So how did the "West' play out in Europe prior to WWII? Now let's look at the colonies.. How did the "West" play out in North/South America, Pacifica, Africa, and parts of Asia? I believe that was outright exportation of one's "ethnic" culture to other areas. English, concepts of property, of religion, or work, of ways of life, of law, etc. etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

Answer: Real Politick and might-makes-right.

What I'm gleaning, though not said so openly and boldly, is this: "You, west, in your hypocrisy, and by your unclean hands and history, must now take a seat, and quit pretending to counsel up-and-comers like Israel, for doing exactly the same thing you did to become who you are today. You have no moral authority to any high ground; so stop with the self-righteous, sanctimonious 'human rights' shit. I don't want to hear it."

Got it. But I don't care. And neither does the rest of the west. While nation-states, new and old, still live, and do not die like their individual, mortal, human members with their short life spans, they are still composed of individual humans who perceive growth, change, progress, and MLK's arc of the moral universe, which is long, but which bends toward justice. Yes, those individual human members stand on a tall pile of bones, and they benefit from that pile. But they did not create it. If anyone wants to take them to task, it must be done with them, on their pile, with their state; and not by creating a new pile, or aiding or abetting another state in creating their own pile.

The sincere critic should come to the west and talk of reparations, contrition whatever. Work to heal the wrongs they have wrought. But one dishonors and disgraces the involuntary price that was paid by victims when telling the changed-heart it can no longer speak, or hold a position on the contemporary wrongs of another. That's not only BS, it's illogical. Two wrongs don't make a right. And a second wrong can be prevented or, at least, objected to, no matter the evils of the past.

I want to hunt bison latifrons, on a north American savannah. But I can't. Tough shit for me. That doesn't mean I can slaughter white rhinos now, and tell mankind to take a seat. We must protect the white rhino, period, full stop.

We "discovered" fire. We invented vaccines. We've tried to honor human rights, as well as the rights of the individual. A cynic, or an apologist can argue any of these things, and a thousand others, are good or bad. But humanity has deemed them good and nobody gives a shit about the opinion of anyone who disagrees. That is, or should be, the new Real Politick. Didn't get your chance to colonize? Tough. You snooze you lose. Too late. Too slow, get back. Life's a bitch. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. Don't like it? Fight. But be prepared to lose. We can all only hope we have passed a tipping point, where the arc will never turn back. But it may be up to the perpetrator of past evil to ensure that it does not. That's okay by me. It's not about forgetting. It's not about forgiveness. It's about making sure it doesn't happen again.

End rant.

I see "ethnic identities" in the title, but then a reference to "culture" in the OP. I think there may be a difference. Anyway, I'll stick with the "ethnic identity" side of the question for now and say, the only reason to maintain it is genetic diversity that might see the species through some environmental or other change. Other than that, I say breed the differences out until we have a Heinze 57 mutt so people quit pointing fingers based on different ethnic appearances. Send me a bunch of ethnic beauties' and I'll get this ball rolling.

Now, as to culture. Hmmmm? As a good liberal, I'm always about respecting cultural differences, but only to a point. If you want to hold down a little girl and cut off her clitoris with a piece of broken coke bottle, then you can go to hell. But what about little boys and circumcision? That seems like BS too. Where do we draw lines? Informed consent? Do we have a right to stop others from violating the physical integrity of others just because our culture says certain things should not be done? Well, yeah, I guess so. If we've got the might to back it up. Women as chattel? Hiding faces? What if they want to?

I like the idea of Real Politick, but it has to be tempered with respect for human rights. So, the best avenue maybe an international (interethnic, intercultural) form of tribal ostracization. Cancel culture or consequences, if you will. Thus, we don't force anyone to stop anything or start anything. We just turn our back on and refuse to deal with anyone who is engaged in activities we find inimical to our sense of morality. They can keep it up, but not with our help. Why we even deal with Monarchs, like the House of Saud, or religious states, like Israel, or communists, like China, or strongmen like Putin, I don't know. It's that Real Politick thing, which is really just greed.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have much of a dog in this fight.

That's a great line! — Janus

Guys like him make me think it might be safe to start drinking again. Then I remember, he probably killed more brain cells than I started out with; so I reckon I'll just stay on the wagon and appreciate his wit from a distance.

