Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 10/23/08 09:35 PM, mangostenmaster wrote: I believe this is a list of the good cultures:

1:Spaniard
2:Morrocan
3:Jewish
4:French

Okay.

5:Uk and Ireland +USA and Canada

Pfff... Ireland really isn't like that the UK, US, and Canada culturally.

6:Most other nations in europe.

Wow, that was a really silly lumping together. Can't really compare Norway and Italy and say they have the same culture...

7:Japanese
8:Korean

Okay.

9:Southeast asian and chinese

Southeast Asia is very culturally different from China.

10: African, eastern and northern asian + indian cultures +buddhism, most of asia

How the fuck did you figure this lumping out.

11:most russian and Czech

This is probably better as "Slavic" but they're all pretty different.

12: Brazil, argentina and the rest of the south american nations ex: venezuela and bolivia

I presume you mean Latin American, and why are Venezuela and Bolivia excluded. There very culturally similar to the rest of Latin America.

12: Tolerant islamic nations (Turkey and Albany)

I presume by "Albany" you mean "Albania", but how do we determine "tolerant" islamic nations.

13:Even poland and romanians are on this list. barely

If your going to lump Czech and Russian cultures together, then you better put these guys with them as Slavic cultures.

14: Ethiopia

Okay.

At risk cultures:

1:Tatar

2: Hungary. (One of the most antisemetic and racist groups in europe)

Hm...I don't know much about the subject, but this sounds like a bullshit stereotype to me.

3: lower moderate to mildly fundamental Islam

Again, how do you determine this. And Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, and not just the tolerant types, so it's definatly not at risk.

4: Indonesia and Malaysia

What? Indonesia and Malaysia are doing fine.

5: Lebanese ( moderate)

Wouldn't that go under one of the "Islamic" categories?

6: Greek

Why is Greek in danger?

7: Dubai and some other moderate islamic.

Again, why are these in danger?

8: Bolivia and venezuela

Why are they different from the rest of Latin American, and Bolivia and Venezuela are improving their world standing, so their certainly not "in danger".

Critical condition:

1: Somali

Okay.

2: Extreme fundamental muslim.

Again, world's fastest growing religion.

3: Extinct cultures to an extant.

Okay.

Sorry buddy, not a very good list in my view.

---

Saruman, i really didn't understand mangostenmaster's post, but the fact that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, is a problem, a negative thing, not a good thing.

Not to mention that it's growing so fast because Muslims are mostly poor and are having 8 kids on average.

---

At 10/23/08 10:27 PM, zoolrule wrote:

Not to mention that it's growing so fast because Muslims are mostly poor and are having 8 kids on average.

Care to back that up? 8 kids on average? We're talking about Muslims, not Illegal Immigrants.

---

Yeah, and I'm sure that people living in primitive tribes in Africa where everyone runs around naked would scoff at the arrest of a woman in the US because she took her top off at a beach.

Anyone who claims to have a universal set of rules that determines proper social norms is a fucktard and a pretentious asshole.

---

At 10/23/08 09:16 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

I meant the value of reason.

Indeed. Any society that values reason inevitably finds itself propelled forward socially, economically and scientifically. The second you give reason the backseat to tradition, you stagnate and spiral down into shit.

What motivation then is there to share?

Share what?

---

At 10/24/08 12:38 AM, poxpower wrote: Indeed. Any society that values reason inevitably finds itself propelled forward socially, economically and scientifically. The second you give reason the backseat to tradition, you stagnate and spiral down into shit.

I'm not arguing that a society that values reason finds itself any place else. But the society is propelled by an ideal, toward ideals, all of which are defined as good or bad by the culture of that society.

Reason/Culture is not the dichotomy, not even reason/tradition; it's far more nuanced.

What motivation then is there to share?

Share what?

I'm also a little confused as to what you'd think we'd share with these aliens. We're meeting them, and involved in some kind of exchange of reason. I don't see how that can possibly not involve culture or some derivative of it.

My point however was... if we are not sharing with these aliens the manifestations of our ideals, or hoping to reap from the experience something to bolster our ideals... then there's no motivation to deal with the aliens, with the exception of fear.

