I think there's a key concept missing from every discussion about culture, and that concept is that "X immigrant culture" is a completely different culture from "X culture." Indians in India have one culture, while Indians in e.g. Britain have a related, but divergent culture.

Two places this matters:

• Frequently, the people of "X immigrant culture" care a lot about 'preserving their heritage', because it's a constant struggle for them—while the people of "X culture" couldn't give a damn, because they're constantly steeped in their own culture and it's not going away. "Cultural appropriation" is an invention almost entirely of immigrant cultures.

• People "exploring a culture" frequently have the implicit goal of exploring the domestic-immigrant offshoot of a culture, not the native one. Because of the lack of connection and cultural touchstone organizations that immigrants face, things like dances and dishes are seen as far more relevant in immigrant cultures, similar to their role in itinerant cultures.

When I speak to American friends (especially as part of a larger group), I get many of the pop culture and other references which my Indian friends sometimes miss. I however, feel left out when I speak to some Indians because I don't get or appreciate many local idioms since I was never exposed to them. This can be isolating at times and I'm trying to make amends but that can be harder as you grow older.

I think that the best way to do it is to have deep roots in ones own culture (which is why they - especially the fragile ones - should be preserved) and then have a liberal education which opens your mind to external ideas. This comes from reading literatures of other peoples, languages, poetry, history etc. much more than a more "scientific" education that emphasises logic, problem solving, analytical skills etc. One of the reasons I bemoan the lack of emphasis on the humanities in primary education and am trying to compensate for this with my own children.

Having a deep understanding of ones own culture keeps one relaxed with it. No insecurity and resistant to attempts to appropriate it for political mileage. It also creates a sense of "being" and a "home" to come back to when you've had a bad day rather than lashing out.

Being open minded about others makes you receptive to people's ideas drastically different from your own and gives you the tools to assimilate them or parts of them into your own world view.

My own background has made me a cultural nomad of sorts. I don't feel any pride when I talk about any facet of my identity but I do miss having a deep historical well to draw inspiration and ideas from. A desire to be a link in a longer chain.

A friend of mine who is a first generation Indian immigrant observed exactly same thing. He noticed his conservative Indian parents had become more extreme in their beliefs over time, as a sort of reaction against American culture. His parents feel a bit closed off from the rest of American society since they never fully integrated. However, simultaneously, he noticed that when he went to India, people there were actually becoming more liberal and tolerant over time, as compared to his parents who were becoming more traditional.

A very interesting phenomenon.

People from cultures that wear something over the head does so much more in the new country while the home country is starting to loosen up. Even though this is exactly why they moved away in the first place.

(We have friends from Somalia, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and then some, that describe this for us)

And even then, it's hard to pin down.

I, for one, notice that Australians are quite different from Americans and Brits. And of course even more so from the multitude of Asian, South American and European cultures.

Whether the origin country has a singular culture of many subcultures is really irrelevant to that point. It's just a matter of whether the immigrant culture diverges from the source subculture.

We are on one hand supposed to respect and honor other cultures, but are not allowed to cultivate, maintain and respect our own (American) culture.

Which is absurd for many reasons... one being it denies a very real reason for many wanting to come to our country, or fails to identify the characteristics that made western culture generally preferable to many others.

I appreciate your perspective on this issue.

An exagerated example: if an immigrant commit a crime, the medias talk about him as a victim of modern society instead of an actual criminal.

I've completely stopped watching TV a long time ago, so it might have changed since then, but then again I would like to see the French values put forward instead of everyone else adapting to the few people that don't want to change (and, to some extent, don't really want to be French).

More important to his success - it seems to me as an outside observer - were his promises to do things that are not possible but sound appealing to voters. Reopen mines, open factories that will offer many jobs to low skilled workers, and so on, to build a symbolically protectionist wall without paying for its construction.

Or the business culture which is very unique, at least I've seen nothing similar anywhere in the world.

Then there's a degree of freedom of speech that nowhere else exists, and rights like being allowed to carry a gun in public which is vigorously defended by large parts of the population.

And yes, there is an American brand of Christianity. Even if you don't see it in population centres it's still there everywhere else and it is more important than Christianity in most other Christian cultures.

There's a kind of attitude among US citizens leaning towards some Classical Liberal or Libertarian principles that can't be found anywhere else in the world. Where ever else you go the majority expects the government to take care of every member of the society from cradle to grave.

Just FYI that's actually different depending on local laws. I don't live in an open carry state so I very much don't have the right to carry a gun in public. Not unless I went through the rigorous process to get a carry permit.

I can't name even a single example where societies, even if it is only at a state level, generally allow citizens to carry a gun in public (without having to acquire some special permission that only very few people have access to)

If there is some other society that allows this then it's probably an Anglophone country.

The US has a gun-culture where collection of guns is done without any overt reason. In Urban areas, guns are basically never really owned, much less carried openly.

I was making the point that America is full of disparate views, and that there is not a single "American" culture.

I really hope the Left tune in to the grievances of the majority now, because I'm fearful of what comes next if they don't.

You're on here emploring the left to pay attention to something, while (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that they did, and it got spun against them as one of their biggest gaffes of the campaign.

This election has shown me how out of touch most Americans are with each other. The media doesn't care about whole swathes of the country and our political systems write off rural inhabitants all the time.

