The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
A Song of Ice and Fire
George R.R. Martin Threads
>
Is 'A Song of Ice and Fire' racist?
Baelor wrote: "We have now just identified specific information and can proceed to discuss why we should care or whether it is problematic. "You can do whatever you want, but you don't determine what I do or don't do. Talk to the hand.
Baelor, I agree that clear definition of terms is a necessity for rigorous philosophical debate, but I think that contention over semantics is sometimes used to obfuscate issues that are fairly clear on a common-sense basis. In reading this thread I find it hard not to come to the conclusion that such has been the case here.
Mysterio2 wrote: "Firstname wrote: Here's the truly weird part. If the responses were "Yeah, he does that, most Western writers do that to some degree because it is part of our shared culture as Westerners" there wo..."It is just that simple. It's just that a simple idea is not so simple to acknowledge when your self-worth as an individual and as a group is tied into domination of every other group, as well as any conversation in which other groups might say something about whether they agree with said domination.
Because make no mistake, that's pretty much what it's about, and has been for centuries now. Trying to make the conversation about whether the subject itself is "legitimate" or not is just yet another version of "the only acceptable version is the one where [my in-group] is the most awesome just because" It's kind of like The Stand in that there's no actual 'reason' the Good Guys began to win, they just did because they're the Good Guys, amirite?
Mysterio2 wrote: "Baelor, I agree that clear definition of terms is a necessity for rigorous philosophical debate, but I think that contention over semantics is sometimes used to obfuscate issues that are fairly cle..."If you're not into extensive glossolalia, eject. Just my $0.02
Baelor, I agree that clear definition of terms is a necessity for rigorous philosophical debate, but I think that contention over semantics is sometimes used to obfuscate issues that are fairly clear on a common-sense basis.I disagree. I think that all of the obfuscation in discussions like this result in the use of terms like "racism" or "sexism" or "Islamophobia" or "homophobia" and the like. In this case, I would not label Martin's book as racist, and clearly others agree. So we have yet again an instance of what you think is common sense not being so common at all.
As I said, any discussion at all involving these kinds of words should proceed in one of two ways:
1) The term is clearly defined and dropped if an agreement on the definition cannot be reached.
2) The term is dropped altogether in favor of specificity.
"Racism" means something. Unless "Martin's book is racist" is a completely vacuous statement, you have something in mind when you (generic you) call it racist. I may have something completely different in mind, and nothing is gained by talking past each other.
There is really no downside to immediately making sure that everyone is on the same page. Specious demagogues feed on vague definitions. Why do you think O'Reilly, Hannity, Huffington, et al. are so successful? Because they abuse vague definitions ALL THE TIME.
Mysterio2 wrote: "As a black American man, I recognize some ways in which our common culture disadvantages me personally, but also some ways in which it has advantaged me personally."What are your thoughts on the suspension of disbelief when the character is so obviously not "you", as (I've been told) most readers like to put themselves in the place of a main character.
Apologies if this has been posted before, but Saladin Ahmed wrote an article about this subject a while back: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_ga...
Michal wrote: "Apologies if this has been posted before, but Saladin Ahmed wrote an article about this subject a while back: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_ga..."
Now that is a 'good read'.
Firstname,I have been waiting for your ἀναγνώρισις for quite some time. I am of course delighted that it has finally occurred.
Firstname wrote: "What are your thoughts on the suspension of disbelief when the character is so obviously not "you", as (I've been told) most readers like to put themselves in the place of a main character. "I've always seen myself as something of an outsider, neither fish nor fowl culturally, as it were, so I never developed the habit of looking for characters with whom to identify in that way.
This said, I will say that as a member of a cultural minority, I find the deficit in representation of people of my cultural background in certain parts of our common popular culture to be somewhat...dispiriting, I guess is the word.
Mysterio2 wrote: "Firstname wrote: "What are your thoughts on the suspension of disbelief when the character is so obviously not "you", as (I've been told) most readers like to put themselves in the place of a main ..."I agree, but I'm also acutely sensitive to the popular culture's version of people who look like me (saggy-pantsed gangbangers and they baby mamas), vs. who I actually am (graduate student developing my own program, with a professional FT job). Even black writers' use of patois/jargon/jive tends to rub me the wrong way because that's not how I talk, unless I'm trying to make a point.
What gets lost in conversations like these (often when they get sidetracked by people, usually white, trying to shut conversation down by proclaiming the act of communication somehow illegitimate) is that there is no singular 'Black Experience' to which we all can be referred. Much like the Fox News host who assumed that a Nicaraguan co-host "grew up on tacos" simply because she was brownish and from a point somewhere south of Brownsville, TX.