---

At 10/23/08 11:04 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 10/23/08 10:27 PM, zoolrule wrote:

Not to mention that it's growing so fast because Muslims are mostly poor and are having 8 kids on average.

Care to back that up? 8 kids on average? We're talking about Muslims, not Illegal Immigrants.

I was exaggerating... But the birth rate in the Muslim world is like 2% a year while the rest of the world is 1%.

---

Just say it, Drakim - you think that extremist Muslim cultures are backwards because of how they treat women.

---

At 10/24/08 02:40 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Reason/Culture is not the dichotomy, not even reason/tradition; it's far more nuanced.

Culture is too wide and broad a term to include it in any such dichotomy.
But that's a semantics questions for when I'll have drunk way too much beer.

Anyway we don't disagree so.

We're meeting them, and involved in some kind of exchange of reason. I don't see how that can possibly not involve culture or some derivative of it.

How about math? Sciences? Technology? Those are universal in this.. er.. universe.
Obviously we need to share with them a language or we can't communicate, but that doesn't make culture relevant since it could be any language whatsoever. If culture was an issue, it would be the specific language we used that would matter, i.e. we'd be dying to show them how amazing english is as opposed to just trying to figure out how to understand them.

Obviously we'd share with them as many things as they want and we'd take from them elements from their cultures. Why not? I'm saying cultural diversity is favored by putting reason above all else, while a uniform, homogeneous culture is favored when you make reason take the backseat.

Or to put it this way: favoring the exchange of culture, is, I would say, not favoring culture itself.

---

At 10/23/08 04:33 PM, Drakim wrote: stuff

and now to make your head explode.

You and Poxpower, and several others on this forum are all part of the atheist culture. You damn everything that might not be scientific and refuse to see beyond it, which is in itself dangerous and counterproductive. Every culture has its positives and negatives, but culture, not reason, sets us apart from animals. Even a dog can figure out not to go near a person after being kicked on several occasions. However, the only "culture" a dog has is to fight for top position in the pack. Have you ever seen a wild Baboon dance? no. Ever see an elephant write a poem? no. Many aspects of culture can only be found in humans.

The human ability to "reason" has led to most major wars. for instance, after ww2 the allied leaders figured they could do as they please with no major repercussions. They were dead wrong. they reasoned that if they crippled Germany's economy they could keep it under their thumb. In retaliation Germany almost took over Europe before screwing up by betraying Russia.

To discard culture would make people little better than animals that can talk. And if you wanna talk about a destructive culture, try attacking the Rap culture. its far worse than some woman not wanting to show her face to anyone.

---

Thanks for all the replies. This topic was a success. : D

Most of the replies against me was similar in nature, so I'll try to answer them all at once.

No, I'm not saying we should "ban" culture. It's impossible, as even lack of culture could be defined as a culture, and whatnot. What I'm arguing is that we shouldn't label culture as sacred. I mean, there are, as you all know, lots of cultures with fucked up traditions around the world. The problem arises when liberals in my country will call me intolerant and bigoted for condemning this.

I suspect that this is because they have such a view of culture that it's what makes us human or something, thus, we cannot tolerate any harm to befall upon culture. Saying that we don't want culture X and Y in our lives is thus evil and bad.

I'm merely trying to push culture off the high horse it has been seated upon, saying "you know what? If we like some tradition, I'm all for it, but I'm not going to accept bad traditions simply because it's part of some persons cultural identity."

So, I'm saying that sometimes...very often infact, culture sucks. It sucks in the same way all things can suck. And it should be okay to point it out.

---

At 10/24/08 06:26 AM, Drakim wrote: So, I'm saying that sometimes...very often infact, culture sucks. It sucks in the same way all things can suck. And it should be okay to point it out.

I remember thinking very similar things in the past. Culture is something we grasp a hold of so tightly and dearly though, it's very important to us.

Traveling around and experiencing other cultures really shows you that no culture is necessarily better than another, it's just the sentimental value that you attach to it. Customs may change, but underneath all cultures, and this is an arguable point, but I do believe that there is an innate feeling that everyone is created equal, like Locke said.

