/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6903078]

Is demographic replacement going to have a negative effect on a country's cultural/literary values?
Even Chinese people with master's degrees in statistics don't have the same kind of mind of literature and journalism. Not that they are the ones doing the replacing.

http://mitrailleuse.net/2015/07/30/whats-behind-the-cuckservative-phenomenon-a-reply-to-ace/

[Anonymous No.6903097]

The journalism side is pretty much anglo vs non-anglo. Italians have no respect for their journalistic establishment.

[Anonymous No.6903131]

>>6903078
Yes, as cultures change, their literature changes. As the demographic make up of a geographic location changes, their culture tends to change.

So what? This has happened constantly throughout history. Nothing stays the same.

I didn't read the article by the way. Not sure if it's relevant. I just saw the word "cuckservative" and decided there was a zero percent chance it was worth my time.

[Anonymous No.6903150]

>>6903131
culture can change for the worse, cuck.

[Anonymous No.6903177]

>>6903131
Globalization has caused cultural changes to occur at an unprecedented rate

[Anonymous No.6903189]

>>6903131
These changes were results of military conquest in the past, it's not that way anymore.

[Anonymous No.6903195]

>>6903150
Better or worse is relative to current position. There is no inherent "good" or "bad" qualities of a culture.

>>6903177
Indeed. And humanity continues to adapt.

[Anonymous No.6903236]

>>6903195
>There is no inherent "good" or "bad" qualities of a culture.
Yes there are. Pick values. Does a culture represent those values worse than another culture? It's a worse culture.

A culture that cuts peoples heads off for being gay is a bad culture.

[Anonymous No.6903308]

bump

[Anonymous No.6903435]

>>6903189

Military conquests didn't replace demographics in ancient times, migration did. What conquests did is make migration tenable. We just allow migration to happen with putting up a fight now, for better or worse.

[Anonymous No.6903491]

>>6903435
probably for worse. Definitely, actually.

[Anonymous No.6903509]

>>6903236
>>6903236
>pick values

An arbitrary selection process. Proves nothing about the inherent "goodness" or "badness" of those selected values.

>A culture that cuts peoples heads off for being gay is a bad culture.
Only within the context of a culture that values homosexuality more than say, concepts of sexual purity. There are probably millions of people who would disagree with your supposed "objective" value.

[Anonymous No.6903522]

>>6903509
>hurr nothing is good or bad
then neither is discriminating against other cultures, fuckface.

[Anonymous No.6903523]

>>6903195
>There is no inherent "good" or "bad" qualities of a culture.
LE CULTURAL RELATIVISM MAYMAY

wow smh tbh

[Anonymous No.6903537]

>>6903509
>arbitrary
>relative
>inherent

kill yurself

[Anonymous No.6903542]

>>6903522
Sure, so long as you accept the discrimination of your own cultural values as equally legitimate.

>>6903523
Amazing critique of the position, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.6903570]

>>6903542
>Amazing critique of the position, to be honest.
The idea that "all cultures are worth the same" is so inherently ridiculous that I had no other option but to mock you.

I mean it depends on what you mean. Do you mean that culture is a human construct and that hence what constitutes "good" and "bad" is up to human interpretation? Or do you mean that you cannot judge a culture even through human lenses?

The first case is understandable, but largely irrelevant because we are humans. The second case is pants on retarded : if you believe that the culture of contemporary western civilization and of the cannibalistic tribes of the congo rainforest are as worthy as each other, then you should kill yourself fam tbh.

[Anonymous No.6903594]

>>6903509
Right, so since culture is completely relative, and values mean nothing, why don't we turn the West into a National Socialist Reich then?

Seeing as it's all just arbitrary and all.

[Anonymous No.6903626]

>>6903570
What you seem to fail to realize is that your dichotomy is false. The two "meanings" you're trying to force me to choose between are linked. Culture isn't just what were judging, it's the medium through which we do the judging. We normalize the culture we are raised in and live in, and therefore have a bias towards it. Hence it is easy for us to assume that our culture is the best, because the values through which we judge a culture are themselves culturally determined. So really its an issue that we cannot with judge cultures with any claims to objectivity.