"And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well. "

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

Of course, there's many problems with that, foremost being that you can't assume that those that didn't vote did so in the same relative percentages of support that those that did vote. For example, I imagine there's a higher percentage of Democrats/Clinton supporters in CA and NY that didn't vote compared to the alternatives, and the opposite is likely true of predominantly red states.

They were wrong on Brexit. They were wrong on Trump. Maybe once more countries have results like this the polsters and media will start actually engaging with real people.

It is possible to win the popular vote but lose the election. I don't think anyone is spinning the fact she won the popular vote to mean she should've won.

The President is elected by the electoral college who aren't directed by popular vote but by electorates.

It seems like rather than address what I said, you decided to make baseless attacks against me.

This is the third-closest result in the electoral college since 1960 (first that included AK and HI). The next two were G. W. Bush's two wins. It's the second-tightest in the popular vote since then (the results I see have Clinton ahead by about 200K; JFK beat Nixon by ~100K).

Our most recent president, Obama, absolutely destroyed Trump's results as far as having a "mandate", if that's what winning is considered. He got twice as many electoral votes as McCain and a margin of 7% in the popular. The win over Romney was tighter but still in a different order than this election.

Reagan got a mandate in 1984. The talk of "mandate" this year is utter, complete, uncontestable political horse puckey.

So maybe she will break a million delta.

True, but you could say that about nearly every politician that's been elected recently. At some point you have to vote for the person you agree with and just hope they will hold up at least some part of what they've promised.

They weren't duped - they got what they ordered - but liberals might want to re-examine their mission statement.

Not if you were simply voting against Hillary.

EDIT: A number of people are asking you this question, I don't want to make it feel like you are being ganged up on or in for a trick. I myself am asking due to curiosity.

This gives me the creeps something awful, because I'd rather not have some traditionalist's concept of white male identity imposed upon me simply because I belong to the same demographics, in many ways, as they do.

Trying to cultivate, maintain and respect a culture seems to me to usually come with a healthy dose of thou-shalt-not-do. I prefer to think for myself, so I'm not really very sympathetic.

Until the humiliating defeats with Brexit and Trump, the progressive left was so high on its own supply, they wouldn't hear it. Some still won't hear it, they're just covering their ears and panicking, because they think the media's image of Trump and his supporters - the same media that predicted a 93% chance of Clinton presidency - was actually an accurate representation of reality.

Think men aren't horrible oppressors? You're a misogynist, sexist MRA who wants to bring women back into the kitchen. Think "white people" are just a convenient but wrong proxy for class, and that blindly inviting uneducated and illiberal refugees into a service-based economy and libertarian culture is a recipe for disaster? You're a racist islamophobe who thinks black lives don't matter.

Respecting white culture means respecting the values that built western society, and that includes rationality, impartiality, and evidence-based inquiry. Valuing male culture means acknowledging meritocracy, understanding that respect is earned - not given - and encouraging confidence to accomplish by yourself.

There is really a stunning amount of projection stemming from the left these days, and it's left otherwise sympathetic people out in the cold. The progressive left repeats the right words, but they don't seem to understand what they mean or where they came from, incapable of self-reflection.

Could you give an example?

That's just one example, there are literally millions. Here's another way of looking at it:

  - if a African American outwardly expresses his cultural origins and identity, this is called "affirmative" -- a word with positive connotations;
  - if an Italian American expresses ties to his cultural origins, it's considered less inspiring, but still ok
  - if an white European American expresses pride at his cultural heritage, then he's usually derided as nativist, racist, xenophobic, or, worst of all -- an old fogey.

" - if an white European American expresses pride at his cultural heritage, then he's usually derided as nativist, racist, xenophobic, or, worst of all -- an old fogey."

This is also just your words and feelings, not an example of where a white European American expresses pride at his cultural heritage and is derived as something negative.

unless it actually happens. Do you want a study citation?

But if someone states: "...but are not allowed to cultivate, maintain and respect our own (American) culture."

he/she must back it with something other than feelings. If this is a fact there must be hundreds of examples.

As a white guy who was raised in Upstate NY, and had festivals throughout the year for Italian (a Columbus Day Parade + multiple social clubs), Greek, & Ukrainian festivals, a huge St Patty's Day parade, etc, this doesn't ring true.

We didn't have a single festival for brown people or native people. There were no Women's parades.

Yes waving a Confederate flag will bring a little judgement from me, but that feels like the exception.

Actually, it does make sense if you look at it through the right lens.

    "Oppressed" => affirmative
    "Hegemonic" => racist, bad

There is a semi-derogotary slang term used for people of that descent in Australia, but it escapes my mind at the moment. Nevertheless the people immigrated from Greece and Italy and made a significant impact on Australian culture.

It doesn't seem very derogatory now (context matters more), and the community has taken it up as their own.

Oh, who prevented you? What exactly is your culture?

I think something people always seem to overlook is that there never really was a singular American culture. The different regions have had very distinct cultures. I've been to Polish festivals across the Midwest, large bbq/cookouts in the south, and plenty of bluegrass festivals around appalachia.

There's plenty of culture around. It's just not at the surface anymore now that mass media and other interests have sort of taken control of that arena.

