Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
While I think it's a shit dress, culture appropriation wise I don't see that as any worse than a white girl wearing a t-shirt with the same rappers on it.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
"Please stop violence" with the faces of two murdered black rappers on it.
You really don't see a problem with a privledged white girl, who has no social context at for the lives of the men on her dress, preaching to the black community?
At least if she had someone like Trayvon Martin on there, it would be just as controversial (since she's appropriating someone else's image in her clothing) but at least it would look less like she was pointing at how the only the black community is ever responsible for violence.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
"Please stop violence" with the faces of two murdered black rappers on it.
You really don't see a problem with a privledged white girl, who has no social context at for the lives of the men on her dress, preaching to the black community?
At least if she had someone like Trayvon Martin on there, it would be just as controversial (since she's appropriating someone else's image in her clothing) but at least it would look less like she was pointing at how the only the black community is ever responsible for violence.
Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to judge people their race. Are we doing that now? I missed the memo. Also, I'm wary of the implication that she was implying the black community is ONLY ever responsible for violence. That's baseless.
And Cambiata, we all wear the faces of people we have no social context with. Do I have to sign a form before I put on a t-shirt? Where is the committee, who do I apply to? If I like old rap music, what percentage of black must I be to wear the shirt?
I'm just curious; whose pictures should have been on that dress to make it non-racially directed (in your opinion)? Because if I were to list notable slayings in the music industry, Tupac and Biggie are far and away the top two, with John Lennon a distant third, since I was only two when he died. Of course, the lack of any appropriate Anglo-Franco-Prusso-Scando-Scoto-Tahitian American figures for me to choose from is an added problem.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I'm just curious; whose pictures should have been on that dress to make it non-racially directed (in your opinion)? Because if I were to list notable slayings in the music industry, Tupac and Biggie are far and away the top two, with John Lennon a distant third, since I was only two when he died. Of course, the lack of any appropriate Anglo-Franco-Prusso-Scando-Scoto-Tahitian American figures for me to choose from is an added problem.
I'm pretty sure there's no tasteful way to wrap your ass in pictures of dead people of whom you are almost entirely ignorant while pretending it's about a message and not your own self promotion, regardless of the race or gender of the people you're using. The fact her go-to for disposable consumerism is an entire race of people only compounds what is already pretty gross by itself.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I'm not arguing that it is tasteful; I'm arguing it isn't cultural appropriation. And that didn't even pretend to answer my question.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well I did answer the question of "who should be on the dress" with the answer "no one."
But if you're asking who could you tastelessly put on the dress that would not be a message to the black community that they need to take wise lifestyle advice from Miley Cyrus, I already mentioned Travon Martin.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I guess that dress is kind of a Rorshach test. I don't see it as "preaching" to the black community or cultural appropriation since dead rappers aren't really a culture. I see it as Miley Cyrus doing something vapid and tacky which is pretty par for the course.
It does remind me of that youtube video where she covers "Smells like Teen Spirit" and she makes a comment on how the song means a lot to her.
Well I did answer the question of "who should be on the dress" with the answer "no one."
But if you're asking who could you tastelessly put on the dress that would not be a message to the black community that they need to take wise lifestyle advice from Miley Cyrus, I already mentioned Travon Martin.
Considering what you just managed to do to a simple question, your position on this topic makes much more sense.
Martin would be a terrible replacement, considering all the racial buildup and final verdict.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+2
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well I did answer the question of "who should be on the dress" with the answer "no one."
But if you're asking who could you tastelessly put on the dress that would not be a message to the black community that they need to take wise lifestyle advice from Miley Cyrus, I already mentioned Travon Martin.
Considering what you just managed to do to a simple question, your position on this topic makes much more sense.
I'm sure that was the most helpful comment for the conversation you could come up with, bravo sir.
Martin would be a terrible replacement, considering all the racial buildup and final verdict.
You're the one who said that "tasteful" isn't what you're concerned with.
