I cannot think for you. Take it as is; if not go elsewhere with your pedantry.

I’m not trying to be nasty here, it’s just a small courtesy to let you know if I don’t reply to comments directed my way it isn’t because I didn’t read them. — I like sushi

Ditto on that. :up:

I don’t see the need to refer to ‘theft’ of culture though. — I like sushi

Neither do I, I'd rather keep the original term 'appropriation' which has a different sense. I also like 'stupidly fucking with' but maybe that's a bit emotive. :)

Without a thorough discussion on what ‘culture’ means and what ‘intellectual property’ is I don’t see how we can sensibly deal with another level of ambiguity - here or anywhere else.

The OP has opened up an interesting topic. I’m still confused about the meaning of the term; regardless of any political position being pushed by this or that zealous/naive group/s. — I like sushi

We're not going to get a thorough discussion of culture here. It's too broad an issue. But cultural practices or artefacts that don't 'fit' in well with a modern connected capitalist super-culture can be vulnerable or at least seen as vulnerable by their cultural guardians to assimilation/degradation. Whether you care about that and how much you do is likely to be at least partly defined by your own cultural background. Getting a bird's eye view is difficult, but I think it's worth trying to see through the fog.

I don't think anyone here said this had something special to do with Americans or race. I didn't mention race once and the examples given were about Australia, America and other places. But it normally is a minority culture, as you agreed, complaining about a dominant culture degrading their practices and traditions through misuse. So, your example fits in well. As to whether their complaint is justified, that could be debated. So, an interesting example, but I'm unsure of the target of your critique.

Where it becomes an ideological tool of intolerance, it's being misused and that has happened, but the term as originally introduced (in the 70s) in its anti-colonialist sense has value. And it's intellectual laziness on both sides to misapply it: on the left to harass those engaged in harmless cultural cross-fertilisation, and on the right to dismiss the idea out of hand due to an inability to see past these misapplications or appreciate the importance of others' cultural behaviours, practices, symbols, and artefacts and their vulnerability to abuse. There's plenty of nuance there for those who want to look.

You seem to be willfully missing the point. Even in this case, which is not all that serious, it's possible for a culture to be proud of a particular dish and not want a different inferior dish represented as it. Suppose Irish stew actually tasted good and that certain ingredients were vital for it to be considered Irish stew and some restaurant in a foreign country started selling some other crap that they called "Irish Stew" but that wasn't. An Irish person might feel that this restaurant had appropriated an aspect of their culture and misrepresented it causing people to think that a national dish of ours was of a lower quality than it is, and might feel somewhat aggrieved. It's not something you should necessarily go to court over or that most people would necessarily worry about, but it could be seen as an unwelcome appropriation, and the situation can be clearly distinguished from intellectual property rights (which do not apply to cultural traditions) and not getting what was paid for (we didn't buy the damn stew). Why is that difficult?

Therefore I am sure that a lot of people are quite confused about the ontological status of these all too familiar institutions that are part of our daily lives. — Matias

You're definitely right about that.

Looks like Iran's cunning plan to make themselves look like every bad thing John Bolton said they were in order to help give him the excuse he needs to kill them in massive numbers is working out just fine.

Or they didn't do it.

Cultures subsist in a tension between the sacred and the taboo. That's the energy that holds them together. Threaten that dynamic and they can fall apart. I don't want to speak for any culture other than my own, but a basic understanding of how culture's function should allow for an appreciation of their strengths and vulnerabilities. And as @andrewk pointed out, there's a spectrum of affect there. Many accusations along these lines will be trivial and misguided, but some are not and even those that are don't justify the tin-foil-hat-left-wing-guilt-trip conspiracy theory fostered by the right-wing media that the stupider among us will gobble up like catnip .