I wouldn't lose sleep, no - like I said I don't think it says anything about someone to know or not know about blackrock. — csalisbury

:100:

Its a good idea in principle, and I have no doubt it would work with many people, but it would likely be very costly in practice. If you started paying or rewarding people to be vaccinated, even those who were already in favour would jump on the bandwagon, and probably even those who already had been vaccinated would demand that they be paid retrospectively as well, out of fairness. — Janus

No doubt. True colors. But how about a set fee of $10,000.00. That would be less than what it's been costing in shut down and probably way more than enough to get us to herd immunity. I can see all the Tumpettes getting in line as fast donny did.

Some of us already are Europe, alas. — unenlightened

:grin: I actually look up to and respect a lot of what I think of as maturity that comes from having two world wars fought in your back yard. It's gonna take us a while. "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." Winston Churchill.

I responded to fishfry because I watched a Spencer Tracy movie recently, and he mentioned a movie with Spencer Tracy. — csalisbury

I guess I should have responded to fishfry instead of you. Maybe I could have avoided all your misunderstanding.

I don't think it says anything about someone to know or not know about it. — csalisbury

Agreed. That's why I posted about the desert, and letting others manage my money for me. Does that make me ignorant, in having never heard of the financial BlackRock? Maybe so, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Risk is so hard to quantify for individual cases, though. — Janus

It's easier to quantify if you offer incentives: $1.00? $10.00 $100.00? $1,000.00? $10,000.00? If no amount of money will get them to vax, then okay. Otherwise, when they take an offer, they've shown their colors.

but your lack of time-investment in those things is predicated on others investing time in them. — csalisbury

In addition, that is not necessarily true. It makes an assumption that if they were not doing it, I would have to do it myself. Wrong. I don't have to invest my money in the markets.

They get latte's delivered to their cubicles, donning nice suit and tie, extending pinkies over wine and cheese, groveling before their overlords with overtime, and secretly wishing they were me. — James Riley

That was in response to your post:

Hopefully the people (the grunts in the company) managing your money are also able to carve out time to pursue spiritual things. I can't quite grok the moral of what you've said, or why you tagged me, but your lack of time-investment in those things is predicated on others investing time in them. — csalisbury

You crying over the poor wretched slaves making a metric shit ton of money on Wall Street solicited my response, above.

Right - that's why I don't get the story - you were hiking, and you don't manage your money because people you don't respect will instead. Ok - I believe you that's a fair description, but I'm not sure what to take from it. — csalisbury

You don't get the story because you are obstructing yourself. You are reading your assumptions into it. Where the hell did I ever say I don't respect these people? Where the hell did I ever imply I was disdainful of their trade? Pump the brakes, csalisbury. My story of the Black Rock desert is no different than your story of the Black Rock movie: irrelevant to the OP.

If I didn't respect the people who manage my money then I sure as hell would not let them manage it. To the contrary, I specifically trust them with my money because they were willing to put in the time and effort to learn shit that I was not willing to learn. I'm not a brain surgeon, or a rocket scientist, or an infectious disease expert, or a thousand other things, either. I don't play an instrument but I pay for music. What does that say about me in your book?

Yes, it's unfortunate that valid conjectures and concerns were debunked in the minds of many simply because Trump touted them. — Janus

:100:

Not only unfortunate, but dangerous. While the remedy might be objective, impartial analysis and investigation into the merits of a contention, it would be a lot easier to do that if we didn't give a megaphone to a known dishonorable coward and liar. It sure makes the row harder to hoe when we have a dumbed-down electorate that will not consider the former because of a love for the latter. How will his truth ever have credibility when even a broken clock is right twice a day?

What would you do if they collectively stopped choosing to do this thing you find so disdainful? — csalisbury

Quit paying them.

P.S. I don't know where you get "disdainful" from. I merely said I had not chosen to invest the time and resources to become as expert at what they do as they are. Like Covid, or a thousand other pursuits.

I tagged you because you were the first to swim so far from the OP, and I felt in need of company as I did likewise. A movie, and the desert, are far indeed from the OP, and further still from those who choose, of their own volition, to make lots of money managing mine, even if it results in their failure to pursue the spiritual. They get latte's delivered to their cubicles, donning nice suit and tie, extending pinkies over wine and cheese, groveling before their overlords with overtime, and secretly wishing they were me. Or not. Their choice.