I find your example amusing, since it so clearly demonstrates this. You place your own culture as the obvious choice for "good" and position another culture (Congonese cannibalistic tribes, but which tribe one you're aware of, or is this a strawman you invented that "surely" must exist somewhere?) as "bad" while using your own cultural values to determine the obviousness of it.

If you can see how this is an issue in determining the "true" value of a culture, you're probably the one with the mental deficiency.

>>6903594
Go for it. See how far you get.

Let me also state that my ambivalence towards pronouncing any one culture as objectively better than another doesn't mean I don't have personal preferences. It's just that my personal preferences are largely culturally determined. I grew up in late 20th century US, thus I value personal liberty and autonomy. If I grew up in 1930s Germany, I would probably have a much different value system and have different preferences.

The point is, the goodness or badness of a cultural system is feelings based. It isn't objective. We're all too embedded in our own system to make unbiased determinations.

[Anonymous No.6903637]

>>6903542
so what are you basing your values of "there are no values" on if you're deriving it from a culturally sensibility that is no better than sensibilities that say "There are values?"

Checkmate faggot

[Anonymous No.6903648]

>>6903637
I've already explained this here:>>6903626


I have cultural values. I just realize that they bias me, and this makes me very hesitant to proclaim one or another objectively good or bad.

So, far from a checkmate, friend.

[Anonymous No.6903669]

>>6903626
>Culture isn't just what were judging, it's the medium through which we do the judging. We normalize the culture we are raised in and live in, and therefore have a bias towards it.
Bias notwithstanding, we can still compare objectively two cultures based on a certain collection of values, such as happiness, security, etc.

>Hence it is easy for us to assume that our culture is the best, because the values through which we judge a culture are themselves culturally determined.
So what? Everything is culturally determined? The fact that we're not prancing around naked like a bunch of savages is due to the fact that we created a set of artificial rules and constraints, i.e. "culture".

You CAN compare the values of two cultures. That is what I'm trying to get to. I'm not claiming that these values are some sorts of absolutes set in stone. But a rational individual can compare two values and decide which is better (is cannibalism better than no cannibalism? Tough call, says the cultural relativist!)

>I find your example amusing, since it so clearly demonstrates this. You place your own culture as the obvious choice for "good" and position another culture (Congonese cannibalistic tribes, but which tribe one you're aware of, or is this a strawman you invented that "surely" must exist somewhere?) as "bad" while using your own cultural values to determine the obviousness of it.
No, I'm comparing the two cultures objectively.

Could you tell me, even in a subjective manner, how the heck is the culture of the congolese cannibalistic tribes better than western civilization? I mean if comparing cultures is subjective, as you say, you should find no trouble comparing the two cultures in such a way as to make the cannibalistic (I love that word) tribes of the Congo appear as a better alternative as our inferior western civilization.

>If you can see how this is an issue in determining the "true" value of a culture, you're probably the one with the mental deficiency.
No doubt there is a bias. But a bias doesn't prevent from comparing two cultures.

If I'm american, I'm biased towards considering America to be the best country in the world, yet I can still recognize that some countries are better run.

[Anonymous No.6903693]

>>6903669
You indeed can compare, but you're still determining the worth of another culture through your own cultural value system. Judging your own culture by your own standards isn't the same as judging another culture by your own standards.

This isn't complex.

>No, I'm comparing the two cultures objectively.
No you aren't.

>If I'm american, I'm biased towards considering America to be the best country in the world, yet I can still recognize that some countries are better run.
"Better run" in terms of how your culture determines what is well run.

You keep repeating the same argument over and over that actually holds no water.

The point is, as I've already stated, is that your idea of what is "better" is based on your value system which is derived from your culture. This makes it impossible to objectively compare cultures. You can compare them, sure, but only in a biased way. A bias that places your value system on top. So it doesn't matter if your comparing the US, an African tribe, Nazi Germany, or the mythical city of Atlantis. What you feel is good isn't objective.

[Anonymous No.6903710]

>>6903693
>he thinks cutting people's heads off being wrong is derived from culture

fuck off you pomo faggot

[Anonymous No.6903712]

>>6903626
>Let me also state that my ambivalence towards pronouncing any one culture as objectively better than another doesn't mean I don't have personal preferences. It's just that my personal preferences are largely culturally determined. I grew up in late 20th century US, thus I value personal liberty and autonomy. If I grew up in 1930s Germany, I would probably have a much different value system and have different preferences.

