Over the past few months, I’ve noticed a new round of references to the white supremacist “great replacement theory,” so I thought I’d offer a post to explain the dark corners from which this came and the nightmares to which it can lead. At its heart, the “replacement theory” argues that immigration — usually of non-white groups, but some sort of menacing “other” — is a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. Immigration is not, in this paranoid view, the result of individuals and families seeking to better their own lives, but the result of a sinister scheme to ruin
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.
That’s where the false correlation between heritage and colture started for 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?)
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.
This was my question, don’t cut a citation where it’s convenient to you
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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)
Please provide me an example of a culture which does not apply peer pressure to enforce its heritage on the people living inside it.
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?
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.