Well, I've just spoken to someone claiming racemixing is genocide right in this platform
Unfortunately idiots gonna idiots.
I really don't get it, what have you got to be proud about your heritage? Did you choose it? I don't think so, therefore, since you didn't have a say about where you were born you shouldn't take pride in this pure chance.
Take pride in what you do with your deeds and in your life accomplishments. Don't look at what other did before you thinking you had a part in that endeavour but create your own.
Really can't change my mind about that
Never said otherwise, just that heritage is not something you get from your race, but from your culture
And before being born you choose your culture? How is this different from the idea of pride in one's race or place of birth? These are all aspects of our beings we don't have any agency upon so being proud of such kind of aspects concerning ourselves makes absolutely no sense at all.
One can be proud of what he has directly done himself or herself, being proud of something someone else did has the same logic as enjoying a lunch someone else ate.
Heritage is a scam exactly like race, nationality, religion and all other made up concepts used to divide and conquer poor, uneducated and insecure people
The difference is that race isn't heritage, just some physical differences
Lmao, so you are telling me you don't inherit physical traits from your parents and that these traits were developed by specific conditions in which your ancestors lived in? And maybe you believe you can choose them before your birth?
Ok buddy, looks like you are delusional as most of those who believe their birthplace, religion or history make them better than others.
Keep telling you that, it's gonna help you for sure in your life XD XD XD XD
No, I'm saying it's worthless compared to culture, which even shapes how you view the world.
Of course, not giving importance to race is something Americans don't seem to understand
So races and cultures are separate entities without connection with one another.
Therefore we can assume that a Indian child being born in Germany is a pure German since he is born inside the German culture and his race has no impact on his cultural upbringing. His family will not teach him about his roots and will not impose its religion onto him, likewise he won't be subjected to all kind of cognitive dissonances when he will have to confront himself with his peers and their different religion, ideology and familiar social structure.
Must be a nice, cozy world you live in if you can't see how "pride" in one race or heritage is a scam destroying our world. Can you save me a place? With a sufficient lobotomy I should be able to fit in just right
So races and cultures are separate entities without connection with one another?
Yes.
Also, your "example" is literally not having German culture ("roots imposed", country of origin's religion enforced...)
Yes, by a natural born citizen of the German state. You do realize that anyone being born on the soil of a nation is usually identified as a citizen of said nation, yes? And yet, due to his race, he won't be partaking in the culture of said nation because his family will force their culture onto him, thus severing his connections to the land where he currently lives and grows.
It's like saying that Chinese immigrants to Europe will be European because they live the European culture. Nevermind the fact that they tend to organise in ghettos where European culture is absolutely disregarded and where they implement the same conditions they are used to in their homeland, so much so that every now and then the police forces need to intervene when this scisma between the two cultures creates issues for all parties involved.
Race doesn't have an influence on a person upbringing. Must be the stupidest thought I read since 5 minutes ago when I learned that Sydney Powell is still repeating that the Orange Cheeto-in-chief had his election stolen even after entering a plea bargain with the court
It would be a lot faster if you just said you hate the Chinese.
I don't, I hate culture, race and religion used as tools to differentiate between people and to create divide.
Culture as foundation to build character and actions of single individuals is fine and dandy (same goes for religion, race, uses and costumes, etc.). The same concepts used to determine the innate superiority of a certain group in respect to all the others must be eradicated as quickly as possible.
Furthermore my previous example was about an Indian, yet you didn't assume I hated Indians. Are you an Indian hater yourself? Or, would I have used an European being born in Saudi Arabia as an example, would you have assumed I hate Europeans?
You provide so many bad faith arguments it would take far too long to address all of them. I went with your most recent because it was the most recent. if you want me to review all your nonsense ask nicely and I'll consider it.
Oh please wise man from the soap mountain, tell me how culture is not a false concept equal to heritage or race when used to define a certain group of people as being better than any other. I surely cannot think of past heads of states using race to justify their horrendous actions against other nations, we have no doubt only fought wars for culture in our history!!
Same old, same old, when confronted with an argument you cannot address always go for "there's too much work to do and I'm too lazy to do it so I'm leaving the discussion while pretending I'm right".
Never play chess with a pigeon, it will scatter the pieces on the board, shit around and walk around with his puffed chest as he won the game
"when used to define a certain group of people as being better than any other."
There is another bad faith tactic you are using. You keep appending that on to fit the scenario you want. Race and culture are different things. They can influence each other but they are different. Both shape identity but that doesn't mean that either most inherently inform a person that they are better than someone with a different race or heritage. Has it often been used that way in the past, yes, but it's not inherent to the notions of race and heritage.
Your examples paint you as awfully convinced that foreigners are completely incapable of integrating into a new society. That's pretty bigoty. People can participate in multiple cultures. They can pick and choose and blend them.
"It’s like saying that Chinese immigrants to Europe will be European because they live the European culture"
So is the conclusion you come to that they will never be European? They will always be foreign?
You shit on the chess board a little prematurely.
Please, provide examples of heritage and/or colture being used for the betterment of society.
Protip: you can't.
Heritage and colture are frozen in time and will never be used to improve society because they need a strict set of boundaries to remain heritage and colture. Should a colture be poisoned by external factors it would immediately cease to be the same culture it was a minute ago and would become something different, thus being rejected by those who practice said colture in a religious way.
To make a simpler example you may be able to understand: I am Italian. The thing italians hate the most is ananas on pizza because "this goes against our culture!"
Should I dare to say that I enjoy ananas on my pizza tomorrow (I don't, but that's what a thought experiment is) most of my friends would be appalled by my statement and would fight me on that.
Culture or heritage intended as a set of characteristics stereotypical of a certain subset if humans are a cancer to society and should be eliminated.
Your examples paint you as awfully convinced that foreigners are completely incapable of integrating into a new society. That's pretty bigoty. People can participate in multiple cultures. They can pick and choose and blend them.
Of course they could become European, should they decide to leave their culture behind and to homogenise in the society they live in. Unfortunately peer and societal pressure do not allow for such a change and therefore they are doomed to remain marginalized because they cannot accept their culture, heritage or race not being "the best"
Wow dude, you really are a bigot and don't even realize it. Those poor weak willed soft minded foreigners just can't think for themselves or change. They are doomed to live only in the context of their scary different culture.
If ananas on pizza is the extent of what you think culture is then you are profoundly ignorant. If you know that culture extends to things beyond that, like music and art as examples, then you are disingenuously misrepresenting culture. If you want to make the case that the entirety of art and music has done nothing good then I'll listen... skeptically.
There is Culture with a capital C (music, arts, literature, etc.) which is a universal way of expression and then there is culture with a lowercase c (heritage, dialects, common beliefs, traditions, etc.) which are typical of a very distinct group of people being part of a well-defined territory.
The first can and has since always helped human beings create bridges between different groups, since it is a common way to express ones' feelings and can overcome the language and culture barriers.
The second is used to keep these group apart with the subtle yet very present assumption that each people has "the best" culture when compared to others.
If you cannot understand this difference I think we have a very big communication problem.