Yes, I wish there was more diversity in characters, but I also want it to be authentic. We have black astronauts, but since they also hold Ph.Ds, I sincerely doubt we're going to be seeing Mae Jemison or Guion Bluford twerking or preaching at the next NASA annual dinner.
I think it's a hard balance to walk, and while acknowledging that, I also wish more authors were willing to walk it.
Firstname wrote: "I think it's a hard balance to walk, and while acknowledging that, I also wish more authors were willing to walk it."Agree pretty much with everything you said.
Firstname wrote: "Mysterio2 wrote: "Firstname wrote: "What are your thoughts on the suspension of disbelief when the character is so obviously not "you", as (I've been told) most readers like to put themselves in th..."Similarly, there is no singular white experience. I actually identify more with what Mysterio is saying about their identity than I do with the so-called mainstream white culture. There's a lot of things other than race that would make you feel different, oppressed and a bit of an outsider, such as social class, relationships within the family, spiritual ideas and intellectual ability.
And my earlier thoughts that race does not exist outside of the mind come not from European culture - I'm British - but from the Middle East, Asia and Africa in terms of Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism et al. One thing noted by the Beninian artist Meschac Gaba is how African Art and spirituality is reduced or missing within the western culture. I think that's very true and I would be interested in seeing promotion of those ideas that go beyond the Jim Crow Voodoo trope played with by Grant Morrison in the Invisibles comic strip.
Thanks again for the comments.
Dear GoodReads, I do so love the blocking feature. It allows me to completely ignore those who bring zero value to the conversation.
Baelor wrote: "The analogy falls apart because of the power of belief. Belief in the value of money actually creates an objective reality because the value of money is, as you say, completely dependent on belief. The same holds true for definitions, which have no meaning outside of semantic identities established by speakers.Racism is different. The belief that there is a scientific and empirical difference between individuals of different "races" does not mean that those scientific differences exist. It simply creates very real social categories of race, which is something different entirely."
Why do you keep bringing science and empiricism into this? The "scientific" rationale was created by racists to justify their actions, not the other way around -- racism existed for centuries before they felt any need to explain it through science.
Racism is the social system that values certain people more than others based upon their membership in a racial group, regardless of whether it's explained through science, the Bible, or plain old societal norms. That valuing is just as artificial as money, and it affects reality just as much.
David Sven wrote: "Yes. And if people stop believing that race is real? What justification then is left for racism or even the othering of different cultures? "
Indeed. And a necessary step in that direction is getting writers to stop using racial and cultural stereotypes in their work, which means calling out those authors who do it.
@Sean:Why do you keep bringing science and empiricism into this? The "scientific" rationale was created by racists to justify their actions, not the other way around
So you agree that racists believe in something that is empirically falsifiable, which makes this case different than the money example, which does not involve empirical falsifiability?
That valuing is just as artificial as money, and it affects reality just as much.
The valuation of money is not based on something that is empirically falsifiable and is not artificial in the same way. Please stop using false analogies. It is true that both affect reality, but you can only go that far in your comparison.
If you go the other way are you not imposing a whole new narrative? If a black character frees a lot of white people or if a black character frees another black one, for example? Maybe if it reverses historical norms it is a good thing. I don't know. Nyargh.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Baelor wrote: " a necessary step in that direction is getting writers to stop using racial and cultural stereotypes in their work, which means calling out those authors who do it. "I don't think stopping is even viable. I think it's important to recognize them for what they are and call them out when they're used in an ignorant fashion. I'd hate to lose authors like Pat Cadigan who consciously calls out these stereotypes and examines them in her work. Or even Terry Pratchett's versions (see: Jingo and Pyramids, among others). There are always new ways of getting it both right and wrong, I'm just tired of authors continuing to get it wrong in all the same old ways.
However, I do thank you for calling out readers who want to excuse/support racism because it suits their own agenda.
Some people get called up for no reason through. I got called up, for example. Didn't make any sense then and still doesn't. There we go.
Baelor wrote: "So you agree that racists believe in something that is empirically falsifiable, which makes this case different than the money example, which does not involve empirical falsifiability?"Whether a social construct is based upon demonstrable fact or a fairy tale doesn't make its cultural manifestation any more or less real. The fact that people classified as "white" by society have more privilege than everyone else is every bit as real as the fact that one dollar is currently worth 97 yen.
If I came in and said, "Black directors are underrepresented in Hollywood films, and the films they do direct have smaller budgets than their white counterparts," it would be completely non-sensical for you to reply, "Well, we're all human beings and the distinction between black and white is totally made up, so it doesn't matter."