And that's just a specific sub-culture in NorCal. I'm sure tons of similar things exist around the US, but the California one is pretty awesome and does reach to other places in the world (Hawaii, Costa Rica, Bali, etc)

But the USA is also a country of immigrants and natives. It seems silly to toss out immigrants who have actually enriched the culture of the country. I think it's fantastic that you feel the German influence in Pennsylvanian, there are Chinatowns in most cities, I've heard rumors that there might be some Irish influence in Boston etc. etc.

I am a little sad that the native culture isn't a bit stronger.

Just shows that this has happened to many cultures already. Cultures evolve or stagnate and disappear.

not found on its interstates? Driving cross-country is not a qualification to make such a negative statement.

I've also lived in the wealthiest zip code on the upper east side and listened in on elitist ramblings as people discuss international finance in the corner Starbucks. Oblivious of the wider social impacts such topics have.

My day today is spent working in a technocracy that unfortunately over estimates merits and the ability of anyone to simply advance beyond their circumstance.

The culture exists, but it has Americanized over the years. Polish, Irish, German, Swiss, etc it all gets diluted from the European versions after 5 or 6 generations.

An aged Steinbeck feels out of touch with a country he is famous for writing about. To aid this, he travels across the country with his dog to see the America and it's people he has grown away from. He specifically avoids major highways and roads for the reasons people list here.

    > but are not allowed to cultivate, maintain and
    > respect our own (American) culture

Regardless of the merit, when you have actual white men talking like that, it seems a tad self-destructive.

    > Most of the things written in past few years about
    > diversity. The western culture is evil, because it
    > was built by white men.

    > Regardless of the merit, when you have actual white
    > men talking like that, it seems a tad
    > self-destructive.

Try "colonialism", "white man's burden", etc. I've seen a lot of those being thrown around lately, with the implication that the current western culture is still imperialistic and oppressive, and therefore all of us - stereotypical westerners - should ask the world for judgement and forgiveness. My point is - well, sure, imperialism happened, lot of bad things were done. Let's resolve particular claims of particular peoples in a mature and legal way. But beyond that, I don't feel any personal responsibility for what happened 100+ years ago, and I don't see why I now - as suggested - should hate myself, hate my culture, or bow down and voluntarily make place for the "oppressed" to step up.

> I wonder what we'd make today of the discussions about Southern Culture around the time of abolition. Self-destructive?

Discussions about slavery != discussions about the whole culture of people. Again, I'm fine with discussing a specific issue on merits - but the current media situation is that one has to be wary of saying anything "too white" or "too patriarchy", lest he be chastised by his own fellow white men - that feels like a pretty self-destructive phenomenon.

Though both are important, if there's not actually a "War on Christmas" and Obama didn't actually rename the White House christmas tree the winter tree, but the new President has been cited by his son as running because those things did happen, then both these facts are interesting.

edit to add: something to look forward to, when Trump announces he's renamed the tree to the Christmas tree, even though it never got called anything else. I'm trying to imagine how they'll spin that without actually telling a blatant lie, probably just by making a big fuss about it and letting other people online lie about it.

If you are proud of being part of a culture, that seems completely reasonable. May be we don't call white culture "white culture," some refer to it as "American culture." Perhaps that's what you want?

Seriously, people seem to make the mistake of assuming that because we need to change the fact that the corporate world is dominated by white men, that makes being a white man in the corporate world bad. It doesn't, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - it's the fact that there are not enough other members of the human race represented i.e. restating the thing we need to change as a negative statement, we see what it is that is bad about the situation.

Patriarchy is frowned upon because it's inherently unfair. You're complaining that people frown on you because you celebrate your social superiority over them?

The discussion was about white men, and you purposefully conflate this with "social superiority"?

It seems to me that social superiority was part of the conversation to begin with. The OP wants to celebrate being a white male and apparently doesn't believe that the social superiority of white males is something that needs to be changed.

The trajectory of both cultures were at times parallel. Industrialization. Space race. Higher education accessible for middle class. Having to figure out womens and minorities rights, freedom of religion and abortion.

The bashing of white male culture obscures the fact that it's the culture that made universal human rights possible. Not done by Indians, Chinese or Arabs. We invented this idea that women and men, black and white should be viewed from same angle. Was universally unthinkable before.

As for "white men figuring out women's rights"... are you serious? Women have had to fight for their rights every step of the way. And as for universal human rights, that wasn't a "white male" thing either. It came from certain parts of Europe, not "white males".

You can't simply take everything that came from any white country and just claim that it's a monoculture.

WRT women had to fight every step: In Soviet Russia, which by the way I don't really like, women got quite a few rights over a range of time without big struggle, and that in part encouraged other white women in the world, and then all other women too, to go for what's theirs.

The white European male culture is what made fight for human rights possible. It's where it all happened, just like Jesus happened in Jerusalem and not in Ohio.

> In Soviet Russia, which by the way I don't really like, women got quite a few rights over a range of time

The primary example of women's rights, the Suffragette movement, well predates the existence of the USSR. Women had gained the ability to vote in several countries before the start of WWI, let alone the USSR.

> The white European male culture is what made fight for human rights possible

No it didn't, because there isn't one culture like that. It's like saying that there's only one black culture, only one yellow culture, only one arab culture.

Suffrage is not everything. The right of doing your finances is another one. The right to abortion is yet other. Entering higher education a different one.