So what your essentially saying, is that what Hitler and the National Socialists did to the Jews and other "untermenschen" wasn't wrong then, in any sense of the word "wrong", however it would be "right" behavior if you were born in Germany in the 1930s.

Since it's all cultural, I guess that means genocide is perfectly okay, if it's your cultural imperative.

[Anonymous No.6903719]

If you want a set of values which are absolutely good or worthy, you probably need to find out a way to derive them mathematically. Using the culture or religion that spawned them as justification is just too contentious and transient.

[Anonymous No.6903723]

>>6903719
>mathematical proofs for morality

go outside

[Anonymous No.6903727]

>>6903693
>You indeed can compare, but you're still determining the worth of another culture through your own cultural value system.
Not really.

If it were true, you could tell me why the culture of the cannibalistic tribes of the congo is better than western civilization. You have conveniently ignored that part of my previous post.

>"Better run" in terms of how your culture determines what is well run.
There are certain "objective" values, such as being happy and being well fed, whatever you cultural relativists proclaim.


>A bias that places your value system on top. So it doesn't matter if your comparing the US, an African tribe, Nazi Germany, or the mythical city of Atlantis. What you feel is good isn't objective.
This is such horseshit. Is this what is taught in universities nowadays? Goodness gracious.

Cultures share certain "axioms" determined by the biology of human nature. Find me a culture where the common people strive to die of starvation and not reproduce.

[Anonymous No.6903730]

>>6903712
Again, you're attempting to make me accept a position of personal preference (accept that you like genocide!) when that isn't what I'm advocating for is that it isn't possible to objectively compare cultures. Personally I am against genocide. But I certainly think that the Nazis believed they were doing the "right" thing.

>>6903710
People cut people's heads off in western culture too, friend.

[Anonymous No.6903731]

>>6903626
Morals and values are not objective but I don't see why that makes you incapable of taking a personal stand on what cultures are right or wrong. It's one thing to acknowledge that your opinions on other cultures are largely influenced by your own, but it's another to deny that your beliefs have any value and then refuse to support or defend them. For example, I believe that cultures based on Islamic fundamentalism are awful because I value human rights and the freedom of expression. While not everybody may believe that human rights and the freedom of expression are very important, I do. Maybe if I lived in Saudi Arabia I would disagree, but I don't.

[Anonymous No.6903732]

>>6903730
What even happens to a person to make them this fucking useless

[Anonymous No.6903746]

>>6903727
>Not really
Yes, really. You're repeated denial followed by the same

>If it were true, you could tell me why the culture of the cannibalistic tribes of the congo is better than western civilization. You have conveniently ignored that part of my previous post.
I can't tell you why it is better for the same reason I can't tell you why it's worse. I don't see how this is inconsistent with what I've been arguing.
Also, your cannibalistic tribe is something you made up for rhetorical purposes. Any comparison is meaningless. I could compare an actual cannibalistic tribe to US culture if you want, but I wouldn't be making a value judgement about which is better, only showing the differences between to sets of practices.

>happy and being well fed
There is a difference between cultural values and satisfying basic biological needs. This isn't the argument. We're talking about value systems. Hunger isn't a value. Hunger isn't morally right or wrong, it's an unpleasant sensation.

[Anonymous No.6903747]

>>6903730
wow bro you mean people do what they believe is right? GET THE FUCK OUTTA TOWN

[Anonymous No.6903748]

>>6903730
>People cut people's heads off in western culture too, friend.
In modern western culture? No, it's fairly rare, and if it occurs it is always condemned as a horrible crime by the media, state, and general population

[Anonymous No.6903749]

>>6903730
But you are implicitely admitting that if you set a collection of "base values", then you can compare cultures based on those values.

[Anonymous No.6903750]

>>6903730
Why this cognitive dissonance?

If you think genocide is wrong, what does it matter that Nazis believed they were doing "right"? Not all belief systems are created equal, and a belief system that forbids genocide is superior and should prevail. I think you believe this despite your floundering for ideological equanimity.

[Anonymous No.6903751]

>>6903731
I do have a personal stance. I just don't see it as objective. I've already stated this.