It's clearly not only about money. Even in the examples given, that's only part of the equation. Aping cultures' (especially endangered ones') traditions in a way that stereotypes or denigrates them, regardless of financial considerations, is just as much, if not more, a form of unwelcome appropriation. How damaging it is would depend on the power relations involved, the type of cultural behaviour copied, its importance to the culture, in what way its appropriated, the level of impact on the culture and so on. @Bitter Crank tucking into a bowl of Irish stew would not bother an Irish person in the least (though they might wonder why he couldn't find something decent to eat). On the other hand, a well-known actor wearing an American Indian headdress and traditional tattoos for fun and encouraging others to do so could be offensive and damaging. Etc.

@Coben has pretty well covered the type of examples I'd want to talk about though I may dig up a few more later. In any case, my issue here stems primarily from the fact that cultural appropriation is another buzz concept (like PC), the misuses of which are presented in the media as typical in a way that obscures the potential import of the issue in certain contexts. It's much more entertaining and profitable—and often politically expedient—to select examples of misguided, or even downright perverse, accusations of cultural appropriation—the "Unhand that burrito!"/"Unmouth that German phrase!" type—than to seriously explore the other side of it. And the result is a sowing of seeds of ignorance, the harvest of which is not only bushels of increased ad revenue but streams of useful idiots to spread an anti-PC, anti-left, anti-progressive message. (Of course, if overzealous/confused liberals kept themselves more in check, the media wouldn't have so much to buzz over, so it's not all on the newsies.)

Ok, I'll leave my defence of our apehood at that. It is more or less off-topic.

I will leave this here though which presents a fairly balanced view of an issue that is not about PC outrage over people eating burritos or using German words.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rar/papers/RogersCT2006.pdf

"Cultural appropriation ... is an active process ...The active ‘‘making one’s own’’ of another culture’s elements occurs ... in various ways, under a variety of conditions, and with varying functions and outcomes. The degree and scope of voluntariness (individually or culturally), the symmetry or asymmetry of power relations, the appropriation’s role in domination and/or resistance, the nature of the cultural boundaries involved, and other factors shape, and are shaped by, acts of cultural appropriation."

I tend to agree in this case. Male soccer players of a similar skill to those female players also get paid considerably less than the best male players. And if it's not skill or revenue or difficulty of work that determines pay, what is it?

Lol. Have I now upset your PC sensibilities? It was a joke. At least you got it, I suppose. Anyhow, try Googling cultural appropriation to find out what it is and why it may be more than what Fox News (or whoever) tells you. I'm not going to hold your hand on this.

So the appeal to humans as simply being apes is biological reductionism... — Wayfarer

I don't remember anyone saying we were "simply apes". And I have no idea what that would mean or why it would be reductive. Is there a claim anywhere we can't speak, think, or do things other apes can't? It just suggests to me you're hung up on a hook of your own making on this.

Oh dear, I hope you find a more appropriate place to put them. :halo:

It's a misused and misunderstood term as is apparent from your post. There are cases where vulnerable/dominated cultures may suffer degradation through misuse/misrepresentation of their practices/traditions by others and cases where they may not. But rather than analyze them, let's just bash a strawman, and by extension all things PC, because that's much easier and more fun than actually exploring the real damage to people and their way of life that can potentially be done by stupidly fucking with stuff that is very serious to them.

We're clearly not apes. — Wayfarer

It may not be the point at issue but let's be correct. We are, unequivocally, apes and there's nothing wrong with that

"A hominoid, commonly called an ape, is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members are the gibbons (lesser apes, family Hylobatidae) and the hominids. A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

I got:

You Are A:

Chaotic Neutral Human Monk/Sorcerer (3rd/2nd Level)

Alignment:
Chaotic Neutral- A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Primary Class:
Monks- Monks are versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor. Good-aligned monks serve as protectors of the people, while evil monks make ideal spies and assassins. Though they don't cast spells, monks channel a subtle energy, called ki. This energy allows them to perform amazing feats, such as healing themselves, catching arrows in flight, and dodging blows with lightning speed. Their mundane and ki-based abilities grow with experience, granting them more power over themselves and their environment. Monks suffer unique penalties to their abilities if they wear armor, as doing so violates their rigid oath. A monk wearing armor loses their Wisdom and level based armor class bonuses, their movement speed, and their additional unarmed attacks per round.

