magnusrufus

@magnusrufus@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨checkmate, big geology!!⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  We still talking volcanos or have we moved on to regulating Taco Bell and porn?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨DON'T CREATE AN IDOL FOR YOURSELF⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think your post would greatly benefit from an introductory paragraph preparing readers for what to expect. As it is the title and current first paragraph don’t convey the gist of what your post is about or why anyone should care about or read it and given it’s length most people are not going to give it the time to try and put that info together on their own.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You can now buy a flame-throwing robot dog for under $10,000⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Animal torture sure makes you seems cool.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨First known test dogfight between AI and human pilot carried out, US military says⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Nonsense hypotheticals are not whataboutism.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨pluto⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Well said. This is my take on it too. It’s really the only reasonable approach.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨pluto⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_star

  That doesn’t seem to be entirely accurate.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨pluto⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The deal is the weird part where they made a specific point of and big deal out of the new classification not being a type of planet despite having the word planet in the name.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Amazon's Hidden Chatbot Recommends Nazi Books and Lies About Amazon Working Conditions⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Your user name is appropriate, but probably not the way you intended.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: it's not just Tesla, 1/3 of cars in built in the last ten years have passenger/rear windows that are almost impossible to break in an emergency.⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Specialized tools oversells it. A chipped sparkplug will work.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨This is so true⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure it’s not just right wingers… But they are easily in the lead.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Life by You the Sims-like from Paradox delayed until June⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Probably wiser to delay than to take a misstep when trying to edge into the Sims’ territory. I hope Life by You succeeds. EA and the Sims have been lazy, abusive, and out right thieving for so long now.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hannah Montana was meant as a silly premise, but now it just makes sense.⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Well we already established it’s much of an assumption.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hannah Montana was meant as a silly premise, but now it just makes sense.⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes indifference makes you cool. Caring about things is for losers. Any more grade school wisdom you’d like to impart?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hannah Montana was meant as a silly premise, but now it just makes sense.⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Your only reply to the whole of the original post was who cares. The doxxing death threats and sexual harassment, who cares. You wanted to say that you were talking about a different part but you gave no context or indication for that when you just said who cares. How is that not indifference to human suffering? It really doesn’t seem like much of an assumption.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hannah Montana was meant as a silly premise, but now it just makes sense.⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Enjoy being proud about being indifferent to human suffering.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hannah Montana was meant as a silly premise, but now it just makes sense.⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I didn’t mention anything other than people that view others as humans would care that other humans are being harassed.

  Being doxxed and getting death threats? Oh yeah that’s not cool but who cares?

  Also, a more minor point relative to your stance that celebs aren’t human, but how on earth did you manage to equate a public persona with completely obfuscating ones identity or even creating a totally new identity?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hannah Montana was meant as a silly premise, but now it just makes sense.⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  People that view others as human.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  “You’re still talking about culture while referring yourself to heritage, how thick can you be?” My poor projecting dude, I’m not the thick one. The concepts of culture and heritage have a lot of overlap. If heritage can’t change then there is nothing that conservatives need to fight for because heritage can’t change. Let the progressives change culture and society all they like heritage can’t change and so for each subsequent generation heritage will forever be the same. This is part of the logical failure of your definition.

  “That heritage will not change, it will disappear little by little while culture change around it.” Removing incremental parts is change. Adding incremental parts is change. You are almost back to reality here.

  " I notice that you didn’t reply to my comment about the southern American heritage" ok cool.

  “do you think it has changed from the '800 or is it still the same racist construct it was 200 years ago?” I think it’s changed. I’ll preempt your dishonest next question/insinuation. Yes of course its still racist its just an evolved form that has similarities and differences from what it was back in…i’m guessing you’re trying to say the 1800s?

  “Keep telling you that, you might start believing it” pretty easy to believe in reality.