But when people put their culture above everyone else's and imagine that there is no possible way for anyone to be better (or worse, for that matter), then you are absolutely right, culture can suck. Nationalism is such a terrible illness.

---

At 10/24/08 06:07 AM, Korriken wrote:

To discard culture

no one said anything about that anyway.
It's a matter of priority, not choosing one and then dumping the other.

---

At 10/24/08 06:07 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/23/08 04:33 PM, Drakim wrote: stuff

and now to make your head explode.

You and Poxpower, and several others on this forum are all part of the atheist culture. You damn everything that might not be scientific and refuse to see beyond it, which is in itself dangerous and counterproductive. Every culture has its positives and negatives, but culture, not reason, sets us apart from animals. Even a dog can figure out not to go near a person after being kicked on several occasions. However, the only "culture" a dog has is to fight for top position in the pack. Have you ever seen a wild Baboon dance? no. Ever see an elephant write a poem? no. Many aspects of culture can only be found in humans.

What does atheism have to do with it? One can be atheist and still be part of a culture; look at England or the Netherlands. Many of them are non-religious but they are still undoubtedly English and Dutch. I am non-religious, like most other New Englanders, but I am still most certainly a New Englander.

Religion and culture are not synonymous. And culture itself can be seen as another part of the science of psychology - anthropology and sociology, all of which are truly interrelated.

The human ability to "reason" has led to most major wars. for instance, after ww2 the allied leaders figured they could do as they please with no major repercussions. They were dead wrong. they reasoned that if they crippled Germany's economy they could keep it under their thumb. In retaliation Germany almost took over Europe before screwing up by betraying Russia.

Ah, you meant to say WWI. Well, it could also be seen that they didn't use reason; they didn't predict what was bound to happen after they kept a horribly abused people in a horrible state. It was people doing the, at the time, unreasonable act of "appeasement" when people like Winston Churchill were talking loudly against people like Hitler and Mussolini.

To discard culture would make people little better than animals that can talk. And if you wanna talk about a destructive culture, try attacking the Rap culture. its far worse than some woman not wanting to show her face to anyone.

I agree that Rap culture is absolutely ridiculous, but I still see burkas as degrading.

---

At 10/24/08 05:34 AM, poxpower wrote:

We're meeting them, and involved in some kind of exchange of reason. I don't see how that can possibly not involve culture or some derivative of it.

How about math? Sciences? Technology? Those are universal in this.. er.. universe.

Sure, math and science in and of themselves are universal - everything adheres to them- but that's not what's being shared. The knowledge of these things is what is there to be shared, and that certainly isn't universal. If it was then there would be no exchange.

Math, science, and technology are applied/pursued out of ideals imbued upon us by culture. The thing about relatively perpetual systems is that they're reciprocal, so don't play the, "culture wouldn't exist if there was no math, science, or technology, therefore culture is the derivative of these things, not the other way around," game. Culture can be and is defined by that which it includes, but it fuels the pursuit of that which it includes.

The willful exchange of knowledge involves culture, or if that bothers you: the willful exchange of knowledge involves the ideals set out by culture.

Obviously we need to share with them a language or we can't communicate, but that doesn't make culture relevant since it could be any language whatsoever. If culture was an issue, it would be the specific language we used that would matter, i.e. we'd be dying to show them how amazing english is as opposed to just trying to figure out how to understand them.

We want to figure out how to understand them so as to potentially further our math/science/technology. This is pursuant of an ideal.

Obviously we'd share with them as many things as they want and we'd take from them elements from their cultures. Why not? I'm saying cultural diversity is favored by putting reason above all else, while a uniform, homogeneous culture is favored when you make reason take the backseat.

Homogeneous culture is the result of humans seeking credence through consensus.

Or to put it this way: favoring the exchange of culture, is, I would say, not favoring culture itself.

It's favoring the culture that values the exchange of cultures.

---

At 10/24/08 06:50 AM, poxpower wrote:

no one said anything about that anyway.
It's a matter of priority, not choosing one and then dumping the other.

not everything in life must have a scientific purpose. to say it does would end many great things in life, such as generosity. Why give anyone anything if you know that you will receive nothing in return? It wouldn't be logical. That would be a drain on your personal resources.

