Let's not forget that phones are a big part of the problem. Before phones if someone dressed up like Sexy Hitler (like Sarah Silverman supposedly did once - which, BTW, hilarious), the people at the party could be both amused and horrified, but that's where it ended. There aren't 200 photos of the "offensive" costume all over the internet the following day. In a lot of ways, the ability to document everything has made many events more prudish simply because the "my mom & dad might find out" factor has gone through the roof.
I guess what I don't understand is that however offensive I found some rando at a party, what on earth would possess me to tell on them to the rest of the world? This is the impulse that is now rewarded, and has made even 15 years ago seem like another world. And to be fair, there was shit going down that *I* found offensive back then, but what we have now, the fear of being "wished into the cornfield" for the smallest of slights, is just fucking awful.
So no, not better on the whole. The purge was bad, end of story.
At the end of the day, what this piece is all about -- what really makes it stylistically cohere as a fully-considered meditation on the evolving socio-cultural import of Halloween costumes -- is the phrase "dong neck."
I thank you for the advance in both scholarship and rhetoric.
As much as I'd like to own "dong neck" -- as much as I'd like the words "invented the phrase 'dong neck'" to be chiseled on my tombstone -- I don't think I came up with that. I've heard that before.
"But then shouldn’t it also be okay for a white kid to dress as Mulan for Halloween? Even if the costume is just, you know…Mulan, the Disney character, and not “Chinese people, generally”
Conceptually, it makes total sense. I'm a Jew. I see how it could be offensive if someone dressed up in "Jew-face" and played my ethnic group as a caricatured stereotype. However, if there were a specific character or historical personality who happened to be an Orthodox Jew, and some goy dressed up as that character, I wouldn't consider that offensive at all.
The reason this is at all controversial is that as you've said the left has become the party of moral purity, and "all virtuous people support the most maximal claims of anyone who claims to speak for the oppressed" is the standard of behavior.
Going to the "cultural appropriation" argument, the only article I've ever read that presented a slightly coherent and sane explanation of this is Scott Alexander's old piece here:
It's not what the essay is mostly about, but it explains how certain symbols (clothing, music, etc.) might be the thing a culture uses to define itself and its identity, so when people outside the culture start using those symbols they weaken the group's ability to define itself. Worth a read, not just for that part of the essay.
I like this article, but it does seem to have some passive assertions about where all of this comes from. This culture war fight over costumes came from one particular side of the spectrum and is only causing people to review their costumes for offence because they dont want to bump into some self appointed Red Guard for Team Democrat, and then wind up on blast, whatever that means these days. You shouldn't talk about this debate like it emerged out of the woodwork. It was forced on Americans by people who don't like America all that much. The extent to which this issue harms Democrats at the ballot box is because it is of a piece with their whole Junior Anti Sex League vibe that Democrats have been encouraging in their most fervent supporters. This is not a bipartisan issue.
What are you talking about? The left catches way more fire in this article - if you think that Jeff was tacking to the center and arguing that both sides are equally at fault, I think you need to re-read the article.
"catches way more fire" is a phrase that some how compares the volume of criticism units between Left and Right. You are using it in a construction that would seem to indicate that the right is taking any fire for this. My contention is that Right deserves zero fire of any sort. The position staked out at the end of the piece about how we should treat costumes at Halloween is more or less the same position most Americans and the near entirety of the Right had. This social issue is entirely an invention of fevered left wing activists going beyond rolling their eyes at a tacky costume and instead turning it into a chance for people to "Be better". The tone of the piece became very "both sides" right from the job when the article passively asserts that ...
"In recent years, Halloween costumes have become a battlefield in the culture war. It began when people started to question whether Halloween’s “edginess” might more accurately be called “racism”, or perhaps “social pressure for women to go downtown with their asscheeks hanging out even if it’s 40 degrees.” Then, there was a high-profile kerfuffle over student costumes at Yale, and conservative backlash to left-wing overreach, and now fighting over Halloween costumes is A Thing."
I am not going to do too many more pull quotes about this, but it begins right from the start. It began when PEOPLE (which people exactly) started to QUESTION (I seem to remember a lot more angry shreiking about Appropriation! and a lot of heretic burning for those that ever dared to violate this new moral dictate). It talks about The Y ale Incident and then lumps that in with a CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH (You could even say Republicans 'pounced' and or 'seized' on the issue (Because when Democrats do something stupid or crazy the story is always made about how the GOP is 'reacting' (Have you red this website much, because there is a very popular piece entitled "OMG Stop Freaking Out Is a Bad Response "Right Wing Freak Outs"
Ultimately the CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH, was just innocent GOP party goes and people who believed whateveryone believed about costumes up to five years ago or so insisting that they hadnt done anything wrong and that accusing kids of racism for wanting to dress up as Black Panther was a stupid thing to do.