  “You haven’t considered that the culture around you has slightly changed from the past I see. That’s because you don’t understand the difference between heritage and culture and this is also the reason why we are having this conversation, but you are too prideful to accept my definitions and challenging them while also refusing to give your own. Scared of being proven wrong?” Sure I’ve considered culture changing around me. Culture and heritage both being capable of change are not a contradiction. Culture changing and being added to the existing heritage for future generations is how it works. I’ve clearly explained how your definition is at odds with the rest of humanity and with reality, that is sufficient basis to dismiss it.

  “Please prove this point, don’t just put it there without evidence to corroborate it” No other definition has heritage being immutable. If you claim that another shares that criteria then provide it. Please prove that no one else’s definition of weather includes the stipulation that weather is only when its raining.

  “My definition is like differentiating between weather and climate. They seem similar but if I state that “the weather hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” is a correct statement. If, on the other hand, I’d say that “the climate hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” I’d be wrong since climate is not related to a single couple of days but to a much larger time scale” Again you are almost back to reality. Let’s go with your misunderstanding of the weather example, we can make something useful of it. Weather/culture is much more volatile and changes quickly. Climate/heritage are charted over the course of much longer periods of time and are based on the long term trend of weather/culture. AND HOLY SHIT! Climate/heritage can change! Unless you are one of those troglodytes that claims climate change isn’t real. I’ll assume against all prior evidence that you are smart enough to understand that climate can and is changing. Weather being able to change, and change much more readily, doesn’t in any way stop climate from changing. In fact it is an inherent part of climate changing. Culture changing doesn’t in any way stop heritage from changing and in fact is an inherent part of heritage changing.

  “So we can assume that people talking about the same points over and over again without giving any merits to their beliefs are the cultured ones? I start to understand how you ended up being so lackluster in your debating skills” You are strutting about the chessboard stepping in your own shit.

  “You are confusing weather and climate like you confuse heritage and culture. A not very bright example from a not very bright mind, what else is there to say?” What is there to say? Well I could say that you were not bright enough to pick up on the fact that that was not about a relationship between weather and climate but rather giving an example of an internally consistent but fundamentally flawed definition that is detached from reality…like your definition of heritage.

  I’m sorry, I know I said I would assume to give you the benefit of a doubt but I gotta ask. Are you one of those idiots that thinks climate isn’t changing?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  “Once more, culture changes, heritage does not exactly because people FIGHT against the natural order of “everything flows” to keep their heritage the same as it always has been” Once more if heritage didn’t naturally inherently change then there wouldn’t be anything to fight. Heritage changes.

  “You are still confusing heritage with culture: Mona Lisa is art and it fits in my definition of culture. Still no valid example of heritage changing over time, just another example of you failing to understand my definitions” I’m not confusing heritage and culture. The two are intimately intertwined. Your definition is garbo and doesn’t match the rest of the world or reality so that doesn’t matter. The entire rest of the world considers the artistic achievements of a society’s past to be part of their heritage.

  “Conservatives are out to stop the changes in culture and society (culture war much?), they are using heritage as an excuse to explain why culture and society shouldn’t change” duh. And because if enough people change course in culture and society adopts that heritage will change. If heritage didn’t change then conservatives wouldn’t need to give a shit about culture or society changing because heritage would stay the same.

  “You accuse me of using conditionals in my replies but you are no better. I have countless examples of people casted out of their social circles for having messed with their heritages, do you have one single example of people messing with their group heritages without suffering any backlash? If yes please provide them” I am better. I am considering the general case. If you have cases where heritage doesn’t change and you also have cases where heritage changes and you make the claim that heritage never changes then you are wrong. If you have cases where heritage doesn’t change and you have cases where heritage changes and you make the claim that heritage changes then you are right. Something doesn’t need to change every time in order to have the property of being able to change. Now you’ve made it clear that you are not bright enough to understand that so I will give you your example. My heritage says I ought to be going to church every sunday. I don’t. Still get along great with the family and everyone at church. One example. An example that isn’t alone by a long shot.