And yet that is exactly what you're trying to do.
"No offense to anyone participating but it is suprising to see the intellectual lengths some fellow commenters have gone just not to admit obvious textbook racial and cultural clichés in G.R.R.Martin's works. I mean you guys don't need to take it so personally. Nobody is accusing you. Liking Martin does not make you a racist or something. I am "Essosi" and I like him too." - RasnacI think this is one of the biggest problems I see. A lot of people tend to think that pointing out a stereotypical trope means that we are accusing the work, and anyone who likes it, of being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist, etc. That isn't the case. I absolutely love GOT and a great deal of other shows and books, but that doesn't stop me from being able to recognize racist tropes when I see them.
And when these things are pointed out, people talk about how these things aren't important, because apparently discussing characters we do or not like, or who Jon's parents are, are perfectly fine uses of time; but discussing the racist stereotypes we perceive in the story is wasting time and not worth discussing. Never mind that people can figure out for themselves what is/should be important to them.
Also, I think Moff's law applies to some of the posts here (http://www.racialicious.com/2009/12/2...Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it???”
If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.
First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.
Now, that doesn’t mean you have to think about a work of art. I don’t know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis — or if I do, they’re pretty annoying themselves. And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art. That should go without saying. Finally, this should also go without saying, but since it apparently doesn’t: Believe me, the person who is annoying you so much by thinking about the art? They have already considered your revolutionary “just enjoy it” strategy, because it is not actually revolutionary at all. It is the default state for most of humanity.
So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less — that not using one’s capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated — you are not saying anything particularly intelligent. And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them and what’s going on in their own heads, you’re not helping anything; on the contrary, you’re acting as an advocate for entropy.
And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Baelor wrote: "So you agree that racists believe in something that is empirically falsifiable, which makes this case different than the money example, which does not involve empirical falsifiabilit..."Some people classed as white have privileges others don't. Not all of the white people enjoy these privileges I can assure you. Racism is certainly one of the issues blighting the minds of humanity, but it is far from the only one.
Made up stuff has a tendency to affect us much more than reality, which is a shame as reality is bloody incredible. A world without identity, if only we could get to that infinite and majestic place...
Firstname wrote: "There are always new ways of getting it both right and wrong, I'm just tired of authors continuing to get it wrong in all the same old ways."
Thank you Firstname. You perfectly summarized the whole point I clumsely tried to make in my earlier posts, just in one sentence.
I'm not dissapointed that Martin used some orientalist tropes and cliches(like I said before, I learned to expect that in pretty mnuch any work of fiction that come from "West"),the problem is he used these 200 year old tropes pretty much exactly as they are with zero amount of originality. I did not expect that level of lack of creativity from a great writer who otherwise changed everything, and succesfully deconstructed and reconstucted the fantasy genre. I mean I can put any part of G.R.R.Martin's description of Essos in a Conan story, change the names "Dothraki" to "Hyrkanian", and "Ghiscari" to "Stygian" or "Shem", and noone would know the time difference between two works. It really bothered me especially because how fresh and intuitive ASOIF is, in every other aspect. Even Hollywood don't use that level of clichés nowadays.
Forget how I feel as an "Oriental", as a fan of literature I find it poor and lazy craftsmanship on Martin's part.
And for other aspects of the discussion, I advise all parties to read Edward Said's "Orientalism", if you have not read yet.
Whether a social construct is based upon demonstrable fact or a fairy tale doesn't make its cultural manifestation any more or less real.I never denied the reality of the cultural manifestation. On the contrary, I reaffirmed it more than once.
The fact that people classified as "white" by society have more privilege than everyone else is every bit as real as the fact that one dollar is currently worth 97 yen.
I never denied the concept of privilege either, although I tend not to like en vogue buzzwords, especially because they become outdated so quickly.
If I came in and said, "Black directors are underrepresented in Hollywood films, and the films they do direct have smaller budgets than their white counterparts," it would be completely non-sensical for you to reply, "Well, we're all human beings and the distinction between black and white is totally made up, so it doesn't matter."
You are correct.
And yet that is exactly what you're trying to do.
No, it is not. If you feel differently, please paraphrase the post where I "tried to do that."
Man, GR is becoming a giant field upon which innumerable strawmen can be erected with utmost ease.
Bargain wrote: "Some people classed as white have privileges others don't. Not all of the white people enjoy these privileges I can assure you."Here, let's have John Scalzi explain it.
I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Bargain wrote: "Some people classed as white have privileges others don't. Not all of the white people enjoy these privileges I can assure you."Here, let's have John Scalzi explain it.