Or are you saying that something is only bad when it's a problem for you personally?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I'm saying that "stop the violence" sends a completely different message when displayed with a pair of murder victims than when displayed with someone who got killed in self defense.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I don't think she means to communicate specifically with the black community re: that dress. There may or may not be problematic aspects about the dress, intensions aside, but I'm having trouble judging it considering how terrible that outfit is.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
is wearing incredibly ugly tacky dresses with tupac and biggie on them part of black culture that it would be insensitive to appropriate?
because I can't think of anyone who would claim it.
if anything it's just so ugly that it might feel like mockery to some people. but it's not. it's a 100% earnest kid wearing something she thinks is somehow cool.
is wearing incredibly ugly tacky dresses with tupac and biggie on them part of black culture that it would be insensitive to appropriate?
because I can't think of anyone who would claim it.
if anything it's just so ugly that it might feel like mockery to some people. but it's not. it's a 100% earnest kid wearing something she thinks is somehow cool.
That's pretty much everything here.
This is Miley Cyrus growing up. Except unlike the rest of us, she's doing it in front of the whole world.
Think about all the stupid shit you did at that age that thankfully didn't make front page news and pity the poor girl.
If you are lacking in things to get outraged about in your life I can gladly supply you with some stuff that's more meaningful than what a mediocre pop star is wearing.
is wearing incredibly ugly tacky dresses with tupac and biggie on them part of black culture that it would be insensitive to appropriate?
because I can't think of anyone who would claim it.
if anything it's just so ugly that it might feel like mockery to some people. but it's not. it's a 100% earnest kid wearing something she thinks is somehow cool.
Well, let's be real. She knows. Her producers know. Her editors know. Her camera guy knows. This isn't some hidden camera situation where we make some random kid in a silly dress into an internet meme. Miley isn't being hated by accident, she's presenting in a particular way so that a certain kind of person will love to hate her, and thus talk about her.
Everyone on TV is playing a character, and Miley's happens to be a villain. Someone like Miley is exactly the kind of villain a certain kind of person loves to hate. Someone with lots of obviously repulsive/annoying qualities who nevertheless has a huge body of support from "someone else." The whole point of that kind of character is that we get to revel in how much better we are than them and their fans. That's why they exist and keep making new headlines despite how many people they offend.
That's why she's always trying to top herself. "Oh, this time Miley made a dress from the shoes of dead holocaust victims and says that it's in their honor, how offensive!" She does all that stuff in front of a camera crew, knowing that people will love to hate her for it, specifically so she won't have to get some kind of real job. She knows how people will react when she does it. So does Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage, and Snooki, and Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians, and...
It's just a certain way people get success, a certain job society needs done. Some people clean up sewage, some people fulfill our psychological needs by giving us something we'll love to hate. There will always be people like her, doing what she's doing.
is wearing incredibly ugly tacky dresses with tupac and biggie on them part of black culture that it would be insensitive to appropriate?
because I can't think of anyone who would claim it.
if anything it's just so ugly that it might feel like mockery to some people. but it's not. it's a 100% earnest kid wearing something she thinks is somehow cool.
Well, let's be real. She knows. Her producers know. Her editors know. Her camera guy knows. This isn't some hidden camera situation where we make some random kid in a silly dress into an internet meme. Miley isn't being hated by accident, she's presenting in a particular way so that a certain kind of person will love to hate her, and thus talk about her.
Everyone on TV is playing a character, and Miley's happens to be a villain. Someone like Miley is exactly the kind of villain a certain kind of person loves to hate. Someone with lots of obviously repulsive/annoying qualities who nevertheless has a huge body of support from "someone else." The whole point of that kind of character is that we get to revel in how much better we are than them and their fans. That's why they exist and keep making new headlines despite how many people they offend.