  “Oh no, it does. Expecially for those poor children and their families” this wasn’t the clever turn that you thought it was. The similarity between you and those people stands exactly as validly before. Both of you are trying to eliminate a heritage that you view as bad. They wanted to instill christian culture and values and heritage into the children. You want to instill your preferred culture and values and you just are not bright enough to understand that that also means a heritage too. What ever you substitute for the bad heritage becomes heritage. It might be a very short lived one but it still fills that role. it still gets passed along.

  “My definition is mine by definition (sic), I already told you that. Challenge me on the merit of my definitions: take them, analyse them and provide me with logical reasons why they are false.” Why did you put sic there? The definition that you came up with has elements that no other definition has and which are counter to the usage of the concept of heritage by the entire rest of the world. That is the major reason why your definition lacks merit. I have also pointed out that the cases where you discuss people fighting against heritage changing are a logical contradiction to your definition. Your definition is like defining weather as only being when its raining and claiming that the weather never changes. Its functionally useless and obviously false even if it is internally consistent. Its built on blatantly false posits.

  “While you’re at it maybe try providing definitions for heritage and culture yourself.” nah i still got some time to faff about like you did. And even then I get to keep changing it slightly.

  “also the fact that repeating myself over and over again makes me bored” when you are too stubborn to back down after saying something embarrassingly wrong you will run into that.

  Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. I’ve provided plenty of examples and the logic of why.

  Weather is only when its raining and weather never changes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  “Maybe not but it does prove that people who believe in heritage will go out of their way to keep it alive and unchanged as much as possible.” Oopsie you just admitted that heritage changes.

  “Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation” Progressives don’t try to eliminate heritage.

  Its not that heritage is inclined to evolve. Heritage must evolve by the very nature of what it is. Heritage includes the changes that occur in societies and families over time. And time continues forward. Heritage is not static unless you make up a completely wrong definition of heritage. Heritage is additive in that way. When ol’ Leo painted the Mona Lisa and it became part of italian heritage it didn’t destroy the otherwise identical heritage that previously existed just minus that painting. Things are added to heritage and things fade from heritage.

  Conservatives put effort into avoiding this because they are scared of change, duh. And they wouldn’t have to put effort into it if heritage couldn’t change like you claim. That they put effort into it should be a huge hint to you how flawed your made up definition and terrible understanding of heritage is.

  Also that seems like a weirdly short take on the relationship between conservatives and change.

  “That’s not how heritage works: if these two people are casted out of their group they have ended their relationship with their heritages. They will have created a new heritage, related to just their family, but the old ones will remain unchanged in their original groups. So there’s no evolution in the original heritage as you can see”

  That is how heritage works. People from different heritages merry. The intermarriage between these groups blends the heritages of future generations. If they are not cast out of their group then their relationship hasn’t ended. You are yet again ignoring all other cases that show your definition is wrong with that if. That is dishonest of you. That you had to use a conditional if to achieve the state of no evolution shows that there are alternate cases where there is evolution. So heritage can change.

  “No you are not” Yes, I really am.

  “That’s what you are doing by simply discarding my examples of application in real life of my definition. That’s not a substantial criticism but a straw man attack” No I’m pointing out that you are narrowing your examples and trying to ignore that your examples are a subset of all cases and if you consider all cases then your definition falls apart. The weather never changes for example last saturday it was raining.

  “It’s called a paradox and it’s my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground” yes that is a paradox that I am highlighting for you to show the contradiction in your reasoning. My reasoning doesn’t need conditions and constraints to work. Prove that weather changes but don’t mention any days when its not raining.

  “If I disregard aspects of my heritage it doesn’t mean that my heritage has changed, it means that I, personally and alone, have moved away from my heritage to a more logical place. My heritage will remain unchanged and brought forward by those being part of my group, tribe or family who accept it’s tenants” It might be that you are not capable of considering this on large enough scales of time and population. That individual’s severance of their heritage will impact the collective heritage of their family, and to a small degree their society, going forward. If enough people make that change collectively the heritage of that society will change. But its also not an all or nothing case. If the individual, or the masses, only reject one aspect of their heritage and keep the rest otherwise intact then that heritage is passed on slightly changed.