I’ve been..."
Are you so unfathomably arrogant as to believe that you are able to comment on the state of life of every single white individual in every single part of the United States?
If not, then you of course do not actually believe your claim that "whites" as a homogeneous bloc uniformly have more privilege, which is all Bargain was saying.
Denise wrote: ""No offense to anyone participating but it is suprising to see the intellectual lengths some fellow commenters have gone just not to admit obvious textbook racial and cultural clichés in G.R.R.Mart..."Could not agree more.
Denise wrote: "And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO "I want to have your kittens.
Rasnac wrote: " I advise all parties to read Edward Said's "Orientalism"THIS and some more this omg, ...
this.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Bargain wrote: "Some people classed as white have privileges others don't. Not all of the white people enjoy these privileges I can assure you."Here, let's have John Scalzi explain it.
I’ve been..."
Thanks John, but you too overgeneralise.
Presumably, that homeless white guy living on the streets is more privileged than, say, Obama or Will Smith; that white kid that's beaten by his alcoholic, heroin-abusing father has a load more chance in their life than the son of a Hispanic lawyer.
The tendency of people to identify with those that are similar to them and to form power structures and hierarchies around those identities has an impact for sure. The insecurities of humanity have a lot to answer for.
The concept of oppression can be used, itself, to gain power or to maintain a certain position in society. It can help close down debate, it can frighten people into a hushed political correctness. It's all historically understandable. And all of it, the racism, the political correctness, the insanity of identity is all happening now.
Do I think there is an observable racist trope in ASoIF, yes. Is it being used in a racist way? That's a different question.
@Carrie:Yes white males do enjoy more privileges than black or Hispanic males, significantly more in fact. I don't understand why you would seem to be trying to deny that, it's ridiculous.
Bargain was not trying to say that white males do not enjoy more privileges in general. He was simply saying that such privileges do not necessarily extend to every white male. I don't understand why you would seem to be trying to deny that; it's ridiculous.
Carrie wrote: "Bargain wrote: "Presumably, that homeless white guy living on the streets is more privileged than, say, Obama or Will Smith; that white kid that's beaten by his alcoholic, heroin-abusing father has..."That's pretty much the point of Baelor and Bargain's commentary. It's why I don't bother to read them. They offer nothing new or interesting. Just because people are free to comment does not mean you have to be their audience.
Sorry, but you have comprehension difficulties if you think that. I'm not claiming to be original I'm just saying it is racist to think every white male has some sort of privilege over all black or mixed or any other so-called race. Are we not allowed be nuanced because it distracts us from the wider issue of white racism or something? I don't understand why you need to be obnoxious about it. I have never and will never deny racism. You have done me a big disservice. Perhaps it is you that is being blinkered because I am deflecting the discussion away from the overall point. I don't know.
White males exist as a category for these kinds of discussion to analyse overall trends, but in reality things are more complex. I really don't see why it's so difficult to understand that the children of a African-American politician have more privileges than a white kids living in the inner-city. You can't separate individuals privileges into categories. So, firstname, tell me what the problem is with that? Then maybe we can engage. Or perhaps you just like being rude.
I'm sorry if I have offended you by being boring or dull.
Slightly upset by being treated as irrelevant if I am honest.
We need a trope that ends tropes. Poom.
Bargain wrote: "Thanks John, but you too overgeneralise.Presumably, that homeless white guy living on the streets is more privileged than, say, Obama or Will Smith; that white kid that's beaten by his alcoholic, heroin-abusing father has a load more chance in their life than the son of a Hispanic lawyer."
Since the article addresses those points, I take it you didn't actually read the whole thing?
Clearly not, as the article does state clearly that it is still possable to fail on easy mode, and that for his argument he is not taking many facters into account. I found this article interesting, it takes Scalzi's metaphor and expands it to address a wider variety of factors and how they might intersect.
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=10617
@Sean:You are still not getting what Bargain is saying. All Bargain is saying is that you have very little way of knowing whether white privilege extends to every single white person in America, and it likely does not.
Which of these do you dispute?
1) You have no way of knowing whether white privilege extends to every single white person in America
OR
2) It likely does not
Sean, I've read it twice now. And I missed it both times. Care to quote it for me?
Hi Sean. I'm sorry I thought you meant the original article. I missed the link you put. I've read it now. Good article. I agree with it. I'd have hoped people would recognise that is what I think. The key thing and the weakness I have tried to point out is that things are not equal. Class, familial relations, gender, intellectual ability and everything else that form an identity mix in with race to create privilege. So, to surmise, in theory black people have less privilege than white people. In practice, things are complicated by the interactions of identity.