Those poor weak willed soft minded foreigners just can't think for themselves or change. They are doomed to live only in the context of their scary different culture
Not every foreigner is unable to change, yet many remain stoic in their willingness to not assimilate by regrouping in ghettos when they move abroad. The issue is double-faced, on one side there are the immigrants who are not strong enough to pull out from their social group due to peer pressure and to the beliefs they were programmed to follow from a very young age; on the other side there are the receiving societies which tend to avoid the assimilation of new "cultures" (I'm using brackets to differentiate culture and Culture from now on) because they are afraid of new perspectives and ways of being and would avoid mixing with those to preserve their native "culture".
Erase culture (intended as heritage) and humankind has only to gain from shedding these old ideas. If we would focus on what we have in common with the others instead of what are the differences between us we would all live much better, don't you think?
Typical bigot point of view, I know...
So there's two cultures one that embodies everything you don't like and one that embodies everything you do like. Convenient. Maybe you should have led with that obtuse distinction.
So some portion of foreigners are stuck in their culture and some are not. We can guess what your estimations of the percentage is, but if you know that it's not universal then what were you trying to say with the whole Chinese will never be European and Indians will never be German?
Are you aware of the history of state sponsored schools designed to erase cultural identity like you praise? It's a pretty disgusting path you are skipping down.
So there's two cultures one that embodies everything you don't like and one that embodies everything you do like. Convenient. Maybe you should have led with that obtuse distinction.
Unfortunately it's not that easy. I do not like all cultures and I don't hate all "cultures". Cardi B is music, but it's really not my jam, superhero movies are a form of cinema, but I don't really dig them. In the same way there are cultural aspects of different heritages I do enjoy (the Italian food culture or the chinese family unity for example).
What I was discussing it's the underlying nature of these two concepts: culture creates bridges, "culture" create walls. You can enjoy a piece of art coming from a different society but it's gonna be a real problem should you confront your beliefs with those coming from a different society than yours.
what were you trying to say with the whole Chinese will never be European and Indians will never be German?
I was saying that, until humans won't see their cultural differences as simple joke material, there won't be a simple way to have a pacific coexistence between different groups of people living in the same region. If we all continue to live our "cultures" as something sacred and untouchable we won't be able to tear down the walls dividing us all.
Are you aware of the history of state sponsored schools designed to erase cultural identity like you praise? It's a pretty disgusting path you are skipping down.
Not everything is up to the state, society can and must evolve on its own if we want to improve our lives on this tiny planet. I, for one, am doing what I can to demolish the idea that the "Italian heritage, is something that needs to survive at all costs precisely as it is today by challenging the most idiot aspects of this "culture". No state intervention required
Really walking back on that culture is fucking evil and has never done anything good stance eh? So we have established that your protip was garbage because culture has plenty of positive aspects, you just want to switch between definitions when it suits you.
"I was saying that, until humans won’t see their cultural differences as simple joke material, there won’t be a simple way to have a pacific coexistence between different groups of people living in the same region" If that is honestly what you were saying you failed utterly to convey that. Instead you said a bunch of weird things about how foreigners can't change and refuse to integrate.
"Not everything is up to the state" thats not the point. The point is that states have in the past done exactly what you are praising. Taking children away from their families to strip all elements of culture away from them so they could integrate into "civilized" society. Deny them their language, their history. Anything that makes them different, beat it out of them. Literally.
You sound exactly like xenophobe bigots. Those foreigners don't fit in. They are different and that is bad, they should be more like us. Conform! Though they will never really belong here.
Really walking back on that culture is fucking evil and has never done anything good stance eh?
Absolutely not, I'm giving you a better definition of what "culture" means to me through your questions, that's how a discussion goes usually. My stance about the majority of aspects related to "culture" being bad for mankind is the same from the beginning of this conversation.
Not everything is up to the state" thats not the point. The point is that states have in the past done exactly what you are praising. Taking children away from their families to strip all elements of culture away from them so they could integrate into "civilized" society.
Ok, let's follow your logic and eliminate social services then. What right has the state to determine how a parent or a tutor should educate his child?
You do understand that there are objectively harmful"cultural aspects " that we want to eliminate for the common good?? Mafia is a plague in Italy (and in the world nowadays) and I'd be more than happy if the Italian state would require mafiosi to lose their paternal rights and would help their children find a place in a more civilized family. We would have less mafiosi in a very short time.
Until the 60es in Sicily, Italy, was legal for a man to murder his wife and her lover should he had found them having a sexual intercourse. The state had to issue a law to end this practice because society (even Sicilian women) was unable to abandon this farce of a misogynistic culture. Was this a wrong decision?
In the same way I don't want Chinese people living in Italy and, at the same time, continuing being enslaved by their compatriots as they were in China. I don't want families living their life according to the most extreme interpretation of shari'a. There are plenty of antisocial norms disguised as culture, is it really that hard to say that we do not want them in our society??
You sound exactly like xenophobe bigots. Those foreigners don't fit in. They are different and that is bad, they should be more like us. Conform! Though they will never really belong here.
I'm not talking about any race or culture in particular, I'm not a xenophobe, if you want to classify me you can call me a customs hater. I hate doing things a certain way "because we have always did it like that", without any supporting evidence about the outcome of your actions. Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good
Oh absolutely yes. You went from your protip of culture has never been for the betterment of society to oh sure plenty of times it has been but thats a different type of culture.
"Ok, let’s follow your logic and eliminate social services then" Not at all what I said. I think you are unaware of the topic that I am talking about. I am not talking about public schools in general. Nor am I talking about social services as a whole, a pretty big leap on your part there. Here is an example of what I am talking about
"Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good" what method are you talking about? What are you strawmaning here? Because I didn't advocate any method.
You seem to think that because a culture can contain any negative elements that suddenly all cultures everywhere are bad. Cultures collectively are way too big and diverse for that reductive view. A single culture is too big and diverse for that view. A culture will contain countless elements and individuals within that culture will adopt and practice those elements to various degrees and get this, some of them can even revise or reject elements of that culture. Culture isn't static. Getting rid of culture is nonsense because whatever is left after you purge the elements you don't like is still a culture.
Oh absolutely yes. You went from your protip of culture has never been for the betterment of society to oh sure plenty of times it has been but thats a different type of culture.
Again, you entered a conversation where my previous interlocutor used the terms "heritage" and "culture" interchangeably so I adapted myself to that register. Once you entered the discussion asking me what I meant I gave you an explanation. Culture is whatever helps humanity to progress, anything which keeps humanity frozen in its place has to be discarded for our own good.
what method are you talking about? What are you strawmaning here? Because I didn't advocate any method.
Social sciences are a good place to start but also psychology and neurosciences can help in this sense. If we wanted I reckon it could be possible to find a reliable evaluation method to determine the impact of specific customs against societal safety. As a start I'd say eliminating all those customs harmful to anyone, expecially children, should be banned. No more genital mutilation, child slavery or exploitation, lack of education, food, water... Do you think you can agree with me on this? If not, why? Are customs more important than children' safety and comfort?
Nor am I talking about social services as a whole, a pretty big leap on your part there
Again, mine was an exaggeration to your concept. How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist? Who draw the line between what is acceptable and enforceable and what is not? You?
You seem to think that because a culture can contain any negative elements that suddenly all cultures everywhere are bad.