That's why she's always trying to top herself. "Oh, this time Miley made a dress from the shoes of dead holocaust victims and says that it's in their honor, how offensive!" She does all that stuff in front of a camera crew, knowing that people will love to hate her for it, specifically so she won't have to get some kind of real job. She knows how people will react when she does it. So does Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage, and Snooki, and Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians, and...
It's just a certain way people get success, a certain job society needs done. Some people clean up sewage, some people fulfill our psychological needs by giving us something we'll love to hate. There will always be people like her, doing what she's doing.
That's an insanely misanthropic way to look at it.
She's a manufactured pop singer, not a Sith Padawan.
I'm just curious; whose pictures should have been on that dress to make it non-racially directed (in your opinion)? Because if I were to list notable slayings in the music industry, Tupac and Biggie are far and away the top two, with John Lennon a distant third, since I was only two when he died. Of course, the lack of any appropriate Anglo-Franco-Prusso-Scando-Scoto-Tahitian American figures for me to choose from is an added problem.
I'm pretty sure there's no tasteful way to wrap your ass in pictures of dead people of whom you are almost entirely ignorant...
Um... How do you know she's entirely ignorant of them?
+6
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
That's why she's always trying to top herself. "Oh, this time Miley made a dress from the shoes of dead holocaust victims and says that it's in their honor, how offensive!" She does all that stuff in front of a camera crew, knowing that people will love to hate her for it, specifically so she won't have to get some kind of real job. She knows how people will react when she does it. So does Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage, and Snooki, and Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians, and...
She has a real job. She's a musician. To the extent that her behavior is calculated, it's calculated to sell her music. You're missing the distinction between people like the Kardashians, who subsist on fame, and people like Miley or Charlie Sheen, who use fame to subsist on creative work.
I like that we're still having a serious conversation about what Miley Cyrus is wearing. Even Yahoo is giving me stories about hurricanes and economic crisis. Outclassed. By Yahoo News.
is wearing incredibly ugly tacky dresses with tupac and biggie on them part of black culture that it would be insensitive to appropriate?
because I can't think of anyone who would claim it.
if anything it's just so ugly that it might feel like mockery to some people. but it's not. it's a 100% earnest kid wearing something she thinks is somehow cool.
Well, let's be real. She knows. Her producers know. Her editors know. Her camera guy knows. This isn't some hidden camera situation where we make some random kid in a silly dress into an internet meme. Miley isn't being hated by accident, she's presenting in a particular way so that a certain kind of person will love to hate her, and thus talk about her.
Everyone on TV is playing a character, and Miley's happens to be a villain. Someone like Miley is exactly the kind of villain a certain kind of person loves to hate. Someone with lots of obviously repulsive/annoying qualities who nevertheless has a huge body of support from "someone else." The whole point of that kind of character is that we get to revel in how much better we are than them and their fans. That's why they exist and keep making new headlines despite how many people they offend.
That's why she's always trying to top herself. "Oh, this time Miley made a dress from the shoes of dead holocaust victims and says that it's in their honor, how offensive!" She does all that stuff in front of a camera crew, knowing that people will love to hate her for it, specifically so she won't have to get some kind of real job. She knows how people will react when she does it. So does Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage, and Snooki, and Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians, and...
It's just a certain way people get success, a certain job society needs done. Some people clean up sewage, some people fulfill our psychological needs by giving us something we'll love to hate. There will always be people like her, doing what she's doing.
That's an insanely misanthropic way to look at it.
She's a manufactured pop singer, not a Sith Padawan.
The Miley Cyrus we see on TV is very much like a Sith Padawan, in that she's largely a fictional character. That's part of the appeal of her brand. In other words, Miley Cyrus (the actual one who doesn't go away when the camera turns off) isn't Darth Vader, she's David Prowse playing Darth Vader.
Don't let TV trick you into thinking you know the real Miley. We don't know the "real" anyone on TV, some are just more obvious about reading their lines than others. What's Miley like in real life, does she actually agree with the silly things her character does and says? Doesn't matter. It's not our business to ask.