You claim the piece is balanced. Yeah. It sort of is. To elide over the insanity of the Left Wing Commissar position that you are only allowed to dress as figures and character that match your racial bloodline this article makes it seem like this fight is two sides both going after the other for their preferred position when really it was one very common and wide spread belief (Halloween should be fun, and is mainly about candy and harvest festival parties) that gets suddenly attacked by people who haven't read Animal Farm and don't see the irony in acting like one of Napoleons enforcers.
There’s an analogy with First Amendment arguments. I might never dress as an Illinois Nazi or the maid from Tom and Jerry but I’d rather live in a world where this was allowed than a world where it was banned -> and whether the ban is enforced by the cultural police or the state police makes little difference. If a costume is truly offensive, rolling your eyes would be sufficient punishment.
Here in the socially conservative part of the South where I live, the slutty Halloween costume trend passed us by. Were we behind the times, or somehow ahead of it?
Apparently, Miranda didn't like how women were treated by Gamergate, so he thought "I'll make the Warriors *women*! That'll show them!". And his co-creator wants to remove all the "misogyny and homophobia" from the original (no idea, I haven't seen it in decades).
So yeah, it seems the woke impulse is alive and well, and I think it has a corollary that answers your question about why performing/costuming seems like a one way street: Inverting the dominant class (white, male, cis, het) is good, performing that inversion as a member of one or, God forbid, an intersection of those dominant classes is badbadbadbadbad!
I think what you saw when you went to buy some pot...ted soil is that these ideas of oppressor/oppressed go out the window when you're looking to get laid. Maybe not in some elite spaces, but those are exceptions and not the rule.
This article blurs together "costumes that are allegedly racist" and "costumes that are allegedly too sexy." But aren't they different? The blow-up at Yale was only about the first category...
Let's not forget that phones are a big part of the problem. Before phones if someone dressed up like Sexy Hitler (like Sarah Silverman supposedly did once - which, BTW, hilarious), the people at the party could be both amused and horrified, but that's where it ended. There aren't 200 photos of the "offensive" costume all over the internet the following day. In a lot of ways, the ability to document everything has made many events more prudish simply because the "my mom & dad might find out" factor has gone through the roof.
We have met the panopticon, and it is us.
I guess what I don't understand is that however offensive I found some rando at a party, what on earth would possess me to tell on them to the rest of the world? This is the impulse that is now rewarded, and has made even 15 years ago seem like another world. And to be fair, there was shit going down that *I* found offensive back then, but what we have now, the fear of being "wished into the cornfield" for the smallest of slights, is just fucking awful.
So no, not better on the whole. The purge was bad, end of story.
Sarah Silverman Vroom Vroom!
"Dong neck."
At the end of the day, what this piece is all about -- what really makes it stylistically cohere as a fully-considered meditation on the evolving socio-cultural import of Halloween costumes -- is the phrase "dong neck."
I thank you for the advance in both scholarship and rhetoric.
As much as I'd like to own "dong neck" -- as much as I'd like the words "invented the phrase 'dong neck'" to be chiseled on my tombstone -- I don't think I came up with that. I've heard that before.
I could swear I heard the phrase "Dong neck" in a Dave Attell bit somewhere, but I wouldn't bet more than a dollar on that guess.
Brian Posehn has a bit about guys dressing slutty by showing some dong neck.
Thank You! I can hear him saying dong neck right now. Classic bit.
Jeff does have a way with words and he is funny! Bonus!
The best part about this comment is that its semantic ambiguity allows me to think you were talking about me.
To address your footnote:
"But then shouldn’t it also be okay for a white kid to dress as Mulan for Halloween? Even if the costume is just, you know…Mulan, the Disney character, and not “Chinese people, generally”
Conceptually, it makes total sense. I'm a Jew. I see how it could be offensive if someone dressed up in "Jew-face" and played my ethnic group as a caricatured stereotype. However, if there were a specific character or historical personality who happened to be an Orthodox Jew, and some goy dressed up as that character, I wouldn't consider that offensive at all.
The reason this is at all controversial is that as you've said the left has become the party of moral purity, and "all virtuous people support the most maximal claims of anyone who claims to speak for the oppressed" is the standard of behavior.
Going to the "cultural appropriation" argument, the only article I've ever read that presented a slightly coherent and sane explanation of this is Scott Alexander's old piece here:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/04/the-ideology-is-not-the-movement/
It's not what the essay is mostly about, but it explains how certain symbols (clothing, music, etc.) might be the thing a culture uses to define itself and its identity, so when people outside the culture start using those symbols they weaken the group's ability to define itself. Worth a read, not just for that part of the essay.
I like this article, but it does seem to have some passive assertions about where all of this comes from. This culture war fight over costumes came from one particular side of the spectrum and is only causing people to review their costumes for offence because they dont want to bump into some self appointed Red Guard for Team Democrat, and then wind up on blast, whatever that means these days. You shouldn't talk about this debate like it emerged out of the woodwork. It was forced on Americans by people who don't like America all that much. The extent to which this issue harms Democrats at the ballot box is because it is of a piece with their whole Junior Anti Sex League vibe that Democrats have been encouraging in their most fervent supporters. This is not a bipartisan issue.