[Anonymous No.6903755]

>>6903748
And it's relatively rare and condemned in many tribal societies too. This is why I don't want to compare a hypothetical cannibalistic tribe to US culture. It's pointless, because one is imaginary.

[Anonymous No.6903760]

>>6903749
But how do we determine "base values" are? Universal behaviors? Those aren't value systems, they're instincts. And why compare human instincts if they're universal? All we'll find is that they do indeed exist cross-culturally.

[Anonymous No.6903764]

>>6903730
>Again, you're attempting to make me accept a position of personal preference (accept that you like genocide!) when that isn't what I'm advocating for is that it isn't possible to objectively compare cultures. Personally I am against genocide. But I certainly think that the Nazis believed they were doing the "right" thing.

Yes, but the point is, that you are being ambiguous on whether it is possible to resist someone like the National Socialists, without simply appeal to personal preference.

They annihilated people en masse, so it's not just a relativistic cultural difference.

[Anonymous No.6903765]

>>6903723

I will

But I'm not gonna stop thinking about it.

[Anonymous No.6903768]

>>6903746
>I can't tell you why it is better for the same reason I can't tell you why it's worse.
Really? You can't tell why it's worse?

>Also, your cannibalistic tribe is something you made up for rhetorical purposes
No, there is still exists cases of cannibalism in the congo rainforest. If you prefer to refer to cannibalistic tribes of Papua New Guinea, that's fine too.

> could compare an actual cannibalistic tribe to US culture if you want, but I wouldn't be making a value judgement about which is better, only showing the differences between to sets of practices.
By extending your logic, it is impossible to make a judgement about any matter whatsoever.

How do you know that you can't judge two cultures? Maybe that thought was culturally ingrained into you.

>There is a difference between cultural values and satisfying basic biological needs.
No there is not. Culture arose as a way for humans to better their existence through cooperation. Culture either serves the individual for the better or the worse. A way in which we could compare cultures is the way in which they benefit the individual.

Let's be clear, when I'm talking about "culture" I'm not talking about food or music.

[Anonymous No.6903770]

>>6903750
>Not all belief systems are created equal,
I'm not saying that they are, I'm saying that my determination for which inequalities are good versus which are bad aren't self-evident objective truths, but rather cultural. The fact that Nazis could do something that we see as completely and totally wrong, and feel it was completely and totally right, is evidence in favor of this position. That's why it matters.

[Anonymous No.6903773]

>>6903755
>This is why I don't want to compare a hypothetical cannibalistic tribe to US culture. It's pointless, because one is imaginary.
What?

There were plenty of cannibalistic tribes throughout history, and there are still a few today in remote parts of our world.

>>6903760
>But how do we determine "base values" are? Universal behaviors? Those aren't value systems, they're instincts
Instincts begat civilization.

>And why compare human instincts if they're universal? All we'll find is that they do indeed exist cross-culturally.
We're not comparing human instincts, we're comparing cultures on the basis of which culture is the best at satisfying those instincts.

[Anonymous No.6903784]

>>6903770
No, your position leads to amoral nonsense where actions don't matter and evil is okay, it's just relative baby. Beliefs like yours aren't opposed to the Nazis at all, they are lockstep with the confused unprincipled underlings who committed the majority of the atrocities because they were "just following orders."

[Anonymous No.6903786]

>>6903768
>Really? You can't tell why it's worse?
Not in an objective way, no.

>here is still exists cases of cannibalism in the congo rainforest.
You're going to have to present a specific case, otherwise it's something you just made up. I'm not comparing a hypothetical culture to a real one. Find a cannibalistic tribe for me to compare, a real one with a source that proves it, and maybe I'll compare them if I can.

>By extending your logic, it is impossible to make a judgement about any matter whatsoever.
It's completely possible to judge your own culture, since that is the value system you're judging it by.

>How do you know that you can't judge two cultures? Maybe that thought was culturally ingrained into you.
The fact that a vast majority of members of my culture do make value judgements about other cultures suggests strongly this is incorrect.

>No there is not.
Yes there is. Cultural behaviors vary between societies. Biological behaviors do not.

>Let's be clear, when I'm talking about "culture" I'm not talking about food or music.
I realize this. You're referring to culture in the sense of the German word "kulture", which has come to mean socially determined behaviors and beliefs. No shit.