She knows that the character she plays has a lot of her appeal tied up in offending a certain kind of person, and uses that to full effect. MTV knows it too, and all the people working there. Do you think discussions like this go over TV's head? They're well aware of what they're doing.
As a society, we seem to need these kinds of characters. We need to have Miley Cyrus and Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo as something to define ourselves against, something we'll feel better simply for not being as awful as they are. "Look at those stupid people! Go stand in the spotlight, Miley Cyrus, so everyone can see how much you suck! Stay there, we're not done talking about how awful you are yet!"
It's not evil, anymore than Benedict Cumberbatch is evil for always playing smarmy jerks. It's just designed to evoke a reaction.
is wearing incredibly ugly tacky dresses with tupac and biggie on them part of black culture that it would be insensitive to appropriate?
because I can't think of anyone who would claim it.
if anything it's just so ugly that it might feel like mockery to some people. but it's not. it's a 100% earnest kid wearing something she thinks is somehow cool.
Well, let's be real. She knows. Her producers know. Her editors know. Her camera guy knows. This isn't some hidden camera situation where we make some random kid in a silly dress into an internet meme. Miley isn't being hated by accident, she's presenting in a particular way so that a certain kind of person will love to hate her, and thus talk about her.
Everyone on TV is playing a character, and Miley's happens to be a villain. Someone like Miley is exactly the kind of villain a certain kind of person loves to hate. Someone with lots of obviously repulsive/annoying qualities who nevertheless has a huge body of support from "someone else." The whole point of that kind of character is that we get to revel in how much better we are than them and their fans. That's why they exist and keep making new headlines despite how many people they offend.
That's why she's always trying to top herself. "Oh, this time Miley made a dress from the shoes of dead holocaust victims and says that it's in their honor, how offensive!" She does all that stuff in front of a camera crew, knowing that people will love to hate her for it, specifically so she won't have to get some kind of real job. She knows how people will react when she does it. So does Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage, and Snooki, and Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians, and...
It's just a certain way people get success, a certain job society needs done. Some people clean up sewage, some people fulfill our psychological needs by giving us something we'll love to hate. There will always be people like her, doing what she's doing.
That's an insanely misanthropic way to look at it.
She's a manufactured pop singer, not a Sith Padawan.
The Miley Cyrus we see on TV is very much like a Sith Padawan, in that she's largely a fictional character. That's part of the appeal of her brand. In other words, Miley Cyrus (the actual one who doesn't go away when the camera turns off) isn't Darth Vader, she's David Prowse playing Darth Vader.
Don't let TV trick you into thinking you know the real Miley. We don't know the "real" anyone on TV, some are just more obvious about reading their lines than others. What's Miley like in real life, does she actually agree with the silly things her character does and says? Doesn't matter. It's not our business to ask.
She knows that the character she plays has a lot of her appeal tied up in offending a certain kind of person, and uses that to full effect. MTV knows it too, and all the people working there. Do you think discussions like this go over TV's head? They're well aware of what they're doing.
As a society, we seem to need these kinds of characters. We need to have Miley Cyrus and Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo as something to define ourselves against, something we'll feel better simply for not being as awful as they are. "Look at those stupid people! Go stand in the spotlight, Miley Cyrus, so everyone can see how much you suck! Stay there, we're not done talking about how awful you are yet!"
It's not evil, anymore than Benedict Cumberbatch is evil for always playing smarmy jerks. It's just designed to evoke a reaction.
We don't know the 'real her', but that doesn't mean she's Machiavelli.
Rich famous people are still just people. Sure they have a PR machine, but those people in the PR machine are just people too. Not geniuses of evil.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Of course there are many people in the world who try to conspire and manipulate, but you massively over-estimate their intelligence, their evil, and their dominance.
You don't need to be Machiavelli, just have a basic understanding of your audience. Media people aren't stupid, they know full well that x% of the appeal of Miley's character is that people in older demos will talk about how offensive she is.