Secondary Class:
Sorcerers- Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who manipulate magic energy with imagination and talent rather than studious discipline. They have no books, no mentors, no theories just raw power that they direct at will. Sorcerers know fewer spells than wizards do and acquire them more slowly, but they can cast individual spells more often and have no need to prepare their incantations ahead of time. Also unlike wizards, sorcerers cannot specialize in a school of magic. Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they have more time to learn fighting skills and are proficient with simple weapons. Charisma is very important for sorcerers; the higher their value in this ability, the higher the spell level they can cast.

http://www.easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html

In a real quandary here. I'm planning on visiting the US. Should I tell them my Google+ handle is ledzkiltrumpwidfyre? Or should I just leave that one out? :chin:

It is an annoyance and hypocritical, but I don't see a problem here that could affect anyone with a cunning index higher than, say, an amoeba.

Wouldn't the Learning Centre fit that purpose?
Specifically the Questions section? — Shamshir

:up:

There's a clear ontological difference between God prima facie and Canada and the likes. Problem dissolved.

*Runs away*

Anyway, I don't really have anything to add. And it seems you started this topic to get around the last topic being closed, which isn't going to fly. So, closed.

Should I say "Worth getting upset about" maybe?

It started off as a reasonable question but ended up with what @DingoJones said.



You did actually flame people Frank. To an extent the rules don't allow.

And we have rules about language use / flaming etc. which we will enforce regardless of what anyone's philosophical position on that is.

What the hell is going on? — Frank Apisa

You're obsessing over an idea that no one else but you thinks is important and repeated expressions of incredulity at the fact that no-one else thinks it's important are superfluous to our philosophical requirements here.

I suggested we close it and @Hanover agreed and closed it. I thought it had some promise at the beginning but it seemed to have run its course philosophically and was developing more into a Shoutbox-type thing, largely at your direction.

I'm not deleting all that. Too much work. But if we could just call cut on the Life of Brian redux and get back on topic. Pretty please.

Any atheist with any sense would only claim that Canada is as real as it's supposed to be whereas God isn't. There's nothing more to it than that.

Canada is the type of thing that can exist by virtue of it being agreed to exist. As can 'marriage', 'the office of the president' etc. It's ontological status is that of a social fact. God is posited as having an existence independent of both society and human beings. 'His' ontological status is therefore more fundamental, metaphysically. So, the question is misframed. A God that exists only by virtue of agreement (as a social fact) is not a God at all (is in fact only the atheist conception of God), but a Canada that exists only by virtue of agreement is fully the Canada we know. It has cashed out its ontology as much as necessary for it to be what we understand it to be.

I did and your question in response was pointless filler. The reply was appropriate.

Hint: It's one of the full democracies here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

No, as it happens I live in a country with better health care, better education, a higher GDP per capita, higher economic growth, lower corruption, a cleaner natural environment, lower inequality, and more civil liberties than the U.S. So, I really am in trouble I guess...

Nice. I like the way it fades away, pares itself down in a kind of exhaustion like a spinner that sucks you into its orbit and then spins itself out like the writer's desperate mood.

And I can relate to throwing ropes to ensnare the myriad pieces that we wish to form a worthy expression. Describes the process well.

I wonder at some rhythmic choices though. Like why not:

"Imagery inserted to express imagination" for the second line. Same meaning but sounds better to my ear with a better match of major stressed syllables. As in:

I'm so SICK of conCEPtualisAtion
Imagery inSERTed to exPRESS imaginAtion

But of course I may have missed your intention here.



Really like this. The second stanza in particular is sublime. :clap:

I didn't read it so I'm not going to argue about it.

Yes, @jamalrob deleted it for low quality.

Random news story from the Congo:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/ebola-outbreak-eastern-drc-reaches-2000-cases-190604133821153.html

My advice to Frodo would be to get the fuck out of there.