Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Cultural Appropriation

avdrey
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 4:25:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Well, culture depends upon the eye of the beholder. So can you tell me who or what you had in mind when you wrote this?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 4:57:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Appropriation is to count something as "appropriate". I think cultural appropriation is a big word. It doesn't have to be ominous, ok? It is the natural and inevitable process of streamlining controversial topics into a neat package that is applicable to the mass community. In this economy that community is the consumers. Outsiders will feel violated by being asked to assimilate into a dominant culture (- also a big word!), but even appropriation can be re-appropriated. By using semiotics you or me can interpret the interpretation of any cultural artefact. By doing this we lay obsolete what is being showed to us. In another sense, the Dominant culture is bigger but it is not necessarily badder. Sometimes, this Culture is bigger but it also shy. Like Tigger in Pooh stories, he may seem like a tiger aH! but he is just a stuffed teddy bear for kids to hold. So we do see examples of dominant cultures making music and songs that are not exactly pc, inappropriate, but it is just a sign that the mainstream culture is reaching out to us in a shy manner and just want to get along? Know what I mean?

https://www.youtube.com...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 8:01:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

Amen.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
google dictionary

Do I? Because it seems like based on that definition my point stands.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 8:31:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

Besides, making a vague assertion isn't going to change my mind so if you want to do your argument justice you should expand on your point
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:44:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
google dictionary

Do I? Because it seems like based on that definition my point stands.

Google dictionary is wrong. Take this as a rule of thumb. When dealing with an abstract idea, never refer to a dictionary. It will lie to you every time.

A culture is a set of ideals and beliefs, largely subconscious and shared by a large group of people defined by ethnic or political boundaries that manifests itself in language, art, religion, politics, and social expression.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:53:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:44:40 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
google dictionary

Do I? Because it seems like based on that definition my point stands.

Google dictionary is wrong. Take this as a rule of thumb. When dealing with an abstract idea, never refer to a dictionary. It will lie to you every time.

A culture is a set of ideals and beliefs, largely subconscious and shared by a large group of people defined by ethnic or political boundaries that manifests itself in language, art, religion, politics, and social expression.

I don't think either definition really serves to refute my point since languages, forms of art, religion, political ideas, and social expressions don't belong to an ethnicity or ought not to belong to one. Once again, whoever created the things you speak of here was a few people or one individual and certain ethnicity's or people based on political boundaries followed that idea, it doesn't mean its theirs because they followed it first, they took no part in its creation. Regardless its hard to tell if you're trying to be helpful, lazily refute my points or both but if its the former thank you, your advice is duly noted, if its the latter try harder.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:04:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:53:29 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:44:40 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
google dictionary

Do I? Because it seems like based on that definition my point stands.

Google dictionary is wrong. Take this as a rule of thumb. When dealing with an abstract idea, never refer to a dictionary. It will lie to you every time.

A culture is a set of ideals and beliefs, largely subconscious and shared by a large group of people defined by ethnic or political boundaries that manifests itself in language, art, religion, politics, and social expression.

I don't think either definition really serves to refute my point since languages, forms of art, religion, political ideas, and social expressions don't belong to an ethnicity or ought not to belong to one. Once again, whoever created the things you speak of here was a few people or one individual and certain ethnicity's or people based on political boundaries followed that idea

Here is where you are wrong. None of those things were created by one or a few individuals. "Renaissance art" does not belong to Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Specific examples of renaissance art are attributed to specific people, but it was the society as a whole that created the expression by sharing the same ideals. The artists did not just up and decide to paint and sculpt. They were driven by the underlying values of their society, and the work produced is an expression of those values as is specific to that ethno-political bloc.

it doesn't mean its theirs because they followed it first, they took no part in its creation.

Every member of any culture contributes to the production of cultural expression. That is what makes it a culture; it is ingrained in the very bones of the concept.

Regardless its hard to tell if you're trying to be helpful, lazily refute my points or both but if its the former thank you, your advice is duly noted, if its the latter try harder.