You make it sound like culture is a rigid thing like a barcode, it's either same on two individuals or different, end of story. It is not so. You share more with your peers, a bit less with other compatriots, a bit less with people from neighboring countries, a bit less, but still significant amount, with all white Europeans, and then you share some with the rest of the world.

But on the 'white European' level quite some interesting things do happen.

Given the closeness of the election result, it may well have been the straw that tipped it over into a Trump victory.

People who have spread the "check your privilege" meme should reflect on that. But I bet most of them won't.

This kind of reaction is what makes it forbidden for white westerners "to cultivate, maintain, and respect" their own culture. This kind of reaction, multiplied milionfold via media - both social and traditional alike - which can sometimes lead you to lose your job, or home.

I get it - mistakes were made, some people in the past got trampled in order for the West to get where it is. We can, and should, absolutely talk about it[0]. But living our lives in despair over the "privilege"? Feeling constantly guilty for being born? That's an overreaction.

Frankly, all that privilege talk seems to be just an attempt to guilt-trip the west into self-destructing.

--

[0] - I'm talking pretty recent times; if you want to go back to the beginnings, then each culture has humongous amounts of blood on its hands.

Can you provide examples of this? I'm not questioning the veracity of the claim. I'm genuinely curious.

- A Nobel Prize laureate made a joke at a conference lunch, it costed him and his wife their jobs. [0]

- Rosetta comet landing twisted from success into abusing one of the lead scientists. [1]

- There was someone about to or after losing his/her home over a Twitter shitstorm, but I can't for life remember who he or she was now :/.

There are many more stories if you read reports on abuse of Twitter, which has turned into the literal "Internet hate machine". Whether or not these stories are completely innocent or maybe the victims lacked taste in their initial deed is a different discussion; my point is, social media became weaponized and used to strike people at random, and the people wielding the weapon are the same who scream evils of west culture patriarchy at you.

----

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hun...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taylor_(scientist)#Shirt_...

That makes no sense. Most would be happy to be just left alone and not be vilified for being white, male, of a western-culture, non-liberal, having cultural/national pride, etc.

Just leave people alone, that's what people are failing to grasp.

The worst we have to worry about is that this "progressive" non-sense is being washed-into our children at public schools and elsewhere. Through the pervasive hate-men and hate-western privilege media that makes such a narrative pervasive to an extent that the teachers themselves can't help but push it onto their pupils.

Exactly this. Why even bring up the topic of "privilege"? If someone brings it up, they're trying to illicit some sort of reaction from the other party. Ok I fit the definition of what you use the word "privilege" to refer to. I don't feel like I need to be moved to any sort of action because of this. No apologies, no feeling of shame, no feeling of I need to be charitable, respect someone else's position more or less, no need to gloat about it, etc. Nothing. It's like making the observation that the sky is blue. I can look, agree with you, and that is exactly where it should end. If you expect anything more than that, I outright reject it.

What else? What other issue are you going to conflate with this one in order to derail it? The "There are starving children in Africa, so all your problems are trivial" argument?

> Your culture is imprinted right across the face of the world

As previously mentioned, "white" isn't really a simple culture, there are many white cultures. If you can be specific by what you mean by culture in this instance?

> woebetide anybody that dares point that out to you.

generalization. You don't know anything about that poster, other than their interactions with you specifically. Your dismissing specific problems in your own arguments as just being general disagree-ability in you opponents.

With that in mind, I think you can imagine why the drum telling them about how privileged they are and have no right to complain might inspire more than a little anger.

Have the same empathy towards poor white men as you would to anyone else, and encourage your friends to, for everyone's sake.

[0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...

The article links to its source data: http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/republican/v...

The VA results there, for example, also show that the majority of respondents for both Republican and Democratic primaries are over the median state (and national) _age_.

I need to hunt down the demographic info for the general exit polling; this is one of the big questions on my mind.

Not every white male is part of the "wealthiest, healthiest, most celebrated segment in modern society".

Not true, Asians are healthier than whites and females are healthier than males. White males have some privileges but they certainly don't have all of them.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/russia-life-expectancy

You do realise they are what they are because they made it so? Or at least becasuse their parents grandparents did. They weren't born pro developets, not a single one of them had any guaratees of being succesful or fairly paid.

And no - not all of them were born into a wealthy family of the 1% of the first world countries. You can check some noatable bios and see for yourself just how many of the so called 'world's top 5%, if not the top 1%' started at the bottom of the world.

Like if we compare a junior sys.admin to some kid of the similar age from an african village that has problems with drinkable water? Yes, well, no shit.

Stand back a second. Many third world countries have this in spades, but just never had your opportunities.

There is a possibility, that maybe you failed to consider, that maybe you are just "lucky". The gaping chasm of inequality that faces you is insurmountable, so you justify your privilege by telling yourself you're better.

I know that's a hard pill to swallow, because it calls into question a belief that you are in control of your life which is a scary thought. Especially for 'murca.

The current pre-Trump political zeitgeist is completely antithetical towards this. It downright seeks to eradicate patriarchy. I like Trump because he gives me the impression that if someone were to give me shit about my so-called "white privilege" and I said to them "So what, go fuck yourself" he'd have my back all the way.

The pendulum has swung.

Oh really? Lend me a minute of your time then, if you can be so kind.

My family (half russian half ukrainian) comes from Tajikistan (both parents and their parents were living and working there before USSR went down). At the time I was born (1988) Tajikistan was still part of the USSR, obviously.