Absolutely not, I want to cancel and forget the bad aspects of every culture while maintaining the good ones. As an Italian I gave you one example of a custom we had to eliminate through specific laws because our society was unable to leave it behind by improving naturally. I want to replicate the same for other cultures too while still helping Italian and all other cultures improving by eliminating other negative aspects of theirs, like (for Italians) finding shortcuts to work less, being always ready to screw your neighbour if this means any kind of gain for yourself, the fucking mafia and the constant judgment only a deeply Christian society can experience. Is this a bad thing? If yes please, tell me why
Again usually means that there was a first time. The conversation as started in this post didn't have the context that you just said it did. I'm guessing you happened upon the same user and continued a conversation from a different post?
To clarify when you said “Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good” was that the impersonal your or was it addressing me?
"How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist?" the spectrum of options between providing social services in any capacity to physically and sexually abusing children forcibly separated from their parents and even killing them is so wide that your question doesn't deserve an answer. Try again and try better.
Again usually means that there was a first time. The conversation as started in this post didn't have the context that you just said it did.
Never said otherwise, just that heritage is not something you get from your race, but from your culture
That's where the false correlation between heritage and colture started for me
To clarify when you said “Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good” was that the impersonal your or was it addressing me?
I was referring to the hypothetical person enforcing a custom or a cultural aspect of his heritage on someone else. What I meant is that if you want to have a requirement of your culture to be enforced on the general population you have to prove somehow that it will improve the quality of life for everyone or you need to shut up. Classical example: the Christian faith does not allow for any contraceptive and, in their view, abstinence is the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Numerous studies have proven this approach to be the worst imaginable so why is a religious organization having so much influence on people left alone and allowed to predicate their false truth when we have seen first hand the harm it can cause to a population (I think, for example, about all the damages they did in Africa by not allowing people to use condoms during sex. How many people died by AIDS or by childbirth for this foolish stance?)
the spectrum of options between providing social services in any capacity to physically and sexually abusing children forcibly separated from their parents and even killing them is so wide that your question doesn't deserve an answer.
I never stated that this spectrum was narrow, I can see how wide it is. My question was, in this spectrum, where would you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not? And, most importantly, who should enforce this arbitrary limit? Again, if it were for me anyone being found to be associated with a mafia family should loose his or hers parental rights and their children should be adopted by a civilized family for a better upbringing and for their own good. The Italian state does not agree with me tho so children of mafiosi are left into their original families where they are thought that the evil state has brought their daddy/mommy away for no good reason (nevermind they killed someone, if they did he had it surely coming and he deserved it, in their view) and the mafia epidemic still goes on stronger than ever. Who is right and who is wrong between me and the state in this case?
"Never said otherwise, just that heritage is not something you get from your race, but from your culture". That was enough to set you off to the point that you said culture never did anything positive for humanity? The obvious answer is that heritage can be drawn from both race and culture but neither is absolutely required. None of that explains the things you said about foreigners or about culture being a blight on humanity.
"My question was, in this spectrum, where would you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not?" That wasn't your question but let's answer that anyway. The line would fall between providing social services and taking children to abuse. One would think that would be obvious. This would be enforced by society usually with a government and a system of laws. It isn't arbitrary it's a social consensus. You are very slowly rediscovering the fundamentals of society, government, and civilization.
How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist? Who draw the line between what is acceptable and enforceable and what is not? You?.
This was my question, don't cut a citation where it's convenient to you
"Never said otherwise, just that heritage is not something you get from your race, but from your culture." That was enough to set you off to the point that you said culture never did anything positive for humanity?
Yes it was since confusing culture with heritage is quite a misconception in my view. Again, culture is something humans use to create bridges between different groups and societies, heritage is what keep us apart by building walls among different people. You still continue to focus on my observations about aspects of foreign customs but are unable to consider the same type of observations I made about my own Italian heritage. To me it would seem that you are trying to find xenophobia where there is none and it's becoming quite amusing I must admit. Almost as much as receiving a single answer where there were multiple questions asked.
The line would fall between providing social services and taking children to abuse.
Ah yes, a general answer to a general question. In my previous post I made quite specific references to actual situations which were handled or would need to be handled by the Italian government, yet you are unable to provide me with a response to any of these questions.
You are very slowly rediscovering the fundamentals of society, government, and civilization.
And you are slowly discovering that laws and governments should evolve to adapt to our modern society, yet our politicians tend to keep the status quo unchanged because... Heritage!! Things were always like this in the past and were fine and dandy until these sjw arrived and ruined the fun for everybody (/s, I'm interpreting the main reason given to keep the status quo as it has always been).
Now that we have established what culture and heritage are as defined from my point of view can you please give me an example of heritage being anything but counterproductive to the development and improvement of the human race?
Let's see if you can answer more than one, comfortable question at a time
I quoted your question directly and pointed out how out of line it was. You asked other questions after that one sure but to say that those other questions were your question instead of the one directly quoted is dishonest and is cutting the quote where it's convenient for you.
You were the one using the word culture in place of heritage, apparently internally, while saying a bunch of xenophobic sounding stuff. I'm not sure that using your corrected terminology would change that. I don't know that including your own demographic as exhibiting the same behavior makes it an ok outlook.
"And you are slowly discovering that laws and governments should evolve to adapt to our modern society". No I already knew this. I'm not the one being reductive and claiming that things are simple and static.
The definition of heritage that you want to use is simply wrong. If we accept the wrong definition that your tailored to achieve the answer you want then yes we will arrive at the answer you want but that's rather like the pigeon strutting about the board thinking it did a good job.
Also you seem to think that you've provided a clear definition of heritage but you haven't. You should do that, without getting side tracked. Give the dictionary definition of heritage as it would appear if you wrote it.
I quoted your question directly and pointed out how out of line it was.
Yet I showed you with a direct quote of my question that you "forgot" to add the second part of my question and now you are telling me it's me who cuts quotes for my own convenience? Amazing
I don't know that including your own demographic as exhibiting the same behavior makes it an ok outlook.
If you were having an honest conversation you would understand that despising heritage's and customs has nothing to do with race hatred or xenophobia. Also you might even be capable of providing me with the answers to the questions I addressed you. Maybe
Give the dictionary definition of heritage as it would appear if you wrote it.
From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
I think it encapsulate quite well the definition I have been giving so far. As I have stated multiple times heritage is nothing to be proud of. If something forces you to behave or believe a certain way just because you were born at a specific time in a specific region feeling proud about it is the most idiotic and pointless feeling one may harbor. Be proud of YOUR accomplishments and of YOUR deeds in this life, don't mindlessly cling to ideals from the past to have guidelines in your life but break them and use them to mold your own path.
On the other hand here is the definition of culture
As you can see it has many meanings but, to me, culture is definition N° 2 (a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training / b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills) and 5 (the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education) just because linking something as useful and sacred as culture to heritage is a real insult to real culture to me
Full quote:
"How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist? Who draw the line between what is acceptable and enforceable and what is not? You?"