Basically we have to distinguish between "outdoor risks" and "indoor risks". — god must be atheist

True. Hence my desire to see just how married the anti-vaxxers are to their risk analysis through the use of lotteries, money, and other incentives. If one is really concerned about one's life, then they would not get a vax in return for a Super Bowl Ticket, or a thousand dollars, or a free beer at the local saloon, etc.

My reference was to Leprosy and the Black Death. Here's a thesis you can argue with if you like. When the stakes are cultural survival, individual rights are irrelevant. When there is a disease like leprosy with no cure that is a slow, disfiguring, death sentence, we the civilised democratic decent religious or irreligious people, care more to keep our society healthy than the rights of lepers. This is a stronger imperative than war, because one can be defeated in war and survive. — unenlightened

I got your reference; though, due to the nature of the interwebs, I wasn't entirely sure you were not being facetious. Sounds like you were being straight up, and, if so, I think we are in agreement. In defense of the opposition however, I would be willing to submit that part of our "culture" that we want to survive, is the individual right to be an asshole. I'd hate to lose that in preservation of the remainder of the culture generally. After all, being an asshole is about as culturally American as one can get. It's what makes us us, shooting people, telling "the man" to fuck off, and whatnot. We wouldn't want to become Europe, after all.

I do agree that we might be defeated in war and survive (somewhat, like Vietnam) but my point was, the health care professionals (not insurance, big pharma, et al, but doctors, nurses, etc.) generally don't come to us begging for our support and so, when they do, I think they have more credibility. What, with the Hippocratic oath and all, I think they've got a pretty good track record. Whereas the MIC has a habit of lying and killing for the bottom line, at least every ten years or so. Sure, some causes are righteous (killing fascists and slavery supporters), but even then the profiteers circle like a drug/insurance company and worse, pounding on the drums of war.

Here’s the way I see it, pulling a page from the conservative Republican playbook: Trump once said he was a war time President in a war against an invisible enemy. Okay. The front-line troops are the nurses, doctors, health workers and then, behind them, are the essential workers. If you don’t wear a mask, social distance and get a vaccine, then you don’t support the troops, you are un-American and you should get the hell out. Fuck you, you commie traitor!

So, one might ask, if the military industrial complex and their conservative Republican cucks are wrong about all that in a shooting war, then why would the left be right about it in this war against Covid? The simple answer to that question goes right back to who was being called cynical and manipulative. Since when has the medical profession conducted itself like the military industrial complex? The Spanish Flu?

I could flesh out the analogy with more comparisons to how the war mongers conduct themselves as they wrap themselves in our flag to get boys killed, but I won’t belabor it. Those assholes want everyone to fall in line for them. Well, it’s time for them to step up. But yeah, crickets. Cowards. Get the god damn shot so we can move on. And if we all die because of it, good riddance, the Earth says.

I think many people who refuse to get vaccinated or who are skeptical about taking (experimental) vaccines are so because the medical and the political establishment are abusing their trust.

We are in the position where we're expected to trust our lives to people who don't have time for us, who don't listen to us, who treat us like cattle, who are misrepresenting statistical findings, who are cynical, and some of whom have a personal history of betraying people's trust.

Are you not scared to put your life in the hands of such people? — baker

You are too charitable. If your analysis was applied by these same stupid people every time their leaders ginned up a war, then you'd have a point. But they fall right in line. So yeah, fuck them. Every time you get in your car and drive past someone, you have placed yourself in a position where you trust your life to people who don't have time for you, who couldn't care less about you, who's only care is that they don't get hurt so they stay in their lane and expect you to stay in yours.

They aren't smart enough to know if statistical findings have been misrepresented. Instead, they listen to those who are, but conveniently forget: There are statistics, and then there are damn lies. Fuck statistics, unless and until you are a statistician. The anti-vaxers are the ones that are cynical, not the folks pushing the vaccine. I don't know where you got that. The one's pushing the vaccine are optimistic as hell.

But to answer your question, no. I'm not scared. But then, I'm not a pussy, and I'm making a calculated risk like I do every time I go out the door.

