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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.