[Anonymous No.6903791]

>>6903784
b-b-but the nazis said it was okay so obviously morality is a social construct heh

[Anonymous No.6903805]

>>6903097
Same with law

>>6903131
This guy is right

[Anonymous No.6903808]

>>6903773
>There were plenty of cannibalistic tribes throughout history, and there are still a few today in remote parts of our world.
So pick a real one that you can prove exists instead of hiding behind demonized hypotheticals.

>Instincts begat civilization.
Chimps have instincts. Worms have instincts. They didn't start civilizations. You're wrong.

>we're comparing cultures on the basis of which culture is the best at satisfying those instincts.
But how are we determining who what behaviors are "best" at satisfying those instincts? Familiarity? That we "know" it works better?

>>6903784
I have a personal stance, but I don't presume to claim objectivity. They are my personal feelings, and are largely the result of the context in which I was raised. If tomorrow the US government said "we're rounding up all the blacks and shooting them", I would find that morally repugnant. Does that mean I'm "objectively" correct? No. It means I strongly feel I'm correct. Feelings are very powerful motivators. So I am confident that I wouldn't be supportive of genocide. However, I can imagine a scenario where ideas of racial purity are so ingrained that I might cheer if something like that happened. Our feelings on what is "right" and what is "wrong" are completely relative to the context in which we learned what those things are. They are not transcendent universal truths obvious to everyone.

[Anonymous No.6903810]

>>6903509
>An arbitrary selection process. Proves nothing about the inherent "goodness" or "badness" of those selected values.
You're evaluating his selection process and giving it the thumbs down.

I know it's fun to pretend to be on another level, but hasn't your cover been blown since at least Nietzsche's time?

[Anonymous No.6903814]

>>6903786
>Not in an objective way, no.
Yes you can. You choose not too because you're so far ingrained in your own ideology. Literally doublethink.

>You're going to have to present a specific case, otherwise it's something you just made up.
Are you historically illiterate? Cannibalism was widely practiced in various parts of the globe. It's not a made up practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

As for a contemporary tribe practicing cannibalism, you would probably have to travel to Papua New Guinea to find one (although the practice of cannibalism on that island has declined drastically since the proselytizing efforts of the catholic church during th 1950s and 1960s (some missionaries did get eaten though) )

>It's completely possible to judge your own culture, since that is the value system you're judging it by.
That's circular logic.

>The fact that a vast majority of members of my culture do make value judgements about other cultures suggests strongly this is incorrect.
Fair enough

>Yes there is. Cultural behaviors vary between societies. Biological behaviors do not.
Cultural behaviors stem from the same origin : to satisfy the biological needs of humans. Hence why they are comparable : they satisfy these needs with varying degrees of success. That is the crux of my argument.

You're making it seem as if culure is some abstract thing completely detached from human biology. That is not true at all : culture grew out of human biological needs.

[Anonymous No.6903822]

>>6903810
Actually Nietzsche's argument in the geology of morality is basically the same thing.

And again, I'm not giving the selection process a thumbs down because I believe it is "objectively wrong", but rather that it is impossible to be objective.

[Anonymous No.6903845]

>>6903814
No you can't. I'm not going to go "nut-uh" "uh-huh" back and forth. This is getting tedious and stupid. I choose not to because I realize ideology prevents objectivity. There is a difference between seeing the constraints of your ideology and constraining all ideologies to your own.

> Cannibalism was widely practiced in various parts of the globe. It's not a made up practice.
I'm not claiming that. I'm asking you to choose a specific tribe. And I know someone who lived among Papua New Guinean tribes. So nothing you're saying about them is a revelation. I could tell you about a male initiation rite that one tribe practices (name escapes me at the moment, I'd have to look into it) that would probably have you foaming at the mouth with how "objectively wrong" it is.

>That's circular logic.
How? Your culture has a value system, you judge your culture by that system.

>Cultural behaviors stem from the same origin : to satisfy the biological needs of humans.
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.6903867]

>>6903845
>No you can't. I'm not going to go "nut-uh" "uh-huh" back and forth.
It is essentially you who are doing the nuh-uhing. You still refuse to address my comparison between cannibals and western civilization, claiming that I should give the name of a specific cannibal tribe (really?)