It is both. And I was typing between classes. I will be more nuanced in my replies.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:13:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:04:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:53:29 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:44:40 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
google dictionary

Do I? Because it seems like based on that definition my point stands.

Google dictionary is wrong. Take this as a rule of thumb. When dealing with an abstract idea, never refer to a dictionary. It will lie to you every time.

A culture is a set of ideals and beliefs, largely subconscious and shared by a large group of people defined by ethnic or political boundaries that manifests itself in language, art, religion, politics, and social expression.

I don't think either definition really serves to refute my point since languages, forms of art, religion, political ideas, and social expressions don't belong to an ethnicity or ought not to belong to one. Once again, whoever created the things you speak of here was a few people or one individual and certain ethnicity's or people based on political boundaries followed that idea

Here is where you are wrong. None of those things were created by one or a few individuals. "Renaissance art" does not belong to Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Specific examples of renaissance art are attributed to specific people, but it was the society as a whole that created the expression by sharing the same ideals. The artists did not just up and decide to paint and sculpt. They were driven by the underlying values of their society, and the work produced is an expression of those values as is specific to that ethno-political bloc.

Renaissance art then as you contend was attributed to ideas that were created by individuals. To draw an analogy and look at another thing you said, political ideas, the USA is a republic that is based on individualism, that individualism though, does not belong to us as there were enlightenment philosophers that first popularized and created the concept such as Immanuel Kant and John Locke among others. If Renaissance art was influenced by certain values, we can attribute the originality of renaissance art to something created by an individual or a few people.

it doesn't mean its theirs because they followed it first, they took no part in its creation.

Every member of any culture contributes to the production of cultural expression. That is what makes it a culture; it is ingrained in the very bones of the concept.

People's individual accomplishments should be accredited to them though, as stated above individualism isn't american, it's Lockean, Kantian, etc. we just were the first to implement their individual ideas. You bring up religion which is another interesting example seeing as how the doctrines that most religions follow weren't wrote by an entire society, they were wrote by a small group of disciples for example (Bible) and a certain group followed it after it was spread by those disciples. Does that mean that group owns or has partial ownership of Christianity? No it does not.

Regardless its hard to tell if you're trying to be helpful, lazily refute my points or both but if its the former thank you, your advice is duly noted, if its the latter try harder.

It is both. And I was typing between classes. I will be more nuanced in my replies.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:13:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:04:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:53:29 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:44:40 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Culture appropriation is just collectivist babble for left wing tumblr Social Justice Warriors.

First of all, no ethnicity or race or religion or any other group should own a culture or parts of it, just because they decided to use or implement something that one or a few individuals created before others doesn't make it any more theirs than it is mine, just a few examples:

Food: Taco's, pizza, all common forms of culture appropriation if you believe in the concept. At the end of the day one person created these things, they have intellectual ownership over it, not a race or ethnicity so the entire notion is absurd that an ethnicity can steal another ethnicity's culture. If I created tacos, the invention of tacos belongs to me not my race, if I created pizza, the invention of pizza belongs to me, not my race. My race just happened to use my invention before others and then decided they were going to take collective ownership of it. If all the mexicans of the world came together to invent tacos and they all contributed something to it then yes, that is a different story but the issue with culture appropriation and all liberal social issues is that they want to deprive people of individual accountability.

Individuals ought to take responsibility for their successes and failures not their race, native americans didn't create headdresses one person did and they all decided to use it, that doesn't mean they deserve to take partial ownership of headdresses, that is beyond stupid they didn't invent them. It's sort of like saying someone should be proud to be black because of Martin Luther King Jr. or proud to be British because of Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, just because you are British or black doesn't mean you have any part in their accomplishments, they are individuals who achieved great things based on their ability, you did nothing to assist them so what right do you have to take personal pride in yourself just because you shared their ethnicity or skin color?