When the shit hit the fan in the late 80s (civil war began in 1991) we had to move from there. While father was trying to start up his business in Cheboksary (capital of Chuvash republic in Russia) - my mother and I were living in Poltava, Ukraine. So, while Ukraine and Russia were our respective homelands - we were refugees, formally. Yet, in a matter of 4 or 5 year my father and his friends, who also made it out from Tajikistan torn by a war, were able to establish a company, which was successful enough to provide these families with homes, food etc. They made it with their knowledge, will, effort and hard work. Despite being refugees in their own country (which is a paradox, right?). Not because they were white, not because they had more money (they had not) or any other "privileges". So - my 'privileges', did not just appeared out of the blue, because I'm white. They are the result if my father's and mother's efforts. Had they thrown this chance away - I wouldn't have any of this. No matter how white I am.

And this is just one, not very well telling example.

Yes, living in the more or less modern environment has it's benefits, but this has nothing to do with 'white privilege'.

So does everyone in America, regardless of race or class.

> Most software developers easily make it into the world's top 5%, if not the top 1%.

I am the only upper middle-class member of my entire extended family. The rest are all lower-middle, blue collar workers - the kind people like you want to kick to the curb with open borders.

These things are true of every black male, white woman, hispanic woman, asian male, etc... I've ever met. So do all of those demographics also have white male privilege?

No comment on whether any demographics enjoy white male privilege. It was just a comment on the fact that the wealth of hackers are literally everywhere around us, but we apparently can't have a discussion about it without descending into who has privilege.

I mean, knowing what poverty is and experiencing it are two different things. Of course, I've lived out of my car, so it's possible both apply to me... And even then I had access to all the things you talk about by stepping into a goddamned McDonald's. I would have gone to a shelter of some kind, but none of them let me in because I am a white male.

> but we apparently can't have a discussion about it without descending into who has privilege.

"You disputed my claim about privilege, therefore we can't have a discussion about privilege."

Heh, true that. One point to you, sir.

The real lesson to take away from Trump's win is that there are a lot of people finding it increasingly hard to keep that water running and electricity on. Job security has disappeared and underemployment is a huge problem.

American white guilt appears to me to be of national scope.

Yes. I don't want to feel that I need to apologize for this or be treated in a negative way. I get that we're at the top of the ladder, now leave us alone.

I hope you don't consider this thread as "being treated in a negative way", it's a just discussion. EDIT: I really appreciate you replying. We are supposed to talk to you about it all, apparently, and it's good to have that discussion.

individuals experience reality as individuals, not in aggregate. Also, you can slice the cake as you wish - you can specify a group as "the wealthiest/celebrated" group directly, without conflating this with race or sex, whatever correlations might exist.

The wealthiest white males live on the liberal coasts of CA and in NY, mean FA to rust belt white men who are being told to stfu because they are so wealthy/powerful/celebrated... in aggregate at least. White men can reject the establishment too - there is no contradiction in the fact that the "establishment" consists mainly of white males, so long as you understand that race/sex/etc aren't the only way to group the world.

I'd check my privilege but President Trump already cashed it. /s

Please never use that condescending phrase again. As last nights election shows, a lot of people are tired of being condescended to.

- Hollywood

- Pro Wrestling

- Super Bowl

- "World" series

- The Internet

- Silicon Valley

- Petro Dollars

- Big Cars

- Rock n' Roll

- Hip Hop

- The Iraq War

- The War on Terror

I could go on, and on.

A peculiar quirk of American culture indeed is, that not just do you get to cultivate your own culture. Everybody else has to participate as well.

- Scott Fitzgerald - Mark Twain - Herman Melville - John Steinbeck - Wall Whitman - E. Allan Poe - Ginsbert - Bukowski - Charlie Chaplin - Miles Davis - Bob Dylan - (countless others)

Depends on where/what you choose to look. I understand that the average American is not all that knowledgeable but neither is the average European, Australian, Japanese or Nigerian...

Which is not to deny that his silent movie career isn't American culture; just that Chaplin's relationship with America was complicated.

I believe that he shaped part of the US and World's culture with movies like "The dictator"[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sfJxdytYn4

Is that what he will be known as from now on? :)

On a more serious note, it's interesting to reread his poem _America_, which was certainly written more as an aspiration than a description at the time. However, this election makes you wonder whether the aspiration is even there anymore (from either side, if we're being honest).

| Centre of equal daughters, equal sons, | All, all alike endear’d, grown, ungrown, young or old, | Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable, rich, | Perennial with the Earth, with Freedom, Law and Love, | A grand, sane, towering, seated Mother, | Chair’d in the adamant of Time.

Fuck yeah?

At the same time, it supports the imperial concept of misappropriating original traditions as a convenient fancy, a reference to the exotic, or a belittling of the other, which you give a great example of - with the pretext that this is somehow contributing to progress. Appropriation can be "done right" and produce great new works, but it can't be done easily. It's so much easier to simply loot the past without thinking.

One of the books I like that considers similar thoughts at various points is Melzer's Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Philosophy. [0]

[0] http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo186...

I've never cared where my ancestors came from. I always like the idea of an America that was always changing who it was.

Maybe now you start to see the "damned if you do damned if you don't" nature of political correctness, and why it has been rejected in this election cycle with great success.