> I choose not to because I realize ideology prevents objectivity.
Which is in itself an ideological stance.

>There is a difference between seeing the constraints of your ideology and constraining all ideologies to your own
Constraints and biases do not COMPLETELY DESTROY objectivity. That is what I'm trying to tell you.

>I'm not claiming that. I'm asking you to choose a specific tribe
And I can't for the life of me understand why a specific tribe is so important to you. I'm starting to think you're trying to shift the goalposts.

> And I know someone who lived among Papua New Guinean tribes
Was it that kike Jared Diamond?

>So nothing you're saying about them is a revelation. I could tell you about a male initiation rite that one tribe practices (name escapes me at the moment, I'd have to look into it) that would probably have you foaming at the mouth with how "objectively wrong" it is.
The one where they suck each other's dicks off? Yes, I would consider this ritual to be objectively inferior to the "western" rites of passage.

>How? Your culture has a value system, you judge your culture by that system.
What is to stop you from being part of two cultures? Then you can judge the two cultures, since you're part of both.

What if you're part of N cultures? Can you then judge those N cultures and rank them according to merit?

>Prove it.
Culture arose as a way for primitive man to improve his condition. A tribe is all the more efficient if its members share the same mindset.

If there was no inherent reproductive advantage for men to coalesce in cultures and create civilizations, civilization wouldn't have arisen in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6903903]

>>6903867
>If there was no inherent reproductive advantage for men to coalesce in cultures and create civilizations, civilization wouldn't have arisen in the first place.
That's not how evolution works. A species can do all kind of superfluous things and get away with it as long as it doesn't have a negative impact. It's not economical, it's not teleological, it's not a tidy process. It's more of a throw against the wall and see what sticks sort of things. We could all start wearingtophats tomorrow, the entirety of humanity, and go about our business. That doesn't mean that tophats have an evolutionary advantage.

Just because people do a thing doesn't mean it has a reproductive advantage. Celibacy has been a thing for thousands of years for example and is still practised.

[Anonymous No.6903911]

>>6903903
>That's not how evolution works.
What? It is literally how evolution works.

Anything that gives a reproductive edge gets transmitted down to future generations.

>A species can do all kind of superfluous things and get away with it as long as it doesn't have a negative impact.
As long as a competing species does not get the upper hand.

If culture didn't give a reproductive advantage then there should be many acultural humans living today (which is not the case, obviously).

>It's not economical, it's not teleological, it's not a tidy process. It's more of a throw against the wall and see what sticks sort of things. We could all start wearingtophats tomorrow, the entirety of humanity, and go about our business. That doesn't mean that tophats have an evolutionary advantage.
You're obfuscating with a shitty example. I specifically said I'm not talking about food or music, and that extends to fashion.

>Just because people do a thing doesn't mean it has a reproductive advantage
Where did I claim that? I claimed that culture arose out of the need to satisfy human biological needs, you asked me to prove it, I did, and now you're shifting the goalposts.

Did you know that most of humanity 50000 thousand years ago consisted of bushmen? Now they're an ultra minority. Their inferior hunter gatherer culture didn't give them a reproductive advantage.

[Anonymous No.6903913]

>>6903867
Yes, really. I'm not comparing a hypothetical tribe you made up to a real one. That's utterly ridiculous. If you want I'll find a tribe and do that work for you, lazy ass. But it'll take a while. I've been up for 24 hours at this point and I'm starting to see things move that aren't supposed to. I need to sleep first. I'm getting a little cranky.

>Which is in itself an ideological stance.
Again, there is a difference between seeing the constrains of your own ideology and judging other ideologies by the standards of your own. My "ideological stance" is that ideology isn't objective.

>Constraints and biases do not COMPLETELY DESTROY objectivity. That is what I'm trying to tell you.
Yes they do. Objective means without bias.

>And I can't for the life of me understand why a specific tribe is so important to you. I'm starting to think you're trying to shift the goalposts.
It's been a single goal. A real culture to compare to another real culture. If you want I could make something up, but that's retarded and as far from objective as you could possibly get. Doesn't even come close to approaching it. I can't imagine why you keep pushing for this. It's stupid.

>Was it that kike Jared Diamond?
No, Diamond is a hack, a liar and full of shit. He's been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the person I'm speaking of filed a lawsuit against him for plagiarism.