Conversely just because my race or ethnicity did bad things in the past doesn't mean I feel guilty for it, as an individual I'm not accountable for what my ancestors did.

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a culture is.

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
google dictionary

Do I? Because it seems like based on that definition my point stands.

Google dictionary is wrong. Take this as a rule of thumb. When dealing with an abstract idea, never refer to a dictionary. It will lie to you every time.

A culture is a set of ideals and beliefs, largely subconscious and shared by a large group of people defined by ethnic or political boundaries that manifests itself in language, art, religion, politics, and social expression.

I don't think either definition really serves to refute my point since languages, forms of art, religion, political ideas, and social expressions don't belong to an ethnicity or ought not to belong to one. Once again, whoever created the things you speak of here was a few people or one individual and certain ethnicity's or people based on political boundaries followed that idea

Here is where you are wrong. None of those things were created by one or a few individuals. "Renaissance art" does not belong to Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Specific examples of renaissance art are attributed to specific people, but it was the society as a whole that created the expression by sharing the same ideals. The artists did not just up and decide to paint and sculpt. They were driven by the underlying values of their society, and the work produced is an expression of those values as is specific to that ethno-political bloc.

it doesn't mean its theirs because they followed it first, they took no part in its creation.

Every member of any culture contributes to the production of cultural expression. That is what makes it a culture; it is ingrained in the very bones of the concept.

Regardless its hard to tell if you're trying to be helpful, lazily refute my points or both but if its the former thank you, your advice is duly noted, if its the latter try harder.

It is both. And I was typing between classes. I will be more nuanced in my replies.

Oh, and that is fine, thank you.
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:23:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Hmm, I made a tread similar to this awhile ago.

Cultural appropriation usually pertains to keeping something affiliated with one culture, and keeping it among the group that use it. Some people's stance on cultural appropriation is a bit extreme, but I think that cultural appropriation is important, and should be taken into consideration.

Things like dressing up as an american indian on halloween, in my opinion, are okay. Though I will note, there is some debate over that.
The problem is, that when you are representing a culture you don't truely understand, it is pretty easy to defend people. Yesterday I was on tumblr, and I saw a picture of an (obviously not native american girl) in an indian headress. The caption was "squaw." Obviously, the girl who took this picture didn't intend to offend anyone, but that doesn't change the fact that a caption containing a derogatory phrase as well as a girl representing a culture she doesn't belong to is going to piss people off.

This problem gets significantly worse when you turn to garments with a specifically religious affiliation. I knew a girl who would consistantly insult the Islam, and one day she took a picture of herself in a hijab, talking about how "cute" they are. I see things like this as an example of complete violation of cultural appropriation because (a) this girl is not affiliated with Islam in any way and (b) she frequently insults the religion.

I feel like i'm pretty much in the middle on this controversial topic, and I would love to do a debate on either side. To clarify my position, I really think that the appropriateness of wearing a garment/object from another culture depends on why you're wearing it, and how you act while you wear it.
Selena Gomez wearing a bindi while dancing seductively in a music video is a violation of cultural appropriation. However, innocently wearing a garment such as selena's for halloween probably isn't.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Honestly, I'm kinda new to the concept- but I cannot understand cultural appropriation. The cultural value of a specific garment is subjective, isn't it? Its not the garment that gives the cultural significance, its the people wearing it.

Like wearing a bindi doesn't make anyone a representative of the Indian culture, he's still his own agent. Even ignoring the fact that there are Indian songs ( ) where girls wearing bindi dance pretty sexily, I don't think placing high value on any sort of ornament is justifiable in any way. Pretty exclusionary and weird. If a person is behaving like a douche wearing a bindi, that is a reflection on the person rather than the culture. I don't see why anyone's got to be offended by it.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:53:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

A culture is a set of ideals and beliefs, largely subconscious and shared by a large group of people defined by ethnic or political boundaries that manifests itself in language, art, religion, politics, and social expression.