Try saying that immigrants aren't a problem at a Republican rally. Or saying that women have a right to choose. Or that homosexuals should be able to marry.

Then watch how quickly right wingers jumps down your throat for not being politically correct.

Immigrants aren't the problem for most "right wingers." Illegal immigrants are.

Women having the right to choose is only a problem if you expect a woman's right to choose to extend to extinguishing the life of a fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Many "right wingers" are liberal on this up to a point (say the first trimester).

Many "right wingers" (probably not extreme right wing, but still) are socially quite liberal and support gay marriage.

So... I disagree with all your points. But I can see that this election, especially, has polarized people to the extreme. Rather than seeing the gradient on either side, everyone is seeing every person who votes for Trump as an evil person; and likewise, every person who votes for Clinton as corrupt.

In order to move forward we need to come to terms with this gradient in our individual values again. We need to realize that there are fiscally conservative Democrats, and socially liberal Republicans. When we can do that then we can get back to compromising to mutually beneficial outcomes.

And if we cannot do that then we, as a country, are in deep s--t no matter who is running the country.

My larger point still stands, however. I still maintain that you'd get in trouble saying the kinds of things I said at a Republican rally because of political correctness that many (though not all) right wingers adhere to.

Even if those particular examples weren't the best, there are plenty more where those came from. Try saying you don't support the military. Try saying that burning the American flag is a form of free speech. Try saying that Clinton is a better candidate than Trump, and so on.

But yes, the truth is that saying the reverse of most of your statements would get you in a lot of hot water at a Democrat rally. You see that right? If you went to a Democrat rally and said Trump was a better candidate than Hillary? That's not gonna fly. Or if you said that corporations should be allowed to contribute financially to political parties?

My main argument, I suppose, still stands. There's just an awful lot of intolerance going around these days. A truck load of it. We need to all own our individual intolerances and biases and still respect each other. We don't have to agree, but perhaps we could start with at least agreeing to hear each other out. Then we could discover where we're all coming from and why we want what we want, and how we can perhaps collaborate on building something mutually acceptable together.

In broader terms, there's always the party line, no matter what party you're part of -- and saying things against the party line will get you in trouble with the true believers (or those that would paint themselves as such). That goes equally for most Republicans and Democrats, most liberal and conservatives, communists and fascists, etc.

To maintain that "political correctness" is just a liberal or Democratic phenomenon is simply disingenuous.

Everyone has their own little safe-space and their own desire to stifle others speech (voter suppression?). Just some hard statements follow from fact and some do not.

You have no idea what you are talking about if you think this point is disputed by any majority of Republicans.

It's like saying, "'People should contribute to society' triggers all liberals."

There are facts and there are non-facts. That women have less muscle mass on average is a fact. "Mexico sends their rapists" is not a fact.

The ones who got morally wronged by the crusades are actually the Christian nations of the East Roman Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople_(1204)

What is your vision of the wrongness of the crusades? It's certainly not that the religion which had spread itself with the wars across the outer lands of the East Roman Empire on the promises of 72 virgins for its fighters and the war until the whole world submits to their rules (the name of the religion means "the submission") was morally right.

I heard a great phrase on This American Life last week: Patriotically Correct. The Trumpian inverse of politically correct.

This is the same attitude of Boko Haram.

The left wing doesn't dismiss the great cultural achievements the west has created, but we try to create space for them within a nation known for accepting immigrants, rather than forcefully imposing our culture on them, which seems to have failed so brilliantly in places like France.

The politicians trivialize this shit, because they pander to the voters. The left embraces other cultures because we're sick of getting Christianity shoved down our throats.

The left is inclusive of all sorts of groups of people so long as they agree and ultimately vote their way. We have a major homeless problem but they are quick to offer taking in refugees because they're more enlightened. It's all for making themselves feel better. And the politicians so it for votes... All the while ignoring groups of people they supposedly champion for.

Not sure how Christianity is shoved down your throat. Sounds like you don't like Christians because their beliefs don't line up with yours and are upset a primarily Christian nation is Christian in practice. That's not very tolerant. What are you afraid of? Christmas? Accidentally going to mass?

Bombing abortion clinics? Protestors holding signs saying "God hates fags". Systemic child abuse?

There are 280 Million Christians in the US [1]. How many of those do you think partake in what you wrote?

Clearly this is not a real issue to almost everyone. You're more likely to get hit by lightning (1 in 280,00)[2].

The issue is you have different beliefs and don't want to tolerate the beliefs of 280 M people.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_Sta... [2] http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/probability.html

Do we judge black people on the statements of Louis Farrakhan's anti-Jewish rhetoric? Or Jeramiah Wright's sermons? Or Jesse Jackson's corruption? Or even Hilary Clinton's corruption?

Do you have examples of the left in the US banning free speech for those that think differently from them?

> What are you afraid of?

A ban on abortions for one.

https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/783426266380668928

The extreme right uses force. The extreme left uses social pressure until it leads to violence.

Different means for the same end. None are better than the other.

They use free speech to incite violence against free speech.

It goes on and on. See thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database for a complete database of disinvitation attempts. The vast majority in the past several years have been from the Left.

So true. He's a great example of a vacuous unprincipled opportunist whose main desire is his own glorification. A really good example, thanks for bringing it up.