There's no conspiracy either. It's not like it's a big secret. This is how TV works, it's built as entertainment first, by people who make entertainment for a living. It's a manufactured product.
What part of what I said would require genius, or evil?
You don't need to be Machiavelli, just have a basic understanding of your audience. Media people aren't stupid, they know full well that x% of the appeal of Miley's character is that people in older demos will talk about how offensive she is.
There's no conspiracy either. It's not like it's a big secret. This is how TV works, it's built as entertainment first, by people who make entertainment for a living. It's a manufactured product.
What part of what I said would require genius, or evil?
The part where they control and design every single aspect of their image perfectly, manipulating public opinion perfectly in all ways, and have no actual personality or self-expression, and never mess up. Or just go, 'Fuck it, I like this dress.' Or make mistakes generally. Or just get tired of the machine. Or any one of the human weaknesses we all have.
They are in the entirely common middle ground between 'stupid' and 'evil genius'.
And Miley Cyrus is how old? I'm sure she is capable of doing things that leave older people in her PR staff despairing.
I'm not sure a lot of the black community will appreciate painting Tupac and Biggie as their representatives.
Alternative interpretation: perhaps the choice of Tupac and Biggie has less to do with them being black and more with them being musicians and thus belonging to a scene that she is supposedly part of.
Not saying it's not tasteless or stupid, it's just that it has nothing to do with racism or cultural appropriation or whatever.
I'm not sure a lot of the black community will appreciate painting Tupac and Biggie as their representatives.
Alternative interpretation: perhaps the choice of Tupac and Biggie has less to do with them being black and more with them being musicians and thus belonging to a scene that she is supposedly part of.
Not saying it's not tasteless or stupid, it's just that it has nothing to do with racism or cultural appropriation or whatever.
Yeah, Miley is a dumbass kid doing dumbass kid things.
You don't need to be Machiavelli, just have a basic understanding of your audience. Media people aren't stupid, they know full well that x% of the appeal of Miley's character is that people in older demos will talk about how offensive she is.
There's no conspiracy either. It's not like it's a big secret. This is how TV works, it's built as entertainment first, by people who make entertainment for a living. It's a manufactured product.
What part of what I said would require genius, or evil?
The part where they control and design every single aspect of their image perfectly, manipulating public opinion perfectly in all ways, and have no actual personality or self-expression, and never mess up. Or just go, 'Fuck it, I like this dress.' Or make mistakes generally. Or just get tired of the machine. Or any one of the human weaknesses we all have.
They are in the entirely common middle ground between 'stupid' and 'evil genius'.
And Miley Cyrus is how old? I'm sure she is capable of doing things that leave older people in her PR staff despairing.
Miley Cyrus is using the same business model as Marilyn Manson(used to). It isn't that hard to control, and its only slightly less obvious.
Can we all agree that Miley Cyrus should not be used as good example for how a well adjusted adult should behave and stop trying to use her as examples for the discussion purposes here?
You don't need to be Machiavelli, just have a basic understanding of your audience. Media people aren't stupid, they know full well that x% of the appeal of Miley's character is that people in older demos will talk about how offensive she is.
There's no conspiracy either. It's not like it's a big secret. This is how TV works, it's built as entertainment first, by people who make entertainment for a living. It's a manufactured product.
What part of what I said would require genius, or evil?
The part where they control and design every single aspect of their image perfectly, manipulating public opinion perfectly in all ways, and have no actual personality or self-expression, and never mess up. Or just go, 'Fuck it, I like this dress.' Or make mistakes generally. Or just get tired of the machine. Or any one of the human weaknesses we all have.
They are in the entirely common middle ground between 'stupid' and 'evil genius'.
And Miley Cyrus is how old? I'm sure she is capable of doing things that leave older people in her PR staff despairing.