I don't think either definition really serves to refute my point since languages, forms of art, religion, political ideas, and social expressions don't belong to an ethnicity or ought not to belong to one. Once again, whoever created the things you speak of here was a few people or one individual and certain ethnicity's or people based on political boundaries followed that idea.

Here is where you are wrong. None of those things were created by one or a few individuals. "Renaissance art" does not belong to Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Specific examples of renaissance art are attributed to specific people, but it was the society as a whole that created the expression by sharing the same ideals. The artists did not just up and decide to paint and sculpt. They were driven by the underlying values of their society, and the work produced is an expression of those values as is specific to that ethno-political bloc.

To draw an analogy and look at another thing you said, political ideas, the USA is a republic that is based on individualism, that individualism though, does not belong to us as there were enlightenment philosophers that first popularized and created the concept such as Immanuel Kant and John Locke among others.

Can you clarify your hypothesis.

So are you saying the US is a value less society. Since it only borrows values it has no culture of its own?

Or perhaps you are saying culture itself doesn't exist. Which?

Renaissance art then as you contend was attributed to ideas that were created by individuals. If Renaissance art was influenced by certain values, we can attribute the originality of renaissance art to something created by an individual or a few people.

No. Renassaince art did not happen first. The artist thus did not create the art. Who created it. The businessman created the wealth. The wealth created Thought. Renassaince Thought brought about a golden age of Intellectualism like the individuals of Copernicus and Macchiavelli. This culture of shared values of intellectualism led to the fertile ground that artists could create freely in. Artist drawing nudes would have their ding-dongs chopped off by the Church for "disturbing the peace", i.e. Censorship. So intellectualism paid for, opened up, and patronised the artists so that they could breathe and create. But it all started with the money right? Are you now going to say that the Businessman are the artists, or vice-versa? Notice: How even individualist philosophers like Kant and Rousseau can inspire others to be creative.

it doesn't mean its theirs because they followed it first, they took no part in its creation.

So in this way even a mason worker who built the roads and palaces inspired the artists with architecture.. Every citizen is thus a living breathing "artist".

And that's why Pots says: "Every member of any culture contributes to the production of cultural expression. That is what makes it a culture; it is ingrained in the very bones of the concept."

Last but not least, the greatest individualist & innovator of your generation said this true statement: good artist borrow, great artists steal. Do you know what that means? That means any American art that you see all around you in the markets on the streets they are drawn not by one person but collages of different walks of life and small inputs from different minds that shape and chisel away the final product that you see with your eyes.

There is not a single piece of art that is not borrowed. There is not a single book that is not innocently plagiarized. There is not a single piece of music that has been remixed.. https://www.youtube.com...

People's individual accomplishments should be accredited to them though, as stated above individualism isn't american, it's Lockean, Kantian, etc. we just were the first to implement their individual ideas. You bring up religion which is another interesting example seeing as how the doctrines that most religions follow weren't wrote by an entire society, they were wrote by a small group of disciples for example (Bible) and a certain group followed it after it was spread by those disciples. Does that mean that group owns or has partial ownership of Christianity? No it does not.

The Bible has no value to me. Are you saying that Christians have no claim to the Bible? It depends on whether you do think the Bible is historical or a cultural artefact?
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 1:21:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 12:53:22 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/30/2014 8:29:06 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:58:10 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:47:01 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

So to answer your question, there is no line between global awareness and culture appropriation because culture appropriation doesn't exist, its just a term for people who need another issue to get their panties in a bunch about.

A culture is a set of ideals and beliefs, largely subconscious and shared by a large group of people defined by ethnic or political boundaries that manifests itself in language, art, religion, politics, and social expression.

I don't think either definition really serves to refute my point since languages, forms of art, religion, political ideas, and social expressions don't belong to an ethnicity or ought not to belong to one. Once again, whoever created the things you speak of here was a few people or one individual and certain ethnicity's or people based on political boundaries followed that idea.