Anyway, from my group of primarily left friends:

- I've heard some are moving out of the country.

- Many are removing friends that voted Trump or were Anti-Hillary. This has been happening for some time. Some are even removing family members.

- Even my wife told me she lost respect for me for voting third party.

The left and the right from the major parties are both full of shit.

But saying you are progressive when you don't tolerate other views and even lose respect for others that differ is on a whole other level of bullshit. And getting emotional and raging when you discover an opposing point is not progressive at all either. It probably just means you didn't learn to play in the sandbox with others.

It's all sad but the worst part is how the majority of citizens treat others with different views.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-sp...

>Not sure how Christianity is shoved down your throat.

Stuff like this - http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146538958/rhode-island-distric...

>What are you afraid of?

Being forced by my government to adhere to a religion I don't want to adhere to. Things like forcing my children prey in school. Being a second class citizen.

>Christmas?

I'm not afraid of Christmas but I don't personally celebrate Christmas (not even in a secular way) and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd also like anyone to celebrate any holiday they would like to celebrate, including Christmas if they want.

> Accidentally going to mass?

Being forced to go to mass.

I think Christianity is harmful but I don't wish to tell other people what to do with their lives and I respect their right to practice whatever VooDoo they want to practice.

You're afraid of a prayer hanging up? A student, who does not even believe in God, finds it offensive? Should the Bible not be in a library either? That's hardly "shoving it down your throat".

Nobody has the right to force children to pray in school or stand for the national anthem either. You'll never be forced to go to mass. The US has 280 M Christians, that would have happened a long time ago.

It sounds like your fears are more that your children will see things differently from you. I get that, but in this current world, I don't see how you can objectively think that your children becoming practicing Christians is a top concern for their health and well-being.

I went to a private Catholic school for high school and we had non Christians there. One of my friends was Pagan and one was Muslim. We had religion class. One teacher did Hail Marys. They weren't forced to do anything Christian. They had to learn about Christianity but nobody was trying to convert anyone by any means. Their parents weren't concerned they would jump to the other side because that's the whole point of parenting. You mold them a bit but ideally let them think for themselves as they'll be on their own someday.

I've been to different religious services: Greek Orthodox, Native American rituals, and also to Bat Mitzvahs and other events outside my sphere. It's good to learn about other people's beliefs and cultures. We shouldn't be afraid of it.

Right-wing politics is not much different in that regard.

We do, in fact. That's the whole point.

And as it turns out, people like being surrounded by others that share their values, speak their language, look like them, and enjoy the same activities as they do. There's no shame in wanting a group identity. The christian right wing is just tired of everybody else's identity being legitimized except for theirs.

Also, abortion is a really big deal. To some degree, the evangelical/conservative Christian vote was split this time around because Trump had a loud but not very reputable position against abortion. It's remarkable that Trump won despite that shortcoming.

The real issue is obviously not their humanity, but their beliefs. It makes total sense to see them foremost as Muslims given the importance of Islam to their identity. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you're dehumanizing these people, it simply means that you're not willfully blind to the fact that beliefs substantially influence how people behave.

The real questions that should be asked and addressed revolve around the compatibility of that identity with the US society. Do US citizens like living among Muslims (i.e. people that are culturally quite distant from themselves)? Does it introduce ideological and social friction? Does it enhance society or not?

Those are the questions that the liberal Left doesn't even attempt to answer, because they're completely fixated on abstract moral dogmas (-isms like racism, sexism), which coincidentally is a privilege often afforded by not having to suffer the actual social consequences of those dogmas.

When you don't apply the same "people" standard to Muslim and Christians, when you want to strip one of those classes from free speech, from free entry into their country or their religious freedom, do not be surprised if "the left" ( but really, anyone) gathers that they are not being seen as people.

The reasonable questions you are asking are not the questions your (I'm assuming) party is asking. The answers to those questions are also extremely different to the answers that same party is coming up with. You don't solve a cultural difference problem by removing the culturally different, that's just making it worse.

Whether any belief system has the potential to cause problems for a society depends on the content of that belief system and the content of the belief systems already present in that society. In the case of Islam in particular, there are two facts worth noting:

First, a strong case can be made for major compatibility problems of mainstream Sunni Islam (MAI) with Western societies. I won't go into details here, but very generally speaking, MAI has a theocratic component: Muslims should, in theory, strive towards the implementation of sharia law. As a body of laws and in terms of its axioms, sharia is simply incompatible with the Western legal tradition. I'm sure that what I'm saying here is not controversial among MAI Muslims. Your average Muslim (assuming he's honest) will corroborate this.

Second, Muslims come from a culture that is very unlike that of the US. Even if there were no incompatibilities, the bare fact that they're so culturally distant poses a barrier to the formation of the social bonds that are necessary for high trust, high cohesion communities and societies. In case that's not obvious: people generally bond more with others with whom they share the same cultural reference frame and state of mind.

Supposing you grant me these two arguments, then the potential for causing problems for a society is established. Whether that potential is actualized depends on the demographic weight a group has and the extent to which it is willing to compromise.