What do we make of this? More window-dressing? A much-needed transitional step away from Friedman/neoliberal economics? — Xtrix

I'm over my head on this, but here's my speculation: A system that imposes a fiduciary duty (look that up if you don't know what it really entails) upon anyone, which said duty shoe-horns itself into legality, ethical and moral righteousness and defense, is the concentration of power in the hands of self-interested elites. It is power taken out of the hands of the people and governments openly and brazenly. It is self-interest alone.

The scenario you set forth, if I understand it, may be a re-awakening of what used to be called "enlightened self-interest." If I remember Adam Smith, et al, these guys who first articulated free-market capitalism, had this old fashioned notion that, while "greed is good" it cannot stand alone. First, you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg just because you want to eat goose. Second, you don't want that goose to rise up and cut your fucking head off with a guillotine. That's called "enlightenment." People used to be enlightened, before greed ran away with them, removing ethics and morals from the fiduciary duty, and then considering such to be moral and ethical, providing a defense to any who would invoke it in a court of law.

So, if I'm right about what you are saying, it sounds like some folks may be waking up. They see the goose dying, or the guillotine being rolled out.

What is this party line supposed to do?? — baker

It's supposed to get people to rethink their alleged thinking. Same with the lotteries, game tickets, etc. In other words, "risk" is not really the reason most of these people don't get the vaccine. They are either scared or petulant.

Sure, but being skeptical or cautious about the safety of the Covid vaccines (which have not undergone the usual mandatory 10-15 years of testing that vaccines undergo) does not equate to being an anti-vaxxer per se. — Janus

That is true. I just see the usual time line as taking too long when you can't even get the stupid people to wear masks and social distance. If they did the simple things, then yeah, we could give the vaccine protocols more time. But we chose to take a risk. We take much greater risks every time we walk out the door.

If he says "do it", all the computers in the world can go from functioning machines to being useless pieces of metal junk. — god must be atheist

But he won't. He needs us more than we need him. They all do. But if he did, it would ultimately be a good thing. Now, where did I put my looting clothes?

:100:

One of my favorite quotes is from John Milton, Areopagitica, from memory: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the Earth, so truth be in the field. We do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple. For whoever knew the truth to be put to the worse than in a free and open encounter."

I love that quote, but I also believe there must be education such that observers might understand the grapple. Without that ability, there is a danger that brings to mind another consideration: While the United States does not have clean hands, and I know that, we have nevertheless shed a lot of blood in what I believe are righteous causes. For a country that talks a good game about honoring her dead, this Memorial Day has me thinking that I have little patience to listen to shit from fascists or racists. And it's not simply a matter of me tuning them out or changing the channel. I want to see them shunned, banned, marginalized, pushed back under the fridge and into the darkness where they belong. They will always be with us, but we don't have to give them time or a platform.

I blame it on mass media. — Wayfarer

That is a big factor, no doubt. But we don't invest in education they way we should, and we lack good leadership. If everyone was trained in analytic and critical thinking, then lies, propaganda and stupidity would be welcome as comic relief. As it is now, they are taken seriously. If we had real leaders, they'd confront cowards like Trump and confront anyone who would follow such a punk.

Question is, given that Covid may or may not have been transmitted to us by animal vectors, will the "big one" be transmitted by animals or will it escape or "escape" from a lab? — Janus

I don't remember the specifics but he referenced a currently well-known and extremely lethal virus that just has not yet made the jump from animals to people and it has not yet become airborne even between animals. The idea was that something like that which already exists ends up mutating to cross species and become airborne, even wind-borne, transoceanic, etc. It doesn't need a lab. But if anyone did such a thing, they'd be fools if they were not already immune or had a vax. It will be so lethal and fast that there won't be time to respond after the fact.

I think the conventional wisdom now is that this virus is here to stay. Like with the flu, a bunch of people will die every year from it. — frank

I also heard that flu illness and death dropped precipitously into the toilet due to masking and social distancing related to Covid protocols. Some 33,000 lives saved? Yet the same morons that I detest were also against those protocols. I wonder, on the one hand, how many died due to morons, and, on the other hand, how many were saved by the people who followed protocol. What would it have been if everyone had decided to act like a moron?

So far the variants haven't been a problem. If the spike protein changes significantly, they would have to make another vaccine. That wouldn't take long, though. — frank

That's optimistic. Great. I also heard from a scientist that (my words, not his): "Covid-shmovid. This is not the big one. Not even close. The big one will not be Covid or a Covid variant. It will be more transmissible and more lethal by huge orders of magnitude."