Here is where you are wrong. None of those things were created by one or a few individuals. "Renaissance art" does not belong to Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Specific examples of renaissance art are attributed to specific people, but it was the society as a whole that created the expression by sharing the same ideals. The artists did not just up and decide to paint and sculpt. They were driven by the underlying values of their society, and the work produced is an expression of those values as is specific to that ethno-political bloc.

To draw an analogy and look at another thing you said, political ideas, the USA is a republic that is based on individualism, that individualism though, does not belong to us as there were enlightenment philosophers that first popularized and created the concept such as Immanuel Kant and John Locke among others.

Can you clarify your hypothesis.

So are you saying the US is a value less society. Since it only borrows values it has no culture of its own?

Or perhaps you are saying culture itself doesn't exist. Which?

Not that culture doesn't exist simply that you cannot claim ownership of components of a culture or ideas.

Renaissance art then as you contend was attributed to ideas that were created by individuals. If Renaissance art was influenced by certain values, we can attribute the originality of renaissance art to something created by an individual or a few people.

No. Renassaince art did not happen first. The artist thus did not create the art. Who created it. The businessman created the wealth. The wealth created Thought. Renassaince Thought brought about a golden age of Intellectualism like the individuals of Copernicus and Macchiavelli. This culture of shared values of intellectualism led to the fertile ground that artists could create freely in. Artist drawing nudes would have their ding-dongs chopped off by the Church for "disturbing the peace", i.e. Censorship. So intellectualism paid for, opened up, and patronised the artists so that they could breathe and create. But it all started with the money right? Are you now going to say that the Businessman are the artists, or vice-versa? Notice: How even individualist philosophers like Kant and Rousseau can inspire others to be creative.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is here since we seem to agree here. I want to reply to your point but I don't fully understand what you mean when you say "intellectualism" is payed for or call businessmen artists. I was simply saying that if renaissance art was inspired by the values held by people during the renaissance we can attribute the originality of Renaissance Art to the individuals/philosophers/scientists that inspired the artists. Sure the art in its physical form belongs to the artist that painted it but the idea behind the art in this case belongs to someone else.

it doesn't mean its theirs because they followed it first, they took no part in its creation.

So in this way even a mason worker who built the roads and palaces inspired the artists with architecture.. Every citizen is thus a living breathing "artist".

I would say mason workers are artists in their own rite but at any rate no not necessarily, if we want to go back to the original example about Renaissance Art, the artists painted the art but if it was based on the values of society at the time like scientific enlightenment the idea behind the painting likely came from a scientist or philosopher, does this mean multiple individuals can contribute to one piece of work, yes? It does not, however, mean that all of society has partial ownership over it.


And that's why Pots says: "Every member of any culture contributes to the production of cultural expression. That is what makes it a culture; it is ingrained in the very bones of the concept."

No, this is still incorrect because multiple individuals, not every member of a "culture" contributed to one piece of work.

Last but not least, the greatest individualist & innovator of your generation said this true statement: good artist borrow, great artists steal. Do you know what that means? That means any American art that you see all around you in the markets on the streets they are drawn not by one person but collages of different walks of life and small inputs from different minds that shape and chisel away the final product that you see with your eyes.

I am not sure how this contributes to your argument, because I agree with you. I am just stating that individuals should get credit for the fruits of their labor and we shouldn't rob people of their individual achievements by giving partial ownership to their accomplishments to arbitrary things like people of their race or gender or ethnicity or in general anyone who didn't contribute. Sure renaissance art was the result of many contributions but that still doesn't mean because I'm European if a black person paints a renaissance-esque piece of art I am going to defensively claim they are stealing my ethnicity's art. I could care less I didn't contribute to the concept of Renaissance art.

There is not a single piece of art that is not borrowed. There is not a single book that is not innocently plagiarized. There is not a single piece of music that has been remixed.. https://www.youtube.com...