Speaking as a Dutchman (and realizing that the demographics of our Muslim population differ substantial from that of the US), it is clear to me that Muslims as a group cause problems in both senses. For example, in areas where there is a substantial Muslim demographic, there are now local political parties that explicitly cater to them. We never asked for this and we don't want it, but now we're stuck having to deal with it and with the social friction that comes with it. Another example: schools with substantial numbers of Muslim pupils are subject to great social pressures by this group, with some not being able to discuss certain topics anymore (Holocaust, criticism of Islam, cheering Muslim pupils during the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo shootings) and concessions being made at the cost of native students such as defaulting to halal food. If you want sources for any of these claims, let me know.

Not at all. Would you stay Christians want creationism to be taught in schools and not evolution? Would you say Christians are anti-abortion and anti Gay marriage?

There are sweet apples, sour apples and everything in between. That doesn't mean it would make sense to start pondering on which of those really are apples, nor whether you should try to sell them in a neighborhood known not to like apples.

Sure, you can subset Muslims into different groups and branches, and some of those will be more compatible with Western society than others. The net impact with zero filtering however is negative.

You might as well use a different broad category - say 'foreigner' and whatever you say (erosion of society's values etc.) would hold true in general. Then you could draw the conclusion that foreigners are causing the social disruption and so any immigration is to be resisted.

Basically what I'm saying is, if you point to specific values that you respect and that are being eroded (e.g. 'I dont like immigrants that dont support womens rights') it may be better received than if you transfer the blame to a generic broad category, specially along religion or race, because then you might appear to be a racist.

(preface: not saying this is going to occur or repeat etc but-) I believe everyone here would not want genocide, rape camps, slavery or other atrocities to exist (they may very well do so today, but we can also hopefully agree this is something that is to be avoided as much as possible).

"The left" is fixated on this. The context of "how did I get here?". How is it that I am having dumplings delivered to my door while there is starvation still rampant in the world? These questions lead to the thread pulling of context and it's interplay with the current circumstances of the (left-leaning) individual.

From here this leads to history, oppressive and forceful spreading of Christianity throughout the world through often violent and culturally dismissive means, exploitation, and the above atrocities.

The left is predominantly concerned with not repeating these same mistakes. While they do suffer from some of the issues that affect "the right" voters - I would vouch on a general scale globally not really as much:

The right usually work highly volatile positions which they are sold as (and rightfully so) adding to the prosperity of their nation and fulfilling of a duty, they feel (also rightfully so) like fodder used by their nation for economic gain and prosperity. The right voter base will react against any entity that is destabilizing this - it is unfortunate that they are treated as such with no opportunity for transition when the industries predominantly aligned with these groups are by their nature bound for a temporary life time.

While the left does often experience the same hardships of economic immobility, job loss, they can abstract themselves from this with the often larger city centres offering alterntives to these downturns. The right is unable to do the same.

I am of the opinion (emphasis on opinion in these very volatile areas that we have to apply utilitarian laws to) that Christianity/left-values are - as you said - group identifiers that allow a sense of belonging.

I personally am left leaning so disagree with the assessment of "legitimization" of Christianity when there are several open cases of heinous instances where it hasn't afforded the same - and has resulted in a highlight reel of the worst humanity has to offer (not isolated of course to Christianity, but it is a hard case to sell that solidifying this group will result in net positives, especially when blatantly used as a tool by politicians to consolidate their own power). Along with this, certain issues regarding race, gender, and other imagined hostilities seem to be purported by 'the right' as concerns, when in reality we are simply serving to undermine the countries we all wish to be their best. We should be openly encouraging performance from skill and shaking our heads at those who would lower another's potential by a bizarre rubric. While there is much to be said for the benefits of community, there is simply too much castigation from the right to misdirected or non-existent perceived threats. As you said "there is no shame in wanting a group identity", I believe that this metric should then be used to not demonise females wanting to belong to "feminism", Latinos wanting to belong to a Latino identity, or the many other groups who have been - throughout history - actively suppressed either through violence, genocide, or structures in place that do not afford them the same opportunities being demanded now. To ask for legitimacy whilst ignoring past (extreme) grievances when the same was requested and then crying foul is remiss.

However I believe that across the globe that left-leaning parties need to do much much more work at re-training, re-educating, and emphasising just what tremendous effort the blue collar - and often right-voting - people of their countries have sacrificed so that the left get their opportunity to learn and mobilize upwards. There is a need to bring them along as well or the country is just as doomed and suffering of citizens just as bad.

We need to work together, support each other, and not be drawn in to crude openly-acknowledged-as-broken party systems.

That being said - if Trump does not destabilize this system in the US and push the country toward a preferential system, he isn't worth the square inch of a used toilet paper. (one final left-leaning comment in there!)

P.S. I genuinely hope he tries to "shake things up", however all rhetoric points to him being more fascinated with self-service - even above those issues of the hard workers in the centre of the US that supported him with their hopes on the line.

I'm yet to see anyone disparage a Michaleangelo, but I do see them question the validity of a Pollock.

At some level, it is the fault of modern artists as well - a Pollock or even a Hirst isn't easy to "get"

"his work is both simple-minded and sensationalist, just the ticket for newbie collectors who are, to put it mildly, connoisseurship-challenged and resonance-free. "

Interesting. You really think more than half of US citizens are just like Boko Haram?

We are all human and we are all subject to the same primal forces. It's our job to fight it.

(Particularly since a) I'm white, and b) I haven't yet injured any of my neighbors' dogs.)

This is an incredibly unhealthy dynamic and it's a good-sized part of the explanation for Trump.