Man, you are bad at this. You asked 3 questions. If, of those three questions, one could be called THE question it would be the primary first question on which the others are based. When I dismissed the question on which the others relied for context for being both disgusting and dumb the others get dismissed as well. Notice how when the primary question was dismissed you weren't demanding an answer to your question of "You?". That's because even you were able to realize that without the context established by the actual question that follow on question didn't have meaning. The follow on question of who gets to draw the line on the fucked up spectrum that you made up in your first question likewise looses its meaning because your fucked up spectrum was dismissed. I didn't forget the second part of your question. All three are either to be taken together in which case they were all dismissed or the second two are clearly follow-ons which depend on the establishing question to have any meaning. There is no selective editing here just common sense and a basic understanding of english. Now let's look at how you changed your question.
"My question was, in this spectrum, where would you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not?"
So in your disgusting imaginary spectrum of social services to sexually abusing and killing children, which was dismissed, you originally asked who would be making the line not where would I make the line. So yes even if we accept that your actual question was the secondary question then you did still actually change it
I'm pretty sure that despising heritage is pretty solid grounds for the label of xenophobia. Honestly.
You get an F on your definition for turning in other people's work. Do it again in your own words. And no the one you chose to copy doesn't even begin to cover the things you were ranting about concerning heritage. Nothing in the definition that you copied addresses how heritage only builds walls or has never been used for the betterment of society so it doesn't encapsulate anything.
"If something forces you to behave or believe a certain way..."
Neither culture nor heritage force you to do that. The made up definition that you didn't write down includes that but not the real one. Some cultures will apply much more pressure to adhere to a heritage strictly. Some won't. It's a dynamic between the two which becomes bad if an authoritarian conservative enforcement is added. Its not this reductive "culture 100% bad no wait I meant heritage 100% bad" business.
If, of those three questions, one could be called THE question it would be the primary first question on which the others are based. When I dismissed the question on which the others relied for context for being both disgusting and dumb the others get dismissed as well.
What do you think the "correctly" stated among parentheses stand for? Maybe that I do agree with your stance? And that the following questions were a hypothetical I threw yourself to make you understand that there is no objective ground onto which one can establish where a state can and cannot intervene in the private life of its citizens and that these boundaries are drew according to the current moral status of society at large. Which may vary wildly between different societies. But you seem to have major issues in understanding hypothetical (and also practical) questions so I don't see how we can continue this conversation.
You ask me to provide you with my personal definition of heritage and culture after a discussion spanning multiple messages over where I extensively defined heritage and culture. Were you reading the contents of my messages? At this point I think not, or at least I think you have a serious issue with basic reading and understanding skills.
Neither culture nor heritage force you to do that. The made up definition that you didn't write down includes that but not the real one
You even recognize I gave you my definitions in our past exchanges a few lines later while also discarding the well known and established social pressure or peer pressure influence like it's nothing because you decided so. Try living a lifestyle challenging the social status quo in your area and then come back telling us how good and nicely you were treated by the people living around you. (This is an hypothetical request, please don't go around challenging other people belief systems)
Some cultures will apply much more pressure to adhere to a heritage strictly. Some won't.
Please provide me an example of a culture which does not apply peer pressure to enforce its heritage on the people living inside it.
Nothing in the definition that you copied addresses how heritage only builds walls or has never been used for the betterment of society so it doesn't encapsulate anything.
If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? Will their heritages be used as a basis for cooperation or do you think they will be used to keep a well defined differentiation between the two people? And if the second hypothesis is the correct one (as it is, if not please show me an example of heritage inclusive of different customs from its own) how can you not see heritage building walls around a population?
I'm pretty sure that despising heritage is pretty solid grounds for the label of xenophobia. Honestly.
Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now? I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn't, but you don't seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged.
No, you talked extensively about what you think culture or heritage does but you never clearly say what it is. Rambling references over many posts where you constantly change terminology and use exaggeration to wildly different degrees are not a definition. It's like saying cigarettes cause cancer and thinking you defined cigarettes. Provide a clear concise definition of heritage in your own words, because you haven't done that.
"You even recognize I gave you my definitions in our past" no I didn't because the definition that you made up is exclusively in your head which is why I'm trying to get you to say it explicitly and clearly. and I suspect that you are realizing that you don't have a coherent notion of what culture or heritage are which is why your terminology has changed so much and why everything is vague allusions about how it's so bad without ever saying what it is.
"Please provide me an example of a culture which does not apply peer pressure to enforce its heritage on the people living inside it.". Not relevant. I didn't say that society doesn't apply pressure I said it's a matter of the degree of the pressure. Please provide an example of a culture without heritage... after you actually define what you think heritage is
"If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? " When I met my Sihk neighbor we had a short but pleasant chat. I wave to him when I see him on walks in the neighborhood.
"Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now?" You are because you added that question to change the target being despised.
"I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects" cool then your protip was bullshit and you are backsliding on your stance exactly like I said.
Ok, let's give you the definitions you so much need.
Heritage: a set of social constructs and ideals created through a subjective belief system by past generations and implemented in the social fabric of a people despite the lack of evidence for its usefulness in providing better living conditions to the people being subjected to these customs. Those ideals are untouchable and cannot be changed through time to preserve the society which has created them (synonyms can be tradition, custom, superstition)
Culture: a set of knowledges and skills created through a rigorous study of a determined subject passed through generations via a learning system which does not require a blind acceptance of its foundamentals and whose practical use can be used to create new customs or products aimed at improving the living conditions of all people. These knowledges and skills are updated through the passing of time to accomodate new findings and results derived from the study of actual results obtained from the application of said knowledges and skills (synonyms can be science, philosophy, arts)
Hope you are happy now
I didn't say that society doesn't apply pressure I said it's a matter of the degree of the pressure.
Ok so if a society has a light pressure applied to enforce an abhorrent custom such as infant genital mutilation you would be ok with that?
Please provide an example of a culture without heritage
Any modern scientific field
You are because you added that question to change the target being despised.
I stated from the very beginning that I despise many aspects of the Italian heritage I am a part of but, even if I didn't do so, should I state that now does that make me a xenophobe towards my own people? Can one be xenophobe when refusing it's own traditions? According to the word itself no (xeno = other, different - phobia = fear, refusal) but I'm sure you will find a way to twist yourself out from this conundrum
"If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? " When I met my Sihk neighbor we had a short but pleasant chat. I wave to him when I see him on walks in the neighborhood.
If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? Will their heritages be used as a basis for cooperation or do you think they will be used to keep a well defined differentiation between the two peoples? And if the second hypothesis is the correct one (as it is, if not please show me an example of heritage inclusive of different customs from its own) how can you not see heritage building walls around a population?
I'm glad you have a good relationship with your neighbour but this was not my question (as per usual. Please reply to the questions following the one you replied to with a personal experience unrelated to the theme of the discussion
I'm pretty sure that despising heritage is pretty solid grounds for the label of xenophobia. Honestly.
Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now? I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn't, but you don't seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged.
I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn't, but you don't seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged.
Again with your selective quote, please read the whole of my replies and quote them in their entirety.
"Hope you are happy now" Yes you finally did the simple thing that I told you to do to make your looney stance clear. Why was that so hard for you? Why did you pick a dictionary definition that didn't match what you eventually finally wrote out?