>The one where they suck each other's dicks off? Yes, I would consider this ritual to be objectively inferior to the "western" rites of passage.
It's more like gang rape to be honest. They believe fertility is passed by insemination. But the boys go for it.
And it's nice you feel that way, but feelings aren't objective.

>What is to stop you from being part of two cultures? Then you can judge the two cultures, since you're part of both.
Sure, you can judge both of them by their own cultural standards.

>Culture arose as a way for primitive man to improve his condition. A tribe is all the more efficient if its members share the same mindset.
Prove it.
>If there was no inherent reproductive advantage for men to coalesce in cultures and create civilizations, civilization wouldn't have arisen in the first place.
There are many cultural practices that have no actual reproductive advantage. For example, a boy being inseminated by his tribal elder.

[Anonymous No.6903918]

>>6903570

Cannibalism is more direct.

[Anonymous No.6903932]

>>6903911
>What? It is literally how evolution works.
Ok, so you don't have an understanding how how evolution works.

>Anything that gives a reproductive edge gets transmitted down to future generations.
Right, but there is such thing as genetic drift for example. Human chins are often pointed out as being the result of this.
And none of this prevents or allows for the formation of behavior that isn't a reproductive advantage.

>You're obfuscating with a shitty example. I specifically said I'm not talking about food or music, and that extends to fashion.
No, he's saying that cultural behaviors aren't all about maximalization of reproductive success. There are cultural practices that are against reproductive success. Do you think sitting around arguing on the internet is helping either of us pass on our genes? Yet I do this all the time.

>Their inferior hunter gatherer culture didn't give them a reproductive advantage.
The genes of "bushmen" are still the same. What changed was their cultural practices. Not insignificantly these changed due to an outside force coming in and imposing their idea of what a "superior" culture was. So your example is shit.

[Anonymous No.6903953]

>>6903913
>Yes, really. I'm not comparing a hypothetical tribe you made up to a real one. That's utterly ridiculous. If you want I'll find a tribe and do that work for you, lazy ass. But it'll take a while. I've been up for 24 hours at this point and I'm starting to see things move that aren't supposed to. I need to sleep first. I'm getting a little cranky.
Sleep is a good example.

Find me a culture in which people don't sleep. After all, sleep is completely divorced from biological needs, is it not?

>Again, there is a difference between seeing the constrains of your own ideology and judging other ideologies by the standards of your own. My "ideological stance" is that ideology isn't objective.
Yet you think of that "ideological stance" of the non-objectivity of ideologies as an objective truth, don't you?

>Yes they do. Objective means without bias.
What I meant is that one can learn to recognize and suppress bias.

>It's been a single goal. A real culture to compare to another real culture. If you want I could make something up, but that's retarded and as far from objective as you could possibly get. Doesn't even come close to approaching it. I can't imagine why you keep pushing for this. It's stupid.
It's not stupid. You're being deliberately obtuse by not choosing a random tribe out of all the cannibalistic tribes which have existed throughout history. It's all the more childish that you seem to know more about cannibalistic tribes than I do.

But fine, if you absolutely want ME to choose an example, let's take a "standard" one : the human sacrifice based culture of the Aztecs

>No, Diamond is a hack, a liar and full of shit. He's been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the person I'm speaking of filed a lawsuit against him for plagiarism.
Really? I'm interested. What did he plagiarize? Guns, memes and steel?

>It's more like gang rape to be honest. They believe fertility is passed by insemination. But the boys go for it.
Gross

>And it's nice you feel that way, but feelings aren't objective.
"I would consider" is a figure of speech. A culture which sexually traumatises children is objectively inferior to one which doesn't.

>Sure, you can judge both of them by their own cultural standards.
Then what's to stop me from being a "citizen of the world", embracing all cultures and then judging them?

>Prove it.
Like I said, the proof is that we live in a world of culture. The men who invented/adopted culture outbred the men who didn't : this is because culture gives you a reproductive advantage, by allowing you to better satisfy your needs.

It's basic evolution tbh

>There are many cultural practices that have no actual reproductive advantage. For example, a boy being inseminated by his tribal elder.
And how dominant and widespread is that tribe's culture compared to, say, european civilization?

That tribe's culture is inferior and archaic, and would have been wiped out thousands of years ago if not for the tribe's isolation.