  “Nope, beside trying to impose their heritage they were forcing themselves on defenceless children while taking advantage of their positions of power.” It doesn’t matter what they did beside, that doesn’t change that they were saying the same things you are saying. You were doing shitty thing A. They were doing shitty thing A and shitty thing B. You both did shitty thing A.

  " May I add that these revolting facts were carried out by participants to another heritage, the catholic one in this specific case?" You may but that doesn’t carry any real meaning. May I add that my cat is orange?

  “Repeating the same phrase over and over again won’t turn it’s contents into reality, despite all that Goebbels said about that” Take that to heart then. You’re definition is made up. No one else defines heritage the way you do. No one else uses it the way you do. You keep insisting that your definition is correct in defiance of how it obviously works in reality and against the understanding of heritage for the rest of humanity. You don’t want to be like goebbels do you?

  Heritage can change. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. You are too proud to back down from the dumb things you said.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Arranging re-enactments and commemorations doesn’t mean that they have the stance that opposes the reality that heritage changes. Conservative political parties and religious groups would actually likely agree that heritage can change which is why they need to put such effort into preserving heritage. Because if heritage can’t change then there is nothing to preserve. It will always be there. If heritage can’t change then who is their opposition? Not that their opposition’s opinions count in your book.

  “That’s absolutely not the case. Try entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage (such as for example a southern Italian family) and you’ll see that you are faced with two options: assimilate or be cast out from the group”

  You mean that’s absolutely not always the case. You had to add the condition of entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage in order to narrow the discussion to the scenario that fits your broken definition. You’ve made a point against yourself here because all we have to do is consider the alternative that has to exist based on your wording. You specified a social group with a strong connection to its heritage which means there are groups without strong connections. So try entering that group. Is heritage immutable there? If not then low and behold heritage can change. Also even your example doesn’t make sense because regardless of the reaction of the extended family the married couple’s family unit’s heritage has changed and if they have children those children will have a blend of the two heritages. Unless you are going to make the looney claim that no one ever marries into a social group with a strong connection to its heritage unless they also share that same heritage. I wouldn’t put that past you.

  Yes, yes I am criticizing the substance of your definition. I am repeatedly telling you that your definition is wrong because you are repeatedly insisting that it is right. You don’t seem to get that your claim that heritage can’t change means it has to never change in every single case. One counter example of heritage changing means that you are wrong. And I’ve repeatedly shown that your examples are not universal. I’ve pointed out that you keep using conditionals to limit the scope of considering heritage and that as soon as we drop those conditionals or even consider the implications of needing to include them in the first place we see that heritage isn’t even close to being universally unchangeable.

  " a compelling example of an heritage which was changed from within and survived unscathed" See this is an example of what I’m talking about. Provide an example of something changing but oh yeah let me add the condition that in the example the thing is unscathed. That the heritage can be scathed means it can change. That you keep trying to narrow the scope makes me really suspicious about your honesty. This is more insisting that weather is only when its raining.

  “That’s exactly why I am for the destitution of heritages in favour of cultures” not sure what you mean by that. Not a phrase or idiom that I’m familiar with. I suspect you mean that you are in favor of replacing heritages in favor of cultures. That’s not a thing that can be done. Just by existing you have a heritage. If you disregard all elements of that heritage, well that would mean that heritage can change which is a contradiction yet again, and replace it with “culture” then that becomes heritage.

  “Oh no, I ear you say, you want to strip poor children of their heritage. Yes, I do. Their heritage is the cause of a unmeasurable amount of problems both locally and internationally, erasing it would only improve the lives of everyone involve.” And like I was pointing out that’s the exact same thing that the people running those boarding schools were saying.

  I might eventually give you my definition after being as round about as you were. Guess we’ll see.

  Heritage can change. You’ve proven it yourself. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Heritage does change. It has to. Think about it for even a minute and that becomes obvious. People and tribes and families change over time. If someone from a family of one heritage marries someone from another heritage then the heritage for that lineage going forward has changed. As elements of one heritage become more remote for a family they fade from importance and memory and eventually fade out. Most importantly for you, if heritage is immutable and can’t change then your whole deal about getting rid of the bad parts is impossible. Its a direct contradiction.