Heritage: a set of social constructs and ideals created through a subjective belief system by past generations and implemented in the social fabric of a people despite the lack of evidence for its usefulness in providing better living conditions to the people being subjected to these customs. Those ideals are untouchable and cannot be changed through time to preserve the society which has created them (synonyms can be tradition, custom, superstition)
I've highlighted the parts that you've made up to cater to your pet issue. "created through a subjective belief system" - most likely sure but not an absolute. "despite the lack of evidence for its usefulness in providing better living conditions to the people being subjected to these customs" - this is where you start to veer wildly into your twisted interpretation. The constructs and ideals are implemented not despite the lack of evidence because that criteria was never considered when those things became part of society so that framing is wrong. This also seems to imply that you think there are zero social constructs and ideals in the fabric of society that are providing better living conditions. That or you are crafting your definition of heritage to exclude just those ones in order to achieve your goal of labeling heritage as bad. If you are going to separate the constructs and ideals that you like from the ones that you don't like and label the ones that you don't like as heritage then what is the name for the set that you do like? Pretty much everyone else realizes that heritage is a mixed bag of good/bad/completely neutral social constructs and ideals. "Those ideals are untouchable and cannot be changed through time to preserve the society which has created them" - Here you completely depart from reality. Culture and heritage do change over time. That is just a fact. That you are trying (incredibly awkwardly) to reject elements of your own culture and heritage ought to be pretty obvious evidence of that.
"Ok so if a society has a light pressure applied to enforce an abhorrent custom such as infant genital mutilation you would be ok with that?" Nope why would I be? I should start doing what you are doing and asking questions that imply a stance that you don't actually hold. Why would you enjoy participating in infant genital mutilation?
The different type of culture that exists in scientific fields is insufficient to operate as an entire societal culture. Even if we were to take your answer seriously as soon as you apply whatever science culture you think is best it will be saddled with heritage because heritage inherently happens by existing and having subsequent generations.
"I’m glad you have a good relationship with your neighbor but this was not my question " Well then stop asking a stream of questions with the real question randomly hidden in them. Also maybe think about what I said. You wanted to know what happens when people of different heritage meet so I gave an example of people of different heritage meeting and getting along. It obviously doesn't always play out that way. "Will their heritages be used as a basis for cooperation or do you think they will be used to keep a well defined differentiation between the two people?" Oh shit looks like that was answered already. We didn't engage in your weird belief that people instantly start working on a well defined differentiation. "And if the second hypothesis is the correct one (as it is, if not please show me an example of heritage inclusive of different customs from its own) how can you not see heritage building walls around a population?" Big fucking if there about the second hypothesis being correct (as it is not. and i gave to examples, my heritage and my neighbor's) so that's how I can not see heritage building walls around a population. Because not building walls happens all the damn time. That doesn't mean that some people don't build walls based on that but you assertion that its the only outcome is nonsense. Oh shit that question was already answered too if you put any thought into it.
"Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage?" Do you know what xenophobia means? Despising people because of their heritage or for simply having heritage (something that is impossible not to have unless we use something like your made up definition that is exclusively used by you) regardless of what that heritage actually entails is xenophobic. Your hatred of heritage isn't exclusive to just your self or just your country. Your characterization of foreigners not being capable of integrating into a new society fits pretty well with xenophobic ideas too. Hating yourself doesn't magically make the hatred for others go away.
"Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now? I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn’t, but you don’t seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged." cool then your protip was bullshit and you are backsliding on your stance exactly like I said.
Weird, including the entire quote didn't change anything. Protip still bullshit. You still backsliding.
Culture and heritage do change over time
Culture change, heritage doesn't. Heritage is the story of a people, of a tribe, of a family. You can't change history on a whim.
Also, I gave you my personal definitions after providing you the official ones. If you want to criticize something direct your criticism to the substance of my definitions, don't discard them as the not correct ones. We know they're not the official definitions, I already gave you that and you asked for my own, now you gotta work with them.
Why would you enjoy participating in infant genital mutilation?
I wouldn't, that's why I want to stop it
That doesn't mean that some people don't build walls based on that but you assertion that its the only outcome is nonsense.
Never in my discussion I stated that it just builds wall, I am stating that it it is used as an excuse to build walls, which is way different
The different type of culture that exists in scientific fields is insufficient to operate as an entire societal culture. Even if we were to take your answer seriously as soon as you apply whatever science culture you think is best it will be saddled with heritage because heritage inherently happens by existing and having subsequent generations.
The usefulness of a culture in operating a society was not your question. You asked me to provide example if culture without heritage and I replied with "any modern scientific field" because that are (I hope we can agree on this) cultures which do not have heritage as their histories started in the second half of the 19th century, when we were first able to seriously study physics and chemistry at an atomic level thanks to technological advancements never seen before in human history
Do you know what xenophobia means?
Yes I do, I gave you the definition in my previous reply
Despising people because of their heritage or for simply having heritage
That's not what xenophobia means
I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones.
Do you agree with this desire or not?
One last simple question: Do you agree with the idea of removing children from houses where the mafia is seen as an honourable way of living?
Heritage does change. It has to. Think about it for even a minute and that becomes obvious. People and tribes and families change over time. If someone from a family of one heritage marries someone from another heritage then the heritage for that lineage going forward has changed. As elements of one heritage become more remote for a family they fade from importance and memory and eventually fade out. Most importantly for you, if heritage is immutable and can't change then your whole deal about getting rid of the bad parts is impossible. Its a direct contradiction.
"If you want to criticize something direct your criticism to the substance of my definitions" That's what I'm doing. In your definition you added a nonsense bit about heritage never changing. That is not in the real definition and it is not in anyone else's working definition. It's like defining weather as only being when its raining and insisting that weather never changes and is always bad. Your definition is fundamentally flawed.
If science as a culture doesn't function at a societal level then it doesn't apply beyond a useless pedantic point.
Even if you despise yourself and your own heritage despising others for their other heritages still sounds pretty xenophobic. Sounds a lot like the guys that say "I'm not racist, I hate everyone".
No shit I want to get rid of the bad aspects and not get rid of the good ones. And because culture and heritage are not what you say they are that is possible to do.
"One last simple question: Do you agree with the idea of removing children from houses where the mafia is seen as an honourable way of living?" depends, are you going to sexually abuse them and murder them? Not like it would do any good since their heritage can't change.
Your protip was bullshit. Your definition was garbo. Heritage and culture are not frozen in time and they both have good and bad elements and the good ones do benefit society.
Heritage does change. It has to. Think about it for even a minute and that becomes obvious.
Many historical groups arranging re-enactment events and commemorations, conservative political parties and religious groups would like to dissent with you about your stance. But I'm sure their opinions don't count in your books
If someone from a family of one heritage marries someone from another heritage then the heritage for that lineage going forward has changed.
That's absolutely not the case. Try entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage (such as for example a southern Italian family) and you'll see that you are faced with two options: assimilate or be cast out from the group
That's what I'm doing. In your definition you added a nonsense bit about heritage never changing.
No, you are not. You're just repeating that my definitions are wrong without any supporting evidence. I've given you countless examples of heritage being unchanging and set in time while you refuse this without providing any reason or example. I refute your idea of heritage being a mutating concept and will continue to do so until you won't provide me with a compelling example of an heritage which was changed from within and survived unscathed
Most importantly for you, if heritage is immutable and can't change then your whole deal about getting rid of the bad parts is impossible. Its a direct contradiction.
That's exactly why I am for the destitution of heritages in favour of cultures
No shit I want to get rid of the bad aspects and get rid of the good ones. And because culture and heritage are not what you say they are that is possible to do.