Once again agreed

People's individual accomplishments should be accredited to them though, as stated above individualism isn't american, it's Lockean, Kantian, etc. we just were the first to implement their individual ideas. You bring up religion which is another interesting example seeing as how the doctrines that most religions follow weren't wrote by an entire society, they were wrote by a small group of disciples for example (Bible) and a certain group followed it after it was spread by those disciples. Does that mean that group owns or has partial ownership of Christianity? No it does not.

The Bible has no value to me. Are you saying that Christians have no claim to the Bible? It depends on whether you do think the Bible is historical or a cultural artefact?

Either way they don't, the principle of ownership is that you only own things you created or partially owned it because you partially created it. If I didn't write the bible it's just as much mine as it is a Muslim's or Jew's.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:07:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Appropriate Being
Avdrey : How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

The Fool @ OP:. well to appropriate is to make something Proper. A Proper Thing is The Right or Ideal Version of something, and thus all other kinds are Improper. Therefore culture appropriation is make changes in a culture towards an Ideal culture. If, and only if what you think you know is Really the best, least we not make changes for the worse. Like all such terminology, such expressions tend to get used and abuse to serve ones own Ideology.

Efficiency
One is justifying "what is the Ideal culture is when accounting for all possible variables?"
The Second is "what are the 'appropriate" means to moving towards it".

Efficiency is not simply about TIME, but how much ERROR's you make completing the Task.

Freedom
How much degrees of freedom do we leave, just encase, we are WRONG?
Perhaps the Ideal state is too always be in motion.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:24:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool @ Cermank: I have been to huge (Multiple Event) Indian wedding, where there was a dancing event that looked similar, to that. (video). Well, a really huge and densely packed room full of people dancing in Harmony. They can really get into the spirit of it. I love those. In fact found those video's very entertaining.
<(89)

Do you feel that these video are well, Appropriate for society at large?

If not, what do you think needs to be changed, to make it appropriate.

Think of how DEAD and Lifeless, that video would be if we forced it, to live up to The Feminist Ideal.

Against The Ideologist

The Fool: I also eat tandoori chicken quite often.
<(89)

And I occasionally eat "butter chicken".
<(8D)

But its too fattening to eat often, and so most un-appropriate.
<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:57:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:22:35 PM, avdrey wrote:
How do you guys define it, and where do you draw the line between cultural appropriation and global awareness (for lack of a better phrase)?

Perhaps you're thinking of an idea, a popular trope, or a piece of reality being culturally/ideologically co-opted, redefined, neutralized, or utilized by society, by a specific demographic, or by society's ruling class? Well, of course such a thing happens, and is clearly not at all the same thing as entertaining something with naive, nonpoliticized awareness. Rather, it's awareness more deeply colored by the interests and bias of a group. I hope that this helps.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:20:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:24:14 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool @ Cermank: I have been to huge (Multiple Event) Indian wedding, where there was a dancing event that looked similar, to that. (video). Well, a really huge and densely packed room full of people dancing in Harmony. They can really get into the spirit of it. I love those. In fact found those video's very entertaining.
<(89)
They are entertaining, true. Although I'm not a fan of dances like that at weddings. There is something show-offy about it.

Do you feel that these video are well, Appropriate for society at large?

Their lyrics portray a regressive attitude towards females. So no.
If not, what do you think needs to be changed, to make it appropriate.

Settings, mainly. Empowering/ fun lyrics. less objectification.

Think of how DEAD and Lifeless, that video would be if we forced it, to live up to The Feminist Ideal.

lol i don't think so. there are plenty fun songs that liven up a wedding without showing the bootay.
Against The Ideologist

The Fool: I also eat tandoori chicken quite often.
<(89)

And I occasionally eat "butter chicken".
<(8D)

But its too fattening to eat often, and so most un-appropriate.
<(XD)



Also, i like how you bring everything back to feminism. This was a topic on cultural appropriation.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 6:30:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Controller

Love, Laugh and live, or Feminism
The Fool @ Cermank: I have been to huge (Multiple Event) Indian wedding, where there was a dancing event that looked similar, to that. (video). Well, a really huge and densely packed room full of people dancing in Harmony. They can really get into the spirit of it. I love those. In fact found those video's very entertaining.
<(89)

Cermank : They are entertaining, true. Although I'm not a fan of dances like that at weddings. There is something show-off about it.