  “If you want to criticize something direct your criticism to the substance of my definitions” That’s what I’m doing. In your definition you added a nonsense bit about heritage never changing. That is not in the real definition and it is not in anyone else’s working definition. It’s like defining weather as only being when its raining and insisting that weather never changes and is always bad. Your definition is fundamentally flawed.

  If science as a culture doesn’t function at a societal level then it doesn’t apply beyond a useless pedantic point.

  Even if you despise yourself and your own heritage despising others for their other heritages still sounds pretty xenophobic. Sounds a lot like the guys that say “I’m not racist, I hate everyone”.

  No shit I want to get rid of the bad aspects and get rid of the good ones. And because culture and heritage are not what you say they are that is possible to do.

  “One last simple question: Do you agree with the idea of removing children from houses where the mafia is seen as an honourable way of living?” depends, are you going to sexually abuse them and murder them? Not like it would do any good since their heritage can’t change.

  Your protip was bullshit. Your definition was garbo. Heritage and culture are not frozen in time and they both have good and bad elements and the good ones do benefit society.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  “Hope you are happy now” Yes you finally did the simple thing that I told you to do to make your looney stance clear. Why was that so hard for you? Why did you pick a dictionary definition that didn’t match what you eventually finally wrote out?

  Heritage: a set of social constructs and ideals created through a subjective belief system by past generations and implemented in the social fabric of a people despite the lack of evidence for its usefulness in providing better living conditions to the people being subjected to these customs. Those ideals are untouchable and cannot be changed through time to preserve the society which has created them (synonyms can be tradition, custom, superstition)

  I’ve highlighted the parts that you’ve made up to cater to your pet issue. “created through a subjective belief system” - most likely sure but not an absolute. “despite the lack of evidence for its usefulness in providing better living conditions to the people being subjected to these customs” - this is where you start to veer wildly into your twisted interpretation. The constructs and ideals are implemented not despite the lack of evidence because that criteria was never considered when those things became part of society so that framing is wrong. This also seems to imply that you think there are zero social constructs and ideals in the fabric of society that are providing better living conditions. That or you are crafting your definition of heritage to exclude just those ones in order to achieve your goal of labeling heritage as bad. If you are going to separate the constructs and ideals that you like from the ones that you don’t like and label the ones that you don’t like as heritage then what is the name for the set that you do like? Pretty much everyone else realizes that heritage is a mixed bag of good/bad/completely neutral social constructs and ideals. “Those ideals are untouchable and cannot be changed through time to preserve the society which has created them” - Here you completely depart from reality. Culture and heritage do change over time. That is just a fact. That you are trying (incredibly awkwardly) to reject elements of your own culture and heritage ought to be pretty obvious evidence of that.

  “Ok so if a society has a light pressure applied to enforce an abhorrent custom such as infant genital mutilation you would be ok with that?” Nope why would I be? I should start doing what you are doing and asking questions that imply a stance that you don’t actually hold. Why would you enjoy participating in infant genital mutilation?

  The different type of culture that exists in scientific fields is insufficient to operate as an entire societal culture. Even if we were to take your answer seriously as soon as you apply whatever science culture you think is best it will be saddled with heritage because heritage inherently happens by existing and having subsequent generations.

  "I’m glad you have a good relationship with your neighbor but this was not my question " Well then stop asking a stream of questions with the real question randomly hidden in them. Also maybe think about what I said. You wanted to know what happens when people of different heritage meet so I gave an example of people of different heritage meeting and getting along. It obviously doesn’t always play out that way. “Will their heritages be used as a basis for cooperation or do you think they will be used to keep a well defined differentiation between the two people?” Oh shit looks like that was answered already. We didn’t engage in your weird belief that people instantly start working on a well defined differentiation. “And if the second hypothesis is the correct one (as it is, if not please show me an example of heritage inclusive of different customs from its own) how can you not see heritage building walls around a population?” Big fucking if there about the second hypothesis being correct (as it is not. and i gave to examples, my heritage and my neighbor’s) so that’s how I can not see heritage building walls around a population. Because not building walls happens all the damn time. That doesn’t mean that some people don’t build walls based on that but you assertion that its the only outcome is nonsense. Oh shit that question was already answered too if you put any thought into it.

