1/ The idea and associated costs of cultural appropriation are routinely rejected by self-identifying 'objective', rational choice theorists. That's impressive, since the implications of cultural appropriation follow from orthodox signaling theory.
-
Show this thread
-
2/ There are two groups, A and B. There are more members of A than there are of B. Members of A enjoy a privileged position in that they can profitably exploit members of B. Thus, B prefers to interact with B, where they have a greater expectation of fairness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
3/ B needs to construct signals easily received by members of B and less recognizable by members of A. But, some of these signals become associated with secondary, positive social characteristics. Members of A adopt them, hoping to – literally – appropriate the positive value.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
4/ Members of A may sincerely appreciate the adopted signal. And, it may eventually lead to acculturation and assimilation, normalizing the standing of B relative to A. But, it doesn't do so *instantaneously*.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
5/ Instead, in the short term, it tends to annihilate the suitability of the signal to members of B. That is, It destroys strategically useful and accessible information for the already short-stacked group.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
6/ It's reflexively (and emotionally) rejected by rational skeptics™ et al. because – demographically speaking – they belong to the A groups. They don't see the signaling value lost by members of B because they've never needed such a device.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
7/ And, rather than considering whether or not they could unintentionally cause harm, they reject the claimed harm. "My intentions were good, so fuck you for criticizing me."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.