Miley Cyrus is using the same business model as Marilyn Manson(used to). It isn't that hard to control, and its only slightly less obvious.
Hey, I know plenty of people who really believe Marilyn Manson is serious (mybe they are not very smart people).
I just ordered a couple of books about cultural appropriation on Amazon. While browsing, I saw a description for one book that seemed to be advocating expanding copyright law to apply to things such as folklore.
I could be completely wrong on this issue, but some things about the concept of cultural appropriation are hard for me to swallow in a way that other social justice concepts, such as privilege, are not. On one hand, I understand that members of dominant cultures have on many occasions profited from works inspired by members of marginalized cultures due to an unequal social environment. On the other hand, contemporary cultural ideas and practices are the result of several millenia worth of human cultures influencing one another, and seeing some intellectuals seriously propose the idea that there should be a legal framework to disallow people from drawing influence from anything outside their culture (or to prevent individuals from illegally sharing their culture without express permission from an appointed authority) sounds like the set-up for some kind of dystopian society.
I feel kinda bad for having such a negative view of the concept of cultural appropriation, as I know it has some value and is intended to prevent harm to marginalized cultures, but right now I can't help but feel like it has the potential to cause unintended harm (such as becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy by dissuading those prople who would otherwise interact with other cultures respectfully from doing so at all for fear of becoming appropriators, leaving only those people who don't give a damn about respect).
I also suspect that at least some of the proponents of the concept of cultural appropriation outside academia don't realize how much of mainstream culture might be considered appropriative: for example, the word Zombi came from a West African deity, became a concept for a soulless living servant controlled by evil magic-users, came to Haiti through the slave trade, were used as the subject of several American works of fiction, and ultimately were redefined as animalistic undead beings when the term was applied to the undead creatures of George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead by film critics. The film itself referred to its creatures as ghouls, a term that Romero initially preferred over the critics' use of zombie but later came to accept; as it so happens, the concept of the "ghoul" was itself a kind of demon appropriated from Babylonian and Assyrian mythology by the ancient Arabians, who thought of it as a jinni that laired in graveyards and ate the dead so the jinni could assume their forms, and was later reappropriated by Europeans who eventually came to conceive of them as undead creatures instead of corpse-eating jinnis or underworld demons.
So who should own the rights to the modern zombie, and who wrongfully appropriated from who? George A. Romero, the film critics who were apparently more familiar with zombies than ghouls, early 20th century writers and filmmakers, Haitian voudou practicioners, the descendants of the West African people groups where the term came from (provided they didn't just appropriate from someone else themselves), the descendants of the Babylonians and Assyrians, the descendants of the ancient Arabians, etc, etc, etc?
Or practically everyone, since you don't need to go back more than about a thousand years to start finding out that tons of people share ancestors. Talking about cultures from several millenia ago, nearly everybody has some distant ancestral relation.
Posts
Either way, this is the worst Miss Universe entry, hands down.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You really don't see a problem with a privledged white girl, who has no social context at for the lives of the men on her dress, preaching to the black community?
At least if she had someone like Trayvon Martin on there, it would be just as controversial (since she's appropriating someone else's image in her clothing) but at least it would look less like she was pointing at how the only the black community is ever responsible for violence.
Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to judge people their race. Are we doing that now? I missed the memo. Also, I'm wary of the implication that she was implying the black community is ONLY ever responsible for violence. That's baseless.
And Cambiata, we all wear the faces of people we have no social context with. Do I have to sign a form before I put on a t-shirt? Where is the committee, who do I apply to? If I like old rap music, what percentage of black must I be to wear the shirt?
- John Stuart Mill
I'm pretty sure there's no tasteful way to wrap your ass in pictures of dead people of whom you are almost entirely ignorant while pretending it's about a message and not your own self promotion, regardless of the race or gender of the people you're using. The fact her go-to for disposable consumerism is an entire race of people only compounds what is already pretty gross by itself.