  “Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage?” Do you know what xenophobia means? Despising people because of their heritage or for simply having heritage (something that is impossible not to have unless we use something like your made up definition that is exclusively used by you) regardless of what that heritage actually entails is xenophobic. Your hatred of heritage isn’t exclusive to just your self or just your country. Your characterization of foreigners not being capable of integrating into a new society fits pretty well with xenophobic ideas too. Hating yourself doesn’t magically make the hatred for others go away.

  “Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now? I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn’t, but you don’t seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged.” cool then your protip was bullshit and you are backsliding on your stance exactly like I said.

  Weird, including the entire quote didn’t change anything. Protip still bullshit. You still backsliding.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  No, you talked extensively about what you think culture or heritage does but you never clearly say what it is. Rambling references over many posts where you constantly change terminology and use exaggeration to wildly different degrees are not a definition. It’s like saying cigarettes cause cancer and thinking you defined cigarettes. Provide a clear concise definition of heritage in your own words, because you haven’t done that.

  “You even recognize I gave you my definitions in our past” no I didn’t because the definition that you made up is exclusively in your head which is why I’m trying to get you to say it explicitly and clearly. and I suspect that you are realizing that you don’t have a coherent notion of what culture or heritage are which is why your terminology has changed so much and why everything is vague allusions about how it’s so bad without ever saying what it is.

  “Please provide me an example of a culture which does not apply peer pressure to enforce its heritage on the people living inside it.”. Not relevant. I didn’t say that society doesn’t apply pressure I said it’s a matter of the degree of the pressure. Please provide an example of a culture without heritage… after you actually define what you think heritage is

  "If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? " When I met my Sihk neighbor we had a short but pleasant chat. I wave to him when I see him on walks in the neighborhood.

  “Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now?” You are because you added that question to change the target being despised.

  “I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects” cool then your protip was bullshit and you are backsliding on your stance exactly like I said.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Full quote:

  “How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist? Who draw the line between what is acceptable and enforceable and what is not? You?”

  Man, you are bad at this. You asked 3 questions. If, of those three questions, one could be called THE question it would be the primary first question on which the others are based. When I dismissed the question on which the others relied for context for being both disgusting and dumb the others get dismissed as well. Notice how when the primary question was dismissed you weren’t demanding an answer to your question of “You?”. That’s because even you were able to realize that without the context established by the actual question that follow on question didn’t have meaning. The follow on question of who gets to draw the line on the fucked up spectrum that you made up in your first question likewise looses its meaning because your fucked up spectrum was dismissed. I didn’t forget the second part of your question. All three are either to be taken together in which case they were all dismissed or the second two are clearly follow-ons which depend on the establishing question to have any meaning. There is no selective editing here just common sense and a basic understanding of english. Now let’s look at how you changed your question.

  “My question was, in this spectrum, where would you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not?”

  So in your disgusting imaginary spectrum of social services to sexually abusing and killing children, which was dismissed, you originally asked who would be making the line not where would I make the line. So yes even if we accept that your actual question was the secondary question then you did still actually change it

  I’m pretty sure that despising heritage is pretty solid grounds for the label of xenophobia. Honestly.

  You get an F on your definition for turning in other people’s work. Do it again in your own words. And no the one you chose to copy doesn’t even begin to cover the things you were ranting about concerning heritage. Nothing in the definition that you copied addresses how heritage only builds walls or has never been used for the betterment of society so it doesn’t encapsulate anything.