Some things that makes absolutely no sense have a place in the world... like feeding the homeless instead of gunning them down in the streets, which would make a lot of sense to get rid of them in order to reduce the extra population and prevent them from taking up resources that people who actually work for a living could get. Not even gonna mention the reduction of the crime rate.

---

if you lived in my country (aka the philippines) you would grow upto really live in culture, wholeheartedly respect culture and love culture. i'm saying this 'cause culture is, even if you don't see it keeps almost all countries diverse and rich.

---

At 10/25/08 09:31 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/24/08 06:50 AM, poxpower wrote:

no one said anything about that anyway.
It's a matter of priority, not choosing one and then dumping the other.

not everything in life must have a scientific purpose. to say it does would end many great things in life, such as generosity. Why give anyone anything if you know that you will receive nothing in return? It wouldn't be logical. That would be a drain on your personal resources.

But you are promoting a generous mindset in society, which is very helpful as a safety net, should you loose all your personal resources. See?

Some things that makes absolutely no sense have a place in the world... like feeding the homeless instead of gunning them down in the streets, which would make a lot of sense to get rid of them in order to reduce the extra population and prevent them from taking up resources that people who actually work for a living could get. Not even gonna mention the reduction of the crime rate.

No, because that would mean that if you got homeless 10 years from now, you'd get gunned down too. You obviously don't want that, so you try to help the homeless instead.

---

At 10/25/08 12:41 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

The knowledge of these things is what is there to be shared, and that certainly isn't universal.

Obviously that's what I meant.

Culture can be and is defined by that which it includes, but it fuels the pursuit of that which it includes.

In my opinion, you can't include any society's level of advancements in sciences as "cultural". They're just facts, facts that we know or don't know. They're not choices, as I believe cultures are closer to being.

It's favoring the culture that values the exchange of cultures.

No. Just look at any time and place where religion has been strong, you'll see no bunch of more xenophobic close-minded people anywhere else. People with strong cultures usually try to keep all others away from their own and try to impose their culture on as many as possible through any means, including force.
That's great if you happen to have a good culture like the greeks and romans mostly did ( compared to the rest of the people at the time ) but it's not so great when you're an Islamic extremist. Well not great for others.

At 10/25/08 09:31 PM, Korriken wrote:

not everything in life must have a scientific purpose.

no one claimed that it must.

---

This is an excellent thread. I find myself largely agreeing with Drakim throughout the whole thing, questioning only his choice of words here and there. For example, the thread's title would have a totally different connotation if it said, "Cultures suck" instead of "Culture sucks"--the former brings to mind what this thread is really about; the latter makes me think of opera, ballet, classical music and fine art.

What a difference the placement of an "s" makes! I think some who went on the attack had "high culture" stuck in their heads.

I am in no way racist, but I'll cop to being a "culturist" myself. I don't buy into the politically-correct mumbo-jumbo that "All Cultures are Equally Valid." Take the Maasai, for instance: their houses are literally made of shit; they consider flies good luck; they practice female genital mutilation on 12-year-old girls (the boys' circumcision ceremony is no picnic either); their culture is entirely based around the narrow practice of raising cattle; what they harvest from their livestock for food is disgusting... watch 'em open a vein and drink a cup of hot, fresh blood sometime. That'll make your gorge buoyant.

At least their clothes are pretty. They get two points for that.

Now, most of the above I regard as trivial. Taste in food differs; I don't really hold what they eat against them. Shit houses are... well, okay I guess. It's not like it's really still cowshit after it's baked in the sun for a few days; just mud and straw that happens to have passed through livestock intestines. Lucky flies? Tee-hee. But that vulva-mutilation ceremony is barbaric and offensive. It is unacceptable, no matter who does it.

It's a biggie in Islam as well. So much the worse for Islam. There's a practice that isn't exactly a norm in Rap culture, Korriken. The politically-correct term for it is "Female Genital Cutting" because, "According to a joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement, the use of the word 'mutilation' reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of the human rights of girls and women...."