- John Stuart Mill
But if you're asking who could you tastelessly put on the dress that would not be a message to the black community that they need to take wise lifestyle advice from Miley Cyrus, I already mentioned Travon Martin.
It does remind me of that youtube video where she covers "Smells like Teen Spirit" and she makes a comment on how the song means a lot to her.
Considering what you just managed to do to a simple question, your position on this topic makes much more sense.
Martin would be a terrible replacement, considering all the racial buildup and final verdict.
- John Stuart Mill
I'm sure that was the most helpful comment for the conversation you could come up with, bravo sir.
You're the one who said that "tasteful" isn't what you're concerned with.
Or are you saying that something is only bad when it's a problem for you personally?
- John Stuart Mill
because I can't think of anyone who would claim it.
if anything it's just so ugly that it might feel like mockery to some people. but it's not. it's a 100% earnest kid wearing something she thinks is somehow cool.
That's pretty much everything here.
This is Miley Cyrus growing up. Except unlike the rest of us, she's doing it in front of the whole world.
Think about all the stupid shit you did at that age that thankfully didn't make front page news and pity the poor girl.
Well, let's be real. She knows. Her producers know. Her editors know. Her camera guy knows. This isn't some hidden camera situation where we make some random kid in a silly dress into an internet meme. Miley isn't being hated by accident, she's presenting in a particular way so that a certain kind of person will love to hate her, and thus talk about her.
Everyone on TV is playing a character, and Miley's happens to be a villain. Someone like Miley is exactly the kind of villain a certain kind of person loves to hate. Someone with lots of obviously repulsive/annoying qualities who nevertheless has a huge body of support from "someone else." The whole point of that kind of character is that we get to revel in how much better we are than them and their fans. That's why they exist and keep making new headlines despite how many people they offend.
That's why she's always trying to top herself. "Oh, this time Miley made a dress from the shoes of dead holocaust victims and says that it's in their honor, how offensive!" She does all that stuff in front of a camera crew, knowing that people will love to hate her for it, specifically so she won't have to get some kind of real job. She knows how people will react when she does it. So does Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage, and Snooki, and Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians, and...
It's just a certain way people get success, a certain job society needs done. Some people clean up sewage, some people fulfill our psychological needs by giving us something we'll love to hate. There will always be people like her, doing what she's doing.
That's an insanely misanthropic way to look at it.
She's a manufactured pop singer, not a Sith Padawan.
Um... How do you know she's entirely ignorant of them?
She has a real job. She's a musician. To the extent that her behavior is calculated, it's calculated to sell her music. You're missing the distinction between people like the Kardashians, who subsist on fame, and people like Miley or Charlie Sheen, who use fame to subsist on creative work.
The shame.
The Miley Cyrus we see on TV is very much like a Sith Padawan, in that she's largely a fictional character. That's part of the appeal of her brand. In other words, Miley Cyrus (the actual one who doesn't go away when the camera turns off) isn't Darth Vader, she's David Prowse playing Darth Vader.
Don't let TV trick you into thinking you know the real Miley. We don't know the "real" anyone on TV, some are just more obvious about reading their lines than others. What's Miley like in real life, does she actually agree with the silly things her character does and says? Doesn't matter. It's not our business to ask.
She knows that the character she plays has a lot of her appeal tied up in offending a certain kind of person, and uses that to full effect. MTV knows it too, and all the people working there. Do you think discussions like this go over TV's head? They're well aware of what they're doing.
As a society, we seem to need these kinds of characters. We need to have Miley Cyrus and Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo as something to define ourselves against, something we'll feel better simply for not being as awful as they are. "Look at those stupid people! Go stand in the spotlight, Miley Cyrus, so everyone can see how much you suck! Stay there, we're not done talking about how awful you are yet!"
It's not evil, anymore than Benedict Cumberbatch is evil for always playing smarmy jerks. It's just designed to evoke a reaction.