  “If something forces you to behave or believe a certain way…”

  Neither culture nor heritage force you to do that. The made up definition that you didn’t write down includes that but not the real one. Some cultures will apply much more pressure to adhere to a heritage strictly. Some won’t. It’s a dynamic between the two which becomes bad if an authoritarian conservative enforcement is added. Its not this reductive “culture 100% bad no wait I meant heritage 100% bad” business.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I quoted your question directly and pointed out how out of line it was. You asked other questions after that one sure but to say that those other questions were your question instead of the one directly quoted is dishonest and is cutting the quote where it’s convenient for you.

  You were the one using the word culture in place of heritage, apparently internally, while saying a bunch of xenophobic sounding stuff. I’m not sure that using your corrected terminology would change that. I don’t know that including your own demographic as exhibiting the same behavior makes it an ok outlook.

  “And you are slowly discovering that laws and governments should evolve to adapt to our modern society”. No I already knew this. I’m not the one being reductive and claiming that things are simple and static.

  The definition of heritage that you want to use is simply wrong. If we accept the wrong definition that your tailored to achieve the answer you want then yes we will arrive at the answer you want but that’s rather like the pigeon strutting about the board thinking it did a good job.

  Also you seem to think that you’ve provided a clear definition of heritage but you haven’t. You should do that, without getting side tracked. Give the dictionary definition of heritage as it would appear if you wrote it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  “Never said otherwise, just that heritage is not something you get from your race, but from your culture”. That was enough to set you off to the point that you said culture never did anything positive for humanity? The obvious answer is that heritage can be drawn from both race and culture but neither is absolutely required. None of that explains the things you said about foreigners or about culture being a blight on humanity.

  “My question was, in this spectrum, where would you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not?” That wasn’t your question but let’s answer that anyway. The line would fall between providing social services and taking children to abuse. One would think that would be obvious. This would be enforced by society usually with a government and a system of laws. It isn’t arbitrary it’s a social consensus. You are very slowly rediscovering the fundamentals of society, government, and civilization.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Again usually means that there was a first time. The conversation as started in this post didn’t have the context that you just said it did. I’m guessing you happened upon the same user and continued a conversation from a different post?

  To clarify when you said “Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good” was that the impersonal your or was it addressing me?

  “How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist?” the spectrum of options between providing social services in any capacity to physically and sexually abusing children forcibly separated from their parents and even killing them is so wide that your question doesn’t deserve an answer. Try again and try better.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh absolutely yes. You went from your protip of culture has been for the betterment of society to oh sure plenty of times it has been but thats a different type of culture.

  “Ok, let’s follow your logic and eliminate social services then” Not at all what I said. I think you are unaware of the topic that I am talking about. I am not talking about public schools in general. Nor am I talking about social services as a whole, a pretty big leap on your part there. Here is an example of what I am talking about

  “Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good” what method are you talking about? What are you strawmaning here? Because I didn’t advocate any method.

  You seem to think that because a culture can contain any negative elements that suddenly all cultures everywhere are bad. Cultures collectively are way too big and diverse for that reductive view. A single culture is too big and diverse for that view. A culture will contain countless elements and individuals within that culture will adopt and practice those elements to various degrees and get this, some of them can even revise or reject elements of that culture. Culture isn’t static. Getting rid of culture is nonsense because whatever is left after you purge the elements you don’t like is still a culture.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Not-So-Great Replacement Theory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Really walking back on that culture is fucking evil and has never done anything good stance eh? So we have established that your protip was garbage because culture has plenty of positive aspects, you just want to switch between definitions when it suits you.

  “I was saying that, until humans won’t see their cultural differences as simple joke material, there won’t be a simple way to have a pacific coexistence between different groups of people living in the same region” If that is honestly what you were saying you failed utterly to convey that. Instead you said a bunch of weird things about how foreigners can’t change and refuse to integrate.

  “Not everything is up to the state” thats not the point. The point is that states have in the past done exactly what you are praising. Taking children away from their families to strip all elements of culture away from them so they could integrate into “civilized” society. Deny them their language, their history. Anything that makes them different, beat it out of them. Literally.

  You sound exactly like xenophobe bigots. Those foreigners don’t fit in. They are different and that is bad, they should be more like us. Conform! Though they will never really belong here.