What are you talking about? The left catches way more fire in this article - if you think that Jeff was tacking to the center and arguing that both sides are equally at fault, I think you need to re-read the article.
"catches way more fire" is a phrase that some how compares the volume of criticism units between Left and Right. You are using it in a construction that would seem to indicate that the right is taking any fire for this. My contention is that Right deserves zero fire of any sort. The position staked out at the end of the piece about how we should treat costumes at Halloween is more or less the same position most Americans and the near entirety of the Right had. This social issue is entirely an invention of fevered left wing activists going beyond rolling their eyes at a tacky costume and instead turning it into a chance for people to "Be better". The tone of the piece became very "both sides" right from the job when the article passively asserts that ...
"In recent years, Halloween costumes have become a battlefield in the culture war. It began when people started to question whether Halloween’s “edginess” might more accurately be called “racism”, or perhaps “social pressure for women to go downtown with their asscheeks hanging out even if it’s 40 degrees.” Then, there was a high-profile kerfuffle over student costumes at Yale, and conservative backlash to left-wing overreach, and now fighting over Halloween costumes is A Thing."
I am not going to do too many more pull quotes about this, but it begins right from the start. It began when PEOPLE (which people exactly) started to QUESTION (I seem to remember a lot more angry shreiking about Appropriation! and a lot of heretic burning for those that ever dared to violate this new moral dictate). It talks about The Y ale Incident and then lumps that in with a CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH (You could even say Republicans 'pounced' and or 'seized' on the issue (Because when Democrats do something stupid or crazy the story is always made about how the GOP is 'reacting' (Have you red this website much, because there is a very popular piece entitled "OMG Stop Freaking Out Is a Bad Response "Right Wing Freak Outs"
Ultimately the CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH, was just innocent GOP party goes and people who believed whateveryone believed about costumes up to five years ago or so insisting that they hadnt done anything wrong and that accusing kids of racism for wanting to dress up as Black Panther was a stupid thing to do.
You claim the piece is balanced. Yeah. It sort of is. To elide over the insanity of the Left Wing Commissar position that you are only allowed to dress as figures and character that match your racial bloodline this article makes it seem like this fight is two sides both going after the other for their preferred position when really it was one very common and wide spread belief (Halloween should be fun, and is mainly about candy and harvest festival parties) that gets suddenly attacked by people who haven't read Animal Farm and don't see the irony in acting like one of Napoleons enforcers.
Michael B. is not undecided. He’s just pretending to be for the media attention.
There’s an analogy with First Amendment arguments. I might never dress as an Illinois Nazi or the maid from Tom and Jerry but I’d rather live in a world where this was allowed than a world where it was banned -> and whether the ban is enforced by the cultural police or the state police makes little difference. If a costume is truly offensive, rolling your eyes would be sufficient punishment.
Halloween is Straight Pride Day. It’s also Carnival for Americans.
Perfect comment!
I'm just hoping that someday we can drive a stake through "inclusive" which more often than not ends up excluding me.
Nevertheless, I retain confidence that hot girls will continue to find ways to broadcast their hotness.
“Today, the roles are somewhat reversed: The left are the scolds…”
This, for me, is it. I’ll forever be the blasphemer, I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
The best was during covid when we because the scoldy fun police. “You want to go to the movies?!? What are you a murderer?!?” Even post vaccine 🥴
Here in the socially conservative part of the South where I live, the slutty Halloween costume trend passed us by. Were we behind the times, or somehow ahead of it?
Your footnote on what is and isn't allowed by race/ethnicity made me think of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/18/theater/lin-manuel-miranda-warriors.html
Apparently, Miranda didn't like how women were treated by Gamergate, so he thought "I'll make the Warriors *women*! That'll show them!". And his co-creator wants to remove all the "misogyny and homophobia" from the original (no idea, I haven't seen it in decades).
So yeah, it seems the woke impulse is alive and well, and I think it has a corollary that answers your question about why performing/costuming seems like a one way street: Inverting the dominant class (white, male, cis, het) is good, performing that inversion as a member of one or, God forbid, an intersection of those dominant classes is badbadbadbadbad!
I think what you saw when you went to buy some pot...ted soil is that these ideas of oppressor/oppressed go out the window when you're looking to get laid. Maybe not in some elite spaces, but those are exceptions and not the rule.
This article blurs together "costumes that are allegedly racist" and "costumes that are allegedly too sexy." But aren't they different? The blow-up at Yale was only about the first category...
I think the broader point is that Halloween costumes getting dragged into the culture war has made the whole thing less fun.
Ass never went away. You just have no friends because you're an ugly retard
This is why my favorite Republican (by far) is Lauren Boebert