fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3923 ]

[ SECRET POST #3923 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3923 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Close Your Eyes]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Brooklyn 99]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Daredevil, Vanessa Marianna/Wilson Fisk]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman]

__________________________________________________

06.

[A Wrinkle In Time, the forthcoming film]

__________________________________________________

07.

[FullMetal Alchemist]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #562.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

NAYRT but... it does make sense why people would be annoyed at a magazine doing a report on a burrito truck only when they find one that's run by white people. And specifically white people who can tell stories about going on vacation to Mexico and getting culinarily woke. It's pretty hard to imagine Williamette Weekly or whichever newspaper running the same piece about a burrito truck that was actually run by Mexicans. It is objectionable in some - not necessarily major - sense. I can see why it bothers people.

Now obviously that's not to say that they have to shut down their business or whatever. So much of this is about the networks of influence and thought and behavior, and all those networks go back in time and are so well-diffused that it's really hard to talk about. and on the one hand of course the women who started this particular shop didn't create any of those networks, but at the same time, they undeniably benefited from them, and more than that, their success is a manifestation of those networks. It's just a fucking hard problem to deal with.

it's interesting and I think typical how much of this seems to be about the media coverage more than the thing itself. So many of these controversies are really about the media reporting on things, and especially the tone and color and context that they give to things that might otherwise not be at all notable, and the headlines. And, really, that's kind of something that's a reality of media and culture in 2017, unfortunately. Really across the board. I do it too. It's incredibly frustrating and there's nothing I can see that's going to change that.

I saw OP earlier in the thread suggesting that there was something hypocritical about people objecting to this while Chipotle and Qdoba exist. one, I don't know where you get the idea that everyone who objects to this is eating at Chipotle everyday. I think most people who object to this would probably also say that Chipotle isn't great. It's just that it's easy to comment on a local news item than it is to bring down and destroy a multinational corporation. And that seems to be what happened.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with objecting to this kind of thing, and I certainly don't agree with the suggestion that it's anti-femininist. I don't think that there are really any good solutions here. The burrito truck that they tried to run is basically fine, and the sociocultural context that promoted them for doing so is deeply fucked, and it's hard to see any response that deals with both things adequately.

The issue I have with it is specifically targeting two white ladies, when guys are opening up "Illegal Pete's" to serve burritos.

And I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find a restaurant that doesn't appropriate from a culture other than the owner's. A movie theater that doesn't serve nachos, a Vietnamese place that doesn't serve Coke or Pepsi, and then there's going back and deciding how far back to draw the line at appropriation? Should we ban nutmeg? Tomatoes in Italian food?

But as you said, targeting the media coverage is tricky and addressing the society is tricky, harassing two women into closing shop and then patting yourself on the back for striking a blow against systemic racism is easy, they're just a couple of stupid white bitches.

The issue I have with it is specifically targeting two white ladies, when guys are opening up "Illegal Pete's" to serve burritos.

I mean, I don't think that "Illegal Pete's" is great either, I just haven't... you know... heard of it. Which I think is likely true of many of the other people involved. I would certainly object to it in the same sense. It's in part an effect of the same cultural systems that we agree are the problem.

And I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find a restaurant that doesn't appropriate from a culture other than the owner's. A movie theater that doesn't serve nachos, a Vietnamese place that doesn't serve Coke or Pepsi, and then there's going back and deciding how far back to draw the line at appropriation? Should we ban nutmeg? Tomatoes in Italian food?

I take your point, but I'm not sure this is an entirely fair summary of what people mean when they talk about appropriation and food. I think it's just as much about the narratives as it is about ingredients and techniques - in this case, the narrative of "we're going to go down to Mexico and bring the food back for you" and authenticity and stuff like that. I don't think that talking about cultural appropriation and food necessarily entails a demand for strict cultural purity.

I think it kind of proves my point though that misogyny is a huge factor in why this one foodcart incident blew up as big as it did.

It's like looking at the fact white people make up the majority of drug users and dealers, but POC make up the majority of arrests, and shrugging off that you don't think the police are pro white-drugs or arguing if POC should have a free pass to do drugs.

I saw something that really struck me once. It was a comment talking about the current call-out culture and it said the biggest issue it had with it was being able to shake off call-outs was the definition of privilege. That some rich white frat boy accused of being transphobic is going to laugh and high-five his bros and go on with his life, but a queer POC girl is going to lose her 'woke' friends and suffer a great deal more. It's a system designed to hurt the least privileged the most.

I think it kind of proves my point though that misogyny is a huge factor in why this one foodcart incident blew up as big as it did.

I don't know how you narrow down how much of it is misogyny and how much of it is it getting reported in the news randomly.

It was a comment talking about the current call-out culture and it said the biggest issue it had with it was being able to shake off call-outs was the definition of privilege. That some rich white frat boy accused of being transphobic is going to laugh and high-five his bros and go on with his life, but a queer POC girl is going to lose her 'woke' friends and suffer a great deal more. It's a system designed to hurt the least privileged the most.

But the problem is that your response to that can't just be "Well, let's never criticize things that are bad". If the underlying critiques are bad, we have to be able to talk to them. A series of small decisions to let people slide on things because we like them is literally what the system of privilege is.

Now obviously we can talk about how we go about doing this and the conversations that we have and the systems that we use to do it in. But just saying that there's misogyny there isn't an argument against the validity of the critiques.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3923 ]

Re: What frustrates you about people "on your side"?

Re: What frustrates you about people "on your side"?

Re: What frustrates you about people "on your side"?

Re: What frustrates you about people "on your side"?

Re: What frustrates you about people "on your side"?