I already showed you that heritage cannot be changed from within, to make it change you have to act from outside with specific legislations. Also I'd suggest you to review what you wrote here because I think you made some mistakes in exposing what you want to do
depends, are you going to sexually abuse them and murder them? Not like it would do any good since their heritage can't change.
No, I'm not. I'd have them supported by the state through specialized workers and institutions until a certified foster family can be found and then I'd have them moved in with this family to cancel and overwrite their heritage by giving them a modern culture. Oh no, I ear you say, you want to strip poor children of their heritage. Yes, I do. Their heritage is the cause of a unmeasurable amount of problems both locally and internationally, erasing it would only improve the lives of everyone involve.
Just to ease this discussion, can you please give your definition of heritage? Only to understand what you mean when talking about this subject because you are criticizing me for my definition without providing any supporting evidence to your rebuttals. Maybe if you'd explain what you mean with heritage I could show you where you are wrong at the heart of the issue
Arranging re-enactments and commemorations doesn't mean that they have the stance that opposes the reality that heritage changes. Conservative political parties and religious groups would actually likely agree that heritage can change which is why they need to put such effort into preserving heritage. Because if heritage can't change then there is nothing to preserve. It will always be there. If heritage can't change then who is their opposition? Not that their opposition's opinions count in your book.
"That’s absolutely not the case. Try entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage (such as for example a southern Italian family) and you’ll see that you are faced with two options: assimilate or be cast out from the group"
You mean that's absolutely not always the case. You had to add the condition of entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage in order to narrow the discussion to the scenario that fits your broken definition. You've made a point against yourself here because all we have to do is consider the alternative that has to exist based on your wording. You specified a social group with a strong connection to its heritage which means there are groups without strong connections. So try entering that group. Is heritage immutable there? If not then low and behold heritage can change. Also even your example doesn't make sense because regardless of the reaction of the extended family the married couple's family unit's heritage has changed and if they have children those children will have a blend of the two heritages. Unless you are going to make the looney claim that no one ever marries into a social group with a strong connection to its heritage unless they also share that same heritage. I wouldn't put that past you.
Yes, yes I am criticizing the substance of your definition. I am repeatedly telling you that your definition is wrong because you are repeatedly insisting that it is right. You don't seem to get that your claim that heritage can't change means it has to never change in every single case. One counter example of heritage changing means that you are wrong. And I've repeatedly shown that your examples are not universal. I've pointed out that you keep using conditionals to limit the scope of considering heritage and that as soon as we drop those conditionals or even consider the implications of needing to include them in the first place we see that heritage isn't even close to being universally unchangeable.
" a compelling example of an heritage which was changed from within and survived unscathed" See this is an example of what I'm talking about. Provide an example of something changing but oh yeah let me add the condition that in the example the thing is unscathed. That the heritage can be scathed means it can change. That you keep trying to narrow the scope makes me really suspicious about your honesty. This is more insisting that weather is only when its raining.
"That’s exactly why I am for the destitution of heritages in favour of cultures" not sure what you mean by that. Not a phrase or idiom that I'm familiar with. I suspect you mean that you are in favor of replacing heritages in favor of cultures. That's not a thing that can be done. Just by existing you have a heritage. If you disregard all elements of that heritage, well that would mean that heritage can change which is a contradiction yet again, and replace it with "culture" then that becomes heritage.
"Oh no, I ear you say, you want to strip poor children of their heritage. Yes, I do. Their heritage is the cause of a unmeasurable amount of problems both locally and internationally, erasing it would only improve the lives of everyone involve." And like I was pointing out that's the exact same thing that the people running those boarding schools were saying.
I might eventually give you my definition after being as round about as you were. Guess we'll see.
Heritage can change. You've proven it yourself. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo.
Arranging re-enactments and commemorations doesn't mean that they have the stance that opposes the reality that heritage changes
Maybe not but it does prove that people who believe in heritage will go out of their way to keep it alive and unchanged as much as possible.
Because if heritage can't change then there is nothing to preserve. It will always be there. If heritage can't change then who is their opposition?
Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation
which means there are groups without strong connections. So try entering that group. Is heritage immutable there?
It is but for a smaller proportion of the group. We see this among "white people" where a huge chunk of this crowd is moving towards culture while leaving its heritage behind. This has caused a huge stir in its most conservative representatives who are now fighting against this trend with all their forces (the so called war on the "woke agenda"). If heritage is naturally inclined to evolve can you explain all the efforts put up by conservative voices to avoid this natural process?
One counter example of heritage changing means that you are wrong. And I've repeatedly shown that your examples are not universal
Yet you fail to provide me with this example which would destroy my view while also taking a W because you showed me that the specific examples I used are not universal
Also even your example doesn't make sense because regardless of the reaction of the extended family the married couple's family unit's heritage has changed and if they have children those children will have a blend of the two heritages.
That's not how heritage works: if these two people are casted out of their group they have ended their relationship with their heritages. They will have created a new heritage, related to just their family, but the old ones will remain unchanged in their original groups. So there's no evolution in the original heritage as you can see
Yes, yes I am criticizing the substance of your definition.
No you are not
I am repeatedly telling you that your definition is wrong because you are repeatedly insisting that it is right.
That's what you are doing by simply discarding my examples of application in real life of my definition. That's not a substantial criticism but a straw man attack
See this is an example of what I'm talking about. Provide an example of something changing but oh yeah let me add the condition that in the example the thing is unscathed.
It's called a paradox and it's my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground
Just by existing you have a heritage. If you disregard all elements of that heritage, well that would mean that heritage can change which is a contradiction yet again, and replace it with "culture" then that becomes heritage.
If I disregard aspects of my heritage it doesn't mean that my heritage has changed, it means that I, personally and alone, have moved away from my heritage to a more logical place. My heritage will remain unchanged and brought forward by those being part of my group, tribe or family who accept it's tenants
And like I was pointing out that's the exact same thing that the people running those boarding schools were saying.
Nope, beside trying to impose their heritage they were forcing themselves on defenceless children while taking advantage of their positions of power. May I add that these revolting facts were carried out by participants to another heritage, the catholic one in this specific case?
I might eventually give you my definition after being as round about as you were. Guess we'll see.
Oh thank you for you kind consideration my master
Heritage can change. You've proven it yourself. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo.
Repeating the same phrase over and over again won't turn it's contents into reality, despite all that Goebbels said about that
"Maybe not but it does prove that people who believe in heritage will go out of their way to keep it alive and unchanged as much as possible." Oopsie you just admitted that heritage changes.
"Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation" Progressives don't try to eliminate heritage.
Its not that heritage is inclined to evolve. Heritage must evolve by the very nature of what it is. Heritage includes the changes that occur in societies and families over time. And time continues forward. Heritage is not static unless you make up a completely wrong definition of heritage. Heritage is additive in that way. When ol' Leo painted the Mona Lisa and it became part of italian heritage it didn't destroy the otherwise identical heritage that previously existed just minus that painting. Things are added to heritage and things fade from heritage.
Conservatives put effort into avoiding this because they are scared of change, duh. And they wouldn't have to put effort into it if heritage couldn't change like you claim. That they put effort into it should be a huge hint to you how flawed your made up definition and terrible understanding of heritage is.
