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
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.
I wouldn’t, that’s why I want to stop it
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 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
Yes I do, I gave you the definition in my previous reply
That’s not what xenophobia means
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.
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
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
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
That’s exactly why I am for the destitution of heritages in favour of cultures
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
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.
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.
Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation
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?
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
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
No you are not
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
It’s called a paradox and it’s my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground
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
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?
Oh thank you for you kind consideration my master
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.
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
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
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
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
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)
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
Oh no, it does. Expecially for those poor children and their families
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
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
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’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.
You’re still talking about culture while referring yourself to heritage, how thick can you be?
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?
Keep telling you that, you might start believing it
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?
Please prove this point, don’t just put it there without evidence to corroborate it
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
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 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 👋🏼👋🏼