A lot of states are at around 50%, right. That plus immunity from infection has to put us pretty close. — frank

From what little I understand, Covid doesn't respect political boundaries, be it interstate in the U.S. or international. Early on they were saying that even if everyone one in the U.S. got the vax, it would do no good if the rest of the planet was ginning up a bunch of variants that could pierce the vax.

Edited to add: They were also saying that pre-vax, with just herd immunity from getting it. Some northern European country was trying the herd immunity idea and scientists said that wouldn't work due to variants.

I went on a 100 mile trek through the Owyhee Desert once. I passed through a region called Black Rock. When it comes to money, I let my fund managers handle the investments. I've spent as much time and money making myself an investment guru as I have in making myself an expert on Covid and the vaccines: None.

If you knew how bizarre the function of these vaccines actually is, it might help you understand what I'm saying. — frank

It might, but I've chosen not to know.

If someone out there declines that risk, it's ok. Herd immunity doesn't require 100%. — frank

I've heard it's like 70+% and we are not there yet, thanks to those who decline to take the risk. I don't think that is okay.

I don't understand those who see politics instead of real people. — frank

If those who declined to take the risk were doing so based on the science, then I'd toss them a bone. But I believe most of them (enough to keep us from herd immunity) are declining based on politics instead of people. My test to show this was to bribe them and see just how valuable their alleged concern really is. Funny how many people go for the lottery, the sporting tickets, etc. They claim all this principle, or science, but when we are talking money, they change their tune. The question is, should society be paying people to do the right thing, while others subsidize them? If word gets out, people will refuse the vax just to get paid to do it. Again, it would have nothing to do with real people (other than themselves). Hell, they place their own loved one's at risk.

I think in the process of reacting to them, you've become similar to them in some respects, namely the adoption of a political lens and disregard for facts. — frank

Bingo! And let that be a lesson to them! When Michelle Obama said to go high when they go low, I said not so much.

This is a new technology, fairly new anyway. Do you understand what the Pfizer vaccine does? — frank

I do not. Nor do I wish to invest the time or resources required to make myself an expert on the matter. Thus, I default to those who have made that investment. I know there's risk involved in that and I'm willing to take that risk.

so it is as yet unknown whether the majority of any society would mandate vaccination. — Janus

You asked "should" not "does". So yeah, I agree.

Also, you seem to be alluding to the well-attested fact that people are constitutionally incapable of viscerally caring about more than some fairly small number of people; namely those who matter personally to them. — Janus

I try not to allude, but maybe I did. I think we agree on the well-attested fact. I use myself as a case in point on your other thread.

P.S. When I choose to refrain from investing the time and resources into making myself an expert on a given area, I tend to default to those who have. I've done the calculation of odds vs inconvenience and decided that is a risk worth taking. So, scientce says vax, I vax. Case by case, mind you.

For me, it has nothing to do with the vaccine or Covid, per se. Rather, it's more about my subjective, pre-judgmental view of what I perceive to be a stereotype of an anti-vaxer. I see them as Trump supporters, anti-intellectual knuckle-dragging, selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful, bible-thumping conservative Republican, back-water haters who think they are "renegades", "rebels", cut from the same cloth as our founding fathers, out fighting for freedom, truth, justice and the American way. So naturally, I want them to mask and vax or die. Unfortunately, that's now how Covid or the vax works. So I shrug my shoulders and let things play out. I got the J&J one and done. The only side affects seem to be Bill Gates telling me to buy more MicroSoft Products. I haven't been able to figure that one out yet, but I'm dystopian-loving sheep so we're all good.

So, who decides what matters more? — Janus

Society. Otherwise, I could kill you with impunity.

But I do like your optimistic view of the upside. 99% reduction would be a good thing, I reckon.

What I would find interesting is a test on the individuals who don't want to vax: We start offering them money, or chances for money, and see how long they stuck to their guns. LOL! We're all cold, calculating students of science and the numbers and the odds, Covid vs vaccine, hmmm? We decide to not vax because, well, we ran the numbers. And we're smart like that. But wait, $1k? $10k? $100k? A million? Give me some of that action!