We don't know the 'real her', but that doesn't mean she's Machiavelli.
Rich famous people are still just people. Sure they have a PR machine, but those people in the PR machine are just people too. Not geniuses of evil.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Of course there are many people in the world who try to conspire and manipulate, but you massively over-estimate their intelligence, their evil, and their dominance.
There's no conspiracy either. It's not like it's a big secret. This is how TV works, it's built as entertainment first, by people who make entertainment for a living. It's a manufactured product.
What part of what I said would require genius, or evil?
The part where they control and design every single aspect of their image perfectly, manipulating public opinion perfectly in all ways, and have no actual personality or self-expression, and never mess up. Or just go, 'Fuck it, I like this dress.' Or make mistakes generally. Or just get tired of the machine. Or any one of the human weaknesses we all have.
They are in the entirely common middle ground between 'stupid' and 'evil genius'.
And Miley Cyrus is how old? I'm sure she is capable of doing things that leave older people in her PR staff despairing.
Alternative interpretation: perhaps the choice of Tupac and Biggie has less to do with them being black and more with them being musicians and thus belonging to a scene that she is supposedly part of.
Not saying it's not tasteless or stupid, it's just that it has nothing to do with racism or cultural appropriation or whatever.
Wear what you want, yo
Fuck the haters
Miley Cyrus is using the same business model as Marilyn Manson(used to). It isn't that hard to control, and its only slightly less obvious.
I guess a lot of Yeezus merch also sports that kind of thing.
To which I respond:
Hey, I know plenty of people who really believe Marilyn Manson is serious (mybe they are not very smart people).
Man o' War, though. That's a tough one.
I could be completely wrong on this issue, but some things about the concept of cultural appropriation are hard for me to swallow in a way that other social justice concepts, such as privilege, are not. On one hand, I understand that members of dominant cultures have on many occasions profited from works inspired by members of marginalized cultures due to an unequal social environment. On the other hand, contemporary cultural ideas and practices are the result of several millenia worth of human cultures influencing one another, and seeing some intellectuals seriously propose the idea that there should be a legal framework to disallow people from drawing influence from anything outside their culture (or to prevent individuals from illegally sharing their culture without express permission from an appointed authority) sounds like the set-up for some kind of dystopian society.
I feel kinda bad for having such a negative view of the concept of cultural appropriation, as I know it has some value and is intended to prevent harm to marginalized cultures, but right now I can't help but feel like it has the potential to cause unintended harm (such as becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy by dissuading those prople who would otherwise interact with other cultures respectfully from doing so at all for fear of becoming appropriators, leaving only those people who don't give a damn about respect).
I also suspect that at least some of the proponents of the concept of cultural appropriation outside academia don't realize how much of mainstream culture might be considered appropriative: for example, the word Zombi came from a West African deity, became a concept for a soulless living servant controlled by evil magic-users, came to Haiti through the slave trade, were used as the subject of several American works of fiction, and ultimately were redefined as animalistic undead beings when the term was applied to the undead creatures of George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead by film critics. The film itself referred to its creatures as ghouls, a term that Romero initially preferred over the critics' use of zombie but later came to accept; as it so happens, the concept of the "ghoul" was itself a kind of demon appropriated from Babylonian and Assyrian mythology by the ancient Arabians, who thought of it as a jinni that laired in graveyards and ate the dead so the jinni could assume their forms, and was later reappropriated by Europeans who eventually came to conceive of them as undead creatures instead of corpse-eating jinnis or underworld demons.
So who should own the rights to the modern zombie, and who wrongfully appropriated from who? George A. Romero, the film critics who were apparently more familiar with zombies than ghouls, early 20th century writers and filmmakers, Haitian voudou practicioners, the descendants of the West African people groups where the term came from (provided they didn't just appropriate from someone else themselves), the descendants of the Babylonians and Assyrians, the descendants of the ancient Arabians, etc, etc, etc?