Going back to the book, the racist trope is far weaker than in the tv series. I still think that taking tropes in isolation makes it easier to argue stuff. The original article and the follow-up are great, but I still think there are valid counter arguments.
Some don't agree, of course. But yeah.
Bargain wrote: "I have never and will never deny racism."You're trying to claim that racism is limited to individual bigots being poopy-heads and there is no systemic racism in our society as a whole. That's denying racism.
Baelor wrote: "@Sean:
You are still not getting what Bargain is saying. All Bargain is saying is that you have very little way of knowing whether white privilege extends to every single white person in America,..."
What's he's saying is that because Will Smith and homeless white people both exist, white privilege can't be real, and that's non-sense. Privilege refers to the advantages people have, but it doesn't guarantee success.
However, in both success and failure, white people have more privilege. Yeah, it sucks to be a homeless white guy, but he's far less likely to get hassled by cops than if he were black, and if the cops find a reason to charge him with a crime he'll serve less time on average than a black person in the exact same circumstances.
Contrariwise, while Will Smith and Tom Cruise are both hugely successful actors, if Warner Bros. decides to make a movie about the Flash, they're far more likely to offer the role to Cruise. Film about a middle class suburban father? Cruise again. Julius Caesar -- Cruise. The number of roles open to Smith and not Cruise is much smaller.
Wronging wrong.Never said that, never thought that. Read what I just have tried to explain. Please.
You might have interpreted that from my words, but that is not what I meant. Systemic racism is the product of individual idiots. Every idiot that moronically believes in race adds to and propagates the continuance of hierarchies. But political and cultural systems do not exist outside of human individuals.
In reality you cannot isolate race as a thread of privilege on its own unless, like the article you posted, you make it theoretical and make all things equal. You have to take into account everything. Race certainly disadvantages people a hell of a lot of time. If you had two people with the same parents, the same experience but with different colour the non-white on average would come out in a poorer position. Is that ok now? Am I clear? This is not what I have been arguing against. I have been saying that this is a simplistic model.
Sigh.
Frustration at not being understood or clear enough or whatever.
@Sean:I get what your problem is. You read posts and then make completely unjustified assumptions and put words in other posters' mouths. You did it to me and now you are doing it to Bargain. Stop it. Restrict yourself to what is actually said, not what you think others believe based on what they post. Talk about stereotyping.
What's he's saying is that because Will Smith and homeless white people both exist, white privilege can't be real, and that's non-sense. Privilege refers to the advantages people have, but it doesn't guarantee success.
Bargain never said that white privilege did not exist. He said that there is no way you can claim at an epistemic level that it extends to every white individual.
However, in both success and failure, white people have more privilege. Yeah, it sucks to be a homeless white guy, but he's far less likely to get hassled by cops than if he were black, and if the cops find a reason to charge him with a crime he'll serve less time on average than a black person in the exact same circumstances.
You are really not in a position to claim that something extends to every single person in a group of 130+ million individuals all over an enormous country.
Film about a middle class suburban father? Cruise again. Julius Caesar -- Cruise. The number of roles open to Smith and not Cruise is much smaller.
Which is an example of how Hollywood has more roles for white men than black men, not a proof that every single white person in this country benefits from privilege.
If you wanted to be a troll you could suggest that Sean's attitude is actually racist.
@Bargain"Systemic racism is the product of individual idiots."
Even if this is true, and I question it--I think that bias tendencies in large social systems are often synergistic and not merely cumulative--what is its significance? To a person who comes out on the wrong side of the equation, what matter if the root causes of the bias he faces are more pointillist or more holistic?
@Baelor
"You are really not in a position to claim that something extends to every single person in a group of 130+ million individuals all over an enormous country."
Again, what difference does this make in practical terms, if the overall cumulative, statistical effect of systemic biases decidedly and consistently favors a certain group?
I bet you're one of those people who don't believe that demonstrated patterns of systemic bias should be considered at all in considering discrimination claims.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
My Name Is Asher Lev (other topics)The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (other topics)
Writing the Other (other topics)
Not exactly my thoughts but I admit I couldn't help this idea from c..."
The problem is a semantic one. I cannot guarantee that my definition of racism is identical to yours, so I (=generic individual) am going to be reluctant to claim that someone or something is racist if I am not even sure that your understanding of my claim is aligned with mine.
That is why it is much better either to define racism precisely or to replace the term with something verifiable. For example, "Martin features characters from the East that seem to share similarities with real Eastern cultures," or "Daenerys, a white woman, saves people who are racial minorities."
We have now just identified specific information and can proceed to discuss why we should care or whether it is problematic.