Well, fuck the UN. It is a violation of the human rights of girls and women. Fuck the UN right in the ear.

* * *

Lest it seem like I'm picking on the cultures of people the NAACP still quaintly calls "Colored," I don't cut my own culture any slack either. I'm talking about the U.S. Consumerist Culture, because that's what it is. Most of us don't even see the "Consumerist" part. It's water to a fish.

The Maasai mutilate their children's genitals; we mutilate our children's minds.

On Christmas and birthdays, we go into a gift-giving frenzy, getting kids addicted to that Acquisition Adrenaline Rush before they're even out of diapers. Shopping is our legal (hell, mandatory and encouraged) drug. We're hooked on it like junkies on crack.

We "tear the day to shreds" (in the words of Peter Gabriel) setting aside rigid blocks of time for waking, for "learning" (primarily learning to sit still, shut up, and be good future worker bees), for eating, for sleeping, etc. etc. etc. A child learns to raise his hand even to get permission to go to the bathroom: "Hey, everybody! I have to take a shit now!"

Mindless diversions like sports and celebrity worship keep the sheeple occupied during their ever-decreasing periods of "leisure time." During those interludes, they are bombarded with the message, "BUY! BUY! BUY!" If one really wants to get into the sports-and/or-personality-cult scene, that costs money, honey, and lots of it. Now, how do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?

Just last night I noticed quite a few businesses that already had their Christmas lights up. It's not even Halloween yet. I find that positively obscene. Christmas decorations before Thanksgiving are gauche and unacceptable. We might as well just get rid of the name "Christmas" and call it "Consumermas" instead, because that's what it is.

U.S. culture sucks.

Maybe next post, I'll get going on the Jewish culture of victimhood and usury-based economics. Gee, am I going to get called anti-Semitic for that? Well, I'm not. As I said, I'm a culturist, not a racist, and most cultures possess dysfunctional, destructive memes. Jews aren't exempt.

Some cultures, however, possess more destructive memes than others. I don't believe anyone in his right mind could argue against that.

---

At 10/24/08 06:07 AM, Korriken wrote: and now to make your head explode.

You and Poxpower, and several others on this forum are all part of the atheist culture. You damn everything that might not be scientific and refuse to see beyond it, which is in itself dangerous and counterproductive. Every culture has its positives and negatives, but culture, not reason, sets us apart from animals. Even a dog can figure out not to go near a person after being kicked on several occasions. However, the only "culture" a dog has is to fight for top position in the pack. Have you ever seen a wild Baboon dance? no. Ever see an elephant write a poem? no. Many aspects of culture can only be found in humans.

Wrong, Animals do have
culture.

The human ability to "reason" has led to most major wars. for instance, after ww1 the allied leaders figured they could do as they please with no major repercussions. They were dead wrong. they reasoned that if they crippled Germany's economy they could keep it under their thumb. In retaliation Germany almost took over Europe before screwing up by betraying Russia.

Animals can also reason. Also, your interpretation of the weimar republic is somewhat simplified, but true. However i don't see how this adds to the discussion(?)

To discard culture would make people little better than animals that can talk. And if you wanna talk about a destructive culture, try attacking the Rap culture. its far worse than some woman not wanting to show her face to anyone.

Several issues.

1. Animals do have culture. If you would put the time in to read the research that animal psychologists/behaviouralists have done in the last 50 years and beyond, you'd know that. You assumption that they dont have culture/reason brings up a good point about christian culture, and the belief that Humans are on top of some crazy feudal hierarchy...not to assume that you're a christian, but that is where this belief originates in the western world.

2. Are you suggesting that you believe that ALL rap culture is bad?

---

At 10/26/08 02:16 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: ...Animals do have culture....

True. Read a little Jane Goodall and/or Desmond Morris, et al. Animals (mammals and birds anyway) communicate perfectly well too, it's just that what they communicate is relatively basic: "I'm hungry; I'm frightened; I'm in pain; I'm happy; I love you; you're pissing me off"; etc.

Cold-blooded creatures... not so much. I sometimes think we're slipping into the gray zone between thinking, feeling creatures and biological machinery there, not that I would ever advocate cruelty to reptiles. But even invertebrates can surprise you. Contemplate the octopus.