In other words, fuck my fellow man, it's all about me and has nothing to do with the risks of a vaccine.

:100:

It's up to the individual of course. — Janus

The unfortunate part about invisible enemies is, we can't prove accessory before or after the fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a mere preponderance of the evidence. So you are right: it's up to the individual. If only we could prove it was him that caught it and passed it on to kill another, then we could make him pay. But we can't. And selfish, inconsiderate people know this, and they feel even more vindicated when there are so many of them. Oh well. That's why the U.S. and other "free" countries have the highest death toll. That's why variants proliferate. That's why variants may render vaccines worthless.

I know an upper (1%) class, northern, married couple, both well educated (but not Liberal Arts) who are off the deep end. I'm also surrounded by rural, ranching, blue collar northern types who are all-in with dummy. A lot of dummy's appeal is simply that he hates the same people they hate. That's it. They will overlook the fact that he's a dishonorable coward and a liar, and a man they would never let baby sit their kids, simply because he trolls the people they hate. Because of all this, they frequent the confirmation bias echo chambers and pick up on all the conspiracy paranoia. The first guy went so far as to admit we both drink our respective Kool aid and we must live with it. He lost site of the notion of not drinking any Kool aid all. Some scary shit. He actually believes there is a cabal that is out to get the likes of him.

The thing that bothers me most, though, is there is an element of the insurgency that is not racist, or nationalist, or fascist, or conspiracy nuts, but who actually believe the Capitalist/Freedom/America vs everyone-else-and-their-slippery-slopes-to-Communism BS. Anyone who is not them is an existential threat. These guys see dummy as a useful idiot and they don't like Republicans any more than Democrats. Some of these people are trained up gray men, doing the real damage, without trashing capital buildings or marching and whatnot. Some are outside, but many are inside. Getting rid of them takes a leader and I'm not sure Joe is up to the task. I hope so, but it's a big ask. We need some hard corps, old-school ass-kickers to shove these people back under the fridge where they belong. Right now all we have is a bunch of law-abiding, patient, "it'll all work out" people who are not seizing the moment.

End rant.

When I hear the word "prejudice" I think of pre-judgement, or judgement prior to having heard the evidence. When I think of the word "stereotyping" I think of typing, or categorization. Stereotyping can serve a useful purpose and is distinct from pre-judgement. It does not become prejudgment. Prejudgment does not need any help to become itself. All pre-judgement needs is to judge without all the evidence. Stereotyping, on the other hand, is based on some evidence, even if not enough.

Dogs know how to puke. Nothing can puke like a dog. That's a stereotype. Sure, there may be an odd dog out there who fails at a good dog puke, or another animal that's pretty good at, or maybe even better at puking, but generally speaking, the "type" is a good puker. The judgement is in the goodness of the puking, not in the puking itself. If I said "That dog can puke" whilst never having seen that dog puke, I would be pre-judging the dog. That's probably not fair to other dogs who take pride in their puking. And it's not fair to the dog. He may not aspire to, or want to be held to a goodness standard of puking. But pre-judging a dog as a good puker, or even just a puker, does not follow from the stereotype or an expansion thereof.

I think there are two questions here 1) Do different rules apply to white people because of historical conditions and 2) Is the derogatory, contemptuous language used in the post acceptable. — T Clark

I think different rules do apply to some white people, as the "offending" post specified. I think the derogatory, contemptuous language used in the post may be acceptable. In fact, it should probably be combined with a heavy dose of ostracization (cancel culture, consequences). Had we executed total war during and after the Civil War, it's quite probable that we would not now be dealing with these issues. In fact, playing nice, putting it behind us, bygones, etc. may very well be the offending culprit in our current national division.

As we approach Memorial Day, we might reflect on all the men who died killing Confederate racist slavery-supporting enemies of the United States, and how "playing nice" essentially takes a big greasy shit on their graves.

On a philosophy forum, it should go without saying that people would do their due dilligence and check with the potentially offensive poster as to what they really mean, before accusing them of racism. — baker

:100: :ok:

T Clark was saying that he didn't get "heritage" from the accusations and I was merely pointing out that many a southern racist specifically uses the term "heritage" in defense of his flying the Stars and Bars, etc. In that case, it's a self-own, regardless of what the poster might have meant.