak in its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or “naturality” be acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was medically disqualified.

Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality Vol. I, p. 101

[predictablecitylife]

Joe Beats - I Keep Calling (by Joey Beats)