The Fool: It was such a beautiful thing, I have never seen such live united sense of shared enjoyment. (These were extremely wealthy families though)

Are you are self-conscious person? I mean we all more or less to some extent, but many people have an unhealthy amount, and they then blame the world because they don't feel accepted..thus instead of changing themselves, they try and change the world around them force people to accept them.

I know that is a strand of woman like that in Feminism and a strand of men like that in MGTOW as well, and they use these approaches get back at people.

You're not one of "those" people are you?

More evidence is that stereotypical woman tend to use their own pictures as appose to stereotypical men. Have you not noticed? So woman who don't are more likely to be less stereo-typical or that very self-conscious type I was talking about.

But I generally get a Feminine vibe from you except on conversation where you started calling me "dude". Not that you need live up to my standards, but I am just describing what I see. I don't personally have anything against you, in fact I think you are generally a good but perhaps frustrated person.
Video Appropriation
The Fool : Do you feel that these video are well, Appropriate for society at large?

Cermank : Their lyrics portray a regressive attitude towards females. So no.

The Fool: So you feel wise enough that you could speak as parent of society on everybody's behave, especially women's behave.

Or should it be up to women to decide to dance, sing and be in the videos' they choose to be in, or should they be controlled directly or perhaps mentally programming by Feminist socialization?

Do you believe that it should be also up to adult viewers to view what they want or should they be controlled directly or mentally via socialization?

The Fool: what do you think needs to be changed, to make it appropriate?

Cermank: Settings, mainly. Empowering/ fun lyrics. less objectification.

The Fool: I believe it"s a caricature of a fictional story. Do you think all fictional stories should be appropriated by feminist before being published?

My point is how much CONTROL is appropriate for Feminist to place on our everyday living, freechoices, freethinking , Arts and Entertainment?

The Fool: Think of how DEAD and Lifeless, that video would be if we forced it, to live up to The Feminist Ideal.

"Cermank: : lol i don't think so. there are plenty fun songs that liven up a wedding without showing the bootay.

The Fool: Firstly, I was referring to the Video, and there is hardly anything in the video which Feminist theory wouldn't consider a part of (according to them) filthy conditioned gender stereo-types which need to be washed. From cloths, to dances, to story line, to attitudes, to roles, to stare rape, to throwing money at woman, and her putting it in her bra.. What would really be left in that video??

The video is a feminist nightmare, yet so many people like it, so perhaps they got at least something WRONG.
(Almost 7 Million views!!!!)

As for lyrics:
I like that I have know Idea what they are actually saying, it seems more exotic to me. It would probably over simply and ruin the video for me if I knew them.

Cermank:: Also, i like how you bring everything back to feminism.

The Fool: I like continuing a conversation over time with similar people because you build up a general over all understanding of their views, which allows for more progressive conversations over time. You may not agree with me, but overtime you get a better picture of what I am generally saying, and that perhaps are views are not "so" different after all, or at least you will be aware of the types of arguments that you will eventually have to find answers or come to terms with to maintain a reasonable position.

Cermank: This was a topic on cultural appropriation.

The Fool: And movements are examples of cultural appropriation in action. Right?
<(8D)

Against The Ideologist

I can't stop Laughing when the Police Chief gets to the "Party" and starts busting out!!!!!!
<(XD)

I must have seen it 6 times now. Since you posted it.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 6:31:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool: oops, posted to myself.

Go here:
http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:14:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cermank: This was a topic on cultural appropriation.

The Fool: And movements are examples of cultural appropriation in action. Right?
<(8D)

No, movements are evidence of reappropriation in action.