Anyway, yes, non-human primates and cetaceans definitely possess complex cultures--we're still learning just how complex. Things get simpler as you drift down into canine culture and the like, but the bare bones--memes--are still there. They are learned; they're not innate.

---

not all cultures are bad you know.
but youre really just insulting culture in general and it really is insulting me too.
besides almost all cultures in my country (aka the philippines) are good.

---

At 10/26/08 12:36 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/25/08 12:41 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

The knowledge of these things is what is there to be shared, and that certainly isn't universal.

Obviously that's what I meant.

Well not so obviously.
I was ask what was to be exchanged or shared.
You offer "math? Sciences? Technology" and qualify them as being universal.
However, it's the knowledge that's being shared, and the knowledge isn't universal.

So you see where I may have gotten confused?

At least we agree that it's the knowledge-of that's in transit.

In my opinion, you can't include any society's level of advancements in sciences as "cultural". They're just facts, facts that we know or don't know. They're not choices, as I believe cultures are closer to being.

Facts are just facts only if they're not used, and if they're not used, we don't know them. So effectively, (known) facts are not just facts. Willful application involves purpose. Advancement in itself is an ideal, defined by a whole subset of ideals that we've decided qualify as a means to overall advancement.

Again. Science may be universal, but the knowledge of it is not. You don't have a choice between falling and flying when you walk off a cliff naked. You do have a choice between believing whether you'll fall or fly though.

No. Just look at any time and place where religion has been strong, you'll see no bunch of more xenophobic close-minded people anywhere else. People with strong cultures usually try to keep all others away from their own and try to impose their culture on as many as possible through any means, including force.

Obviously this changes to a degree when the particular culture defines itself as being something other than the typical destructive shut-in kind.

That's great if you happen to have a good culture like the greeks and romans mostly did

The roman culture was a huge collage. I don't know about the greeks, but the Minoans were also fairly diverse. The mixture of culture does not necessarily create a weaker or non-existent one.

---

At 10/27/08 03:15 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Facts are just facts only if they're not used, and if they're not used, we don't know them.

The nature of the universe does not change based on our knowing of it.
Hence why I say that things like maths are universal. They aren't dependent on us to exist, but we can know a part of them and share this knowledge regardless of culture.

Obviously this changes to a degree when the particular culture defines itself as being something other than the typical destructive shut-in kind.

Anyway like I said, if you're just going to define culture as "anything that a human could be or do" then it's meaningless.

I define culture as ideas and things that are born out of tradition. When you make a conscious choice to ignore tradition to do something else, you've trumped culture. You can't say that it's your culture to not have a culture.

---

At 10/27/08 03:40 AM, poxpower wrote: The nature of the universe does not change based on our knowing of it.
Hence why I say that things like maths are universal. They aren't dependent on us to exist, but we can know a part of them and share this knowledge regardless of culture.

The individual is inextricable from the concept of culture, because the individual is a proponent of that culture. It's never the culture that acts, but the individual by the imperatives set forth or suggested by the culture.

If you're going to say it stops at the individual, then I think you're wrong in a lot of cases.

Yes. Math is universal. But we're not talking about math. We're talking about the pursuit of mathematical understanding, which is not solely the effect of math being universal, but of it being valued or manipulated to serve other values - values which are more often than not prescribed by/borrowed from culture, and acted on through the individual.

Anyway like I said, if you're just going to define culture as "anything that a human could be or do" then it's meaningless.

I'm not :(

I define culture as ideas and things that are born out of tradition. When you make a conscious choice to ignore tradition to do something else, you've trumped culture.

Ah ok. I don't necessarily make it a matter of tradition. I find tradition to be a subset of trend (not exactly the fashion kind of trend). If there's enough consensus among people within a group about certain values and practices, then I'd say you've got yourself a culture regardless of whether there's a bona-fide tradition involved.

You can't say that it's your culture to not have a culture.

You can say it's your culture to mix cultures.
You can say it's your culture to not have other cultures.
You can say you don't have a culture, when you do.