Also that seems like a weirdly short take on the relationship between conservatives and change.
"That’s not how heritage works: if these two people are casted out of their group they have ended their relationship with their heritages. They will have created a new heritage, related to just their family, but the old ones will remain unchanged in their original groups. So there’s no evolution in the original heritage as you can see"
That is how heritage works. People from different heritages merry. The intermarriage between these groups blends the heritages of future generations. If they are not cast out of their group then their relationship hasn't ended. You are yet again ignoring all other cases that show your definition is wrong with that if. That is dishonest of you. That you had to use a conditional if to achieve the state of no evolution shows that there are alternate cases where there is evolution. So heritage can change.
"No you are not" Yes, I really am.
"That’s what you are doing by simply discarding my examples of application in real life of my definition. That’s not a substantial criticism but a straw man attack" No I'm pointing out that you are narrowing your examples and trying to ignore that your examples are a subset of all cases and if you consider all cases then your definition falls apart. The weather never changes for example last saturday it was raining.
"It’s called a paradox and it’s my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground" yes that is a paradox that I am highlighting for you to show the contradiction in your reasoning. My reasoning doesn't need conditions and constraints to work. Prove that weather changes but don't mention any days when its not raining.
"If I disregard aspects of my heritage it doesn’t mean that my heritage has changed, it means that I, personally and alone, have moved away from my heritage to a more logical place. My heritage will remain unchanged and brought forward by those being part of my group, tribe or family who accept it’s tenants" It might be that you are not capable of considering this on large enough scales of time and population. That individual's severance of their heritage will impact the collective heritage of their family, and to a small degree their society, going forward. If enough people make that change collectively the heritage of that society will change. But its also not an all or nothing case. If the individual, or the masses, only reject one aspect of their heritage and keep the rest otherwise intact then that heritage is passed on slightly changed.
"Nope, beside trying to impose their heritage they were forcing themselves on defenceless children while taking advantage of their positions of power." It doesn't matter what they did beside, that doesn't change that they were saying the same things you are saying. You were doing shitty thing A. They were doing shitty thing A and shitty thing B. You both did shitty thing A.
" May I add that these revolting facts were carried out by participants to another heritage, the catholic one in this specific case?" You may but that doesn't carry any real meaning. May I add that my cat is orange?
"Repeating the same phrase over and over again won’t turn it’s contents into reality, despite all that Goebbels said about that" Take that to heart then. You're definition is made up. No one else defines heritage the way you do. No one else uses it the way you do. You keep insisting that your definition is correct in defiance of how it obviously works in reality and against the understanding of heritage for the rest of humanity. You don't want to be like goebbels do you?
Heritage can change. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. You are too proud to back down from the dumb things you said.
Oopsie you just admitted that heritage changes.
Once more, culture changes, heritage does not exactly because people FIGHT against the natural order of "everything flows" to keep their heritage the same as it always has been
When ol' Leo painted the Mona Lisa and it became part of italian heritage it didn't destroy the otherwise identical heritage that previously existed just minus that painting. Things are added to heritage and things fade from heritage.
You are still confusing heritage with culture: Mona Lisa is art and it fits in my definition of culture. Still no valid example of heritage changing over time, just another example of you failing to understand my definitions
They wouldn't have to put effort into it if heritage couldn't change like you claim. That they put effort into it should be a huge hint to you how flawed your made up definition and terrible understanding of heritage is.
Conservatives are out to stop the changes in culture and society (culture war much?), they are using heritage as an excuse to explain why culture and society shouldn't change
If they are not cast out of their group then their relationship hasn't ended. You are yet again ignoring all other cases that show your definition is wrong with that if.
You accuse me of using conditionals in my replies but you are no better. I have countless examples of people casted out of their social circles for having messed with their heritages, do you have one single example of people messing with their group heritages without suffering any backlash? If yes please provide them
No I'm pointing out that you are narrowing your examples and trying to ignore that your examples are a subset of all cases and if you consider all cases then your definition falls apart. The weather never changes for example last saturday it was raining.
An example is a single case by definition. Do you want a more general one? Then explain to me why all religions call those who want to change their heritages heretics and have them expelled from their rankings if not dead. If they are lucky they will go on to create a new heritage, separated from the original one(see Martin Luther), if they are not they are put at the stake and burned (see Giordano Bruno)
It might be that you are not capable of considering this on large enough scales of time and population. That individual's severance of their heritage will impact the collective heritage of their family, and to a small degree their society, going forward. If enough people make that change collectively the heritage of that society will change.
That's how culture wins on heritage, by cancelling it and substituting itself to it. Laws such as the civil rights act in America have helped minorities to find more rights for themselves but, even still today, the American heritage prevent many people from engaging with said minorities in a respectful way. Luckily we do have a set of laws nowadays which help us punishing these persons because culture has changed. In the meantime the southern American heritage is still as racist as it was in the '800
It doesn't matter what they did
Oh no, it does. Expecially for those poor children and their families
that doesn't change that they were saying the same things you are saying.
No they were not. They were out to change these children's Inuit heritage with their Christian one. I am trying to eliminate heritage for everyone and to substitute it with culture
You're definition is made up.
My definition is mine by definition (sic), I already told you that. Challenge me on the merit of my definitions: take them, analyse them and provide me with logical reasons why they are false.
Until them stop repeating that my definitions are not the correct ones, I already gave them to you to prove you that heritage is considered as something passed down to old generations to the future ones. My caveat is that this something will not be changed by the receiving generation to keep it "as it always was" and to pass it to the next generation unchanged.
While you're at it maybe try providing definitions for heritage and culture yourself. I could show you what substantial criticism is in real time if you were so kind to assume yourself at my level and not at an higher one
You don't want to be like goebbels do you?
No, and that's why I'm using different examples throughout our discussion. This and also the fact that repeating myself over and over again makes me bored
Heritage can change. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. You are too proud to back down from the dumb things you said.
Heritage can't change. You aren't able to provide any single fact or example to support your points. Your debate capabilities are garbo.
"Once more, culture changes, heritage does not exactly because people FIGHT against the natural order of “everything flows” to keep their heritage the same as it always has been" Once more if heritage didn't naturally inherently change then there wouldn't be anything to fight. Heritage changes.
"You are still confusing heritage with culture: Mona Lisa is art and it fits in my definition of culture. Still no valid example of heritage changing over time, just another example of you failing to understand my definitions" I'm not confusing heritage and culture. The two are intimately intertwined. Your definition is garbo and doesn't match the rest of the world or reality so that doesn't matter. The entire rest of the world considers the artistic achievements of a society's past to be part of their heritage.
"Conservatives are out to stop the changes in culture and society (culture war much?), they are using heritage as an excuse to explain why culture and society shouldn’t change" duh. And because if enough people change course in culture and society adopts that heritage will change. If heritage didn't change then conservatives wouldn't need to give a shit about culture or society changing because heritage would stay the same.
"You accuse me of using conditionals in my replies but you are no better. I have countless examples of people casted out of their social circles for having messed with their heritages, do you have one single example of people messing with their group heritages without suffering any backlash? If yes please provide them" I am better. I am considering the general case. If you have cases where heritage doesn't change and you also have cases where heritage changes and you make the claim that heritage never changes then you are wrong. If you have cases where heritage doesn't change and you have cases where heritage changes and you make the claim that heritage changes then you are right. Something doesn't need to change every time in order to have the property of being able to change. Now you've made it clear that you are not bright enough to understand that so I will give you your example. My heritage says I ought to be going to church every sunday. I don't. Still get along great with the family and everyone at church. One example. An example that isn't alone by a long shot.
"Oh no, it does. Expecially for those poor children and their families" this wasn't the clever turn that you thought it was. The similarity between you and those people stands exactly as validly before. Both of you are trying to eliminate a heritage that you view as bad. They wanted to instill christian culture and values and heritage into the children. You want to instill your preferred culture and values and you just are not bright enough to understand that that also means a heritage too. What ever you substitute for the bad heritage becomes heritage. It might be a very short lived one but it still fills that role. it still gets passed along.
"My definition is mine by definition (sic), I already told you that. Challenge me on the merit of my definitions: take them, analyse them and provide me with logical reasons why they are false." Why did you put sic there? The definition that you came up with has elements that no other definition has and which are counter to the usage of the concept of heritage by the entire rest of the world. That is the major reason why your definition lacks merit. I have also pointed out that the cases where you discuss people fighting against heritage changing are a logical contradiction to your definition. Your definition is like defining weather as only being when its raining and claiming that the weather never changes. Its functionally useless and obviously false even if it is internally consistent. Its built on blatantly false posits.
"While you’re at it maybe try providing definitions for heritage and culture yourself." nah i still got some time to faff about like you did. And even then I get to keep changing it slightly.
"also the fact that repeating myself over and over again makes me bored" when you are too stubborn to back down after saying something embarrassingly wrong you will run into that.
Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. I've provided plenty of examples and the logic of why.
Weather is only when its raining and weather never changes.
Once more if heritage didn't naturally inherently change then there wouldn't be anything to fight. Heritage changes.
You're still talking about culture while referring yourself to heritage, how thick can you be?
And because if enough people change course in culture and society adopts that heritage will change. If heritage didn't change then conservatives wouldn't need to give a shit about culture or society changing because heritage would stay the same.
That heritage will not change, it will disappear little by little while culture change around it. I notice that you didn't reply to my comment about the southern American heritage, do you think it has changed from the '800 or is it still the same racist construct it was 200 years ago?
I am better. I am considering the general case.
Keep telling you that, you might start believing it
My heritage says I ought to be going to church every sunday. I don't. Still get along great with the family and everyone at church.
You haven't considered that the culture around you has slightly changed from the past I see. That's because you don't understand the difference between heritage and culture and this is also the reason why we are having this conversation, but you are too prideful to accept my definitions and challenging them while also refusing to give your own. Scared of being proven wrong?
The definition that you came up with has elements that no other definition has and which are counter to the usage of the concept of heritage by the entire rest of the world. That is the major reason why your definition lacks merit.
Please prove this point, don't just put it there without evidence to corroborate it
Your definition is like defining weather as only being when its raining and claiming that the weather never changes.
My definition is like differentiating between weather and climate. They seem similar but if I state that "the weather hasn't changed because yesterday was raining and today it's raining too" is a correct statement. If, on the other hand, I'd say that "the climate hasn't changed because yesterday was raining and today it's raining too" I'd be wrong since climate is not related to a single couple of days but to a much larger time scale
when you are too stubborn to back down after saying something embarrassingly wrong you will run into that.
So we can assume that people talking about the same points over and over again without giving any merits to their beliefs are the cultured ones? I start to understand how you ended up being so lackluster in your debating skills
Weather is only when its raining and weather never changes.
You are confusing weather and climate like you confuse heritage and culture. A not very bright example from a not very bright mind, what else is there to say?
I'll return to this conversation whenever you will feel like providing me with your definitions, until then I'm talking to a wall which cannot see its being made of bricks as the worst possible argument for a debate.
Have a good one in the meantime 👋🏼👋🏼
"You’re still talking about culture while referring yourself to heritage, how thick can you be?" My poor projecting dude, I'm not the thick one. The concepts of culture and heritage have a lot of overlap. If heritage can't change then there is nothing that conservatives need to fight for because heritage can't change. Let the progressives change culture and society all they like heritage can't change and so for each subsequent generation heritage will forever be the same. This is part of the logical failure of your definition.
"That heritage will not change, it will disappear little by little while culture change around it." Removing incremental parts is change. Adding incremental parts is change. You are almost back to reality here.
" I notice that you didn’t reply to my comment about the southern American heritage" ok cool.
"do you think it has changed from the '800 or is it still the same racist construct it was 200 years ago?" I think it's changed. I'll preempt your dishonest next question/insinuation. Yes of course its still racist its just an evolved form that has similarities and differences from what it was back in...i'm guessing you're trying to say the 1800s?
"Keep telling you that, you might start believing it" pretty easy to believe in reality.
"You haven’t considered that the culture around you has slightly changed from the past I see. That’s because you don’t understand the difference between heritage and culture and this is also the reason why we are having this conversation, but you are too prideful to accept my definitions and challenging them while also refusing to give your own. Scared of being proven wrong?" Sure I've considered culture changing around me. Culture and heritage both being capable of change are not a contradiction. Culture changing and being added to the existing heritage for future generations is how it works. I've clearly explained how your definition is at odds with the rest of humanity and with reality, that is sufficient basis to dismiss it.
"Please prove this point, don’t just put it there without evidence to corroborate it" No other definition has heritage being immutable. If you claim that another shares that criteria then provide it. Please prove that no one else's definition of weather includes the stipulation that weather is only when its raining.
"My definition is like differentiating between weather and climate. They seem similar but if I state that “the weather hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” is a correct statement. If, on the other hand, I’d say that “the climate hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” I’d be wrong since climate is not related to a single couple of days but to a much larger time scale" Again you are almost back to reality. Let's go with your misunderstanding of the weather example, we can make something useful of it. Weather/culture is much more volatile and changes quickly. Climate/heritage are charted over the course of much longer periods of time and are based on the long term trend of weather/culture. AND HOLY SHIT! Climate/heritage can change! Unless you are one of those troglodytes that claims climate change isn't real. I'll assume against all prior evidence that you are smart enough to understand that climate can and is changing. Weather being able to change, and change much more readily, doesn't in any way stop climate from changing. In fact it is an inherent part of climate changing. Culture changing doesn't in any way stop heritage from changing and in fact is an inherent part of heritage changing.
"So we can assume that people talking about the same points over and over again without giving any merits to their beliefs are the cultured ones? I start to understand how you ended up being so lackluster in your debating skills" You are strutting about the chessboard stepping in your own shit.
"You are confusing weather and climate like you confuse heritage and culture. A not very bright example from a not very bright mind, what else is there to say?" What is there to say? Well I could say that you were not bright enough to pick up on the fact that that was not about a relationship between weather and climate but rather giving an example of an internally consistent but fundamentally flawed definition that is detached from reality...like your definition of heritage.
I'm sorry, I know I said I would assume to give you the benefit of a doubt but I gotta ask. Are you one of those idiots that thinks climate isn't changing?
There is one single brainchild writing all of these comments, you have been warned.
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world