[Anonymous No.6903969]

>>6903932
>Ok, so you don't have an understanding how how evolution works.
I'm pretty sure I have a way more in-depth understanding of how evolution works than you do, no offense.

>Right, but there is such thing as genetic drift for example. Human chins are often pointed out as being the result of this.
Sure, but would you seriously claim that culture arose due to genetic drift??

>And none of this prevents or allows for the formation of behavior that isn't a reproductive advantage.
I never claimed the contrary. I would not compare two cultures based on chin-shape.

>No, he's saying that cultural behaviors aren't all about maximalization of reproductive success.
They aren't all, but you measure the success of one culture compared to another BASED on the TRAITS of said culture which DO maximize reproductive success.

For example, agricultural or pastoralist cultures are OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR to hunter gatherer cultures.

>There are cultural practices that are against reproductive success. Do you think sitting around arguing on the internet is helping either of us pass on our genes? Yet I do this all the time.
I never claimed the contrary. Sheesh.

>The genes of "bushmen" are still the same. What changed was their cultural practices.
What? They remain hunter gatherers to this day. Are you sure you're not thinking about another people?

[Anonymous No.6904001]

>>6903953
>Find me a culture in which people don't sleep. After all, sleep is completely divorced from biological needs, is it not?
You're retarded. Sleep is completely biological. Like eating, if you do not do it, you will die. It's controlled by hormones in your brain. Are you seriously this stupid?

>Yet you think of that "ideological stance" of the non-objectivity of ideologies as an objective truth, don't you?
I think you're retarded. I've tried to indulge you. Saying "I cannot be objective" is different from saying "I am objective". And besides my claims to inobjectivity are within the context of making value judgments about systems outside of my own cultural value system. It's not like I don't think there aren't any objective facts. The sun is a ball of gas undergoing a nuclear reaction. That's an objective fact.


>What I meant is that one can learn to recognize and suppress bias.
Maybe. But there needs to be a system in place that holds you accountable. The Scientific Method is such a system that experimental researchers use to help mitigate their biases. But it only mitigates, it doesn't eliminate. That's why replication of findings is so important in science. If you have a similar system for judging morals and value systems, I'd love to hear it. Try reading some Hume first to get you motivated.

>ou're being deliberately obtuse by not choosing a random tribe out of all the cannibalistic tribes which have existed throughout history. It's all the more childish that you seem to know more about cannibalistic tribes than I do.
Again, I have one in mind, but I'm not doing the research now. I've already explained that comparing a hypothetical culture to a real one isn't a meaningful comparison. Why can't I just make up a cannibalistic tribe that I think will conform to your ideas of what is "good"? Obviously when dealing with hypotheticals this is a possibility. Similarly you could make up a hypothetical tribe that is "worse than Hitler times Stalin with Pol Pot's evil added in, but tripled" or something. It's stupid because you're comparing a real value system to one you're making up.

>Really? I'm interested. What did he plagiarize? Guns, memes and steel?
Yeah. He also made up "interviews" with people in that book. When he got called out, he told people "I will bury you". He's a dipshit.
Here enjoy this:
http://imediaethics.org/special-investigations/jared-diamonds-factual-collapse/

>A culture which sexually traumatises children is objectively inferior to one which doesn't.
The boys being "traumatized" wouldn't agree with you. Are you saying you're more objective about how they benefit from something than they are based on my one line description? I gave you a highly biased account of it. I called it rape when they willingly participate.

>Then what's to stop me from being a "citizen of the world", embracing all cultures and then judging them?
Because you have a cultural system you're already embedded in.

[Anonymous No.6904029]

>>6903953
>It's basic evolution tbh
You've already shown you have a tenuous grasp of evolution. I'm not taking your word on what is biologically determined versus what is culturally determined. Prove it beyond just saying "i'm right because I already said I was". I've heard the homo economis argument plenty of times. It's overly simplistic, reductionist, and assumes western values of economic maximalization (a cultural bias how about that). It's shit.

>And how dominant and widespread is that tribe's culture compared to, say, european civilization?
You're idea that a "dominant culture" is somehow more valuable is based on your own cultural values. Another bias.

>I'm pretty sure I have a way more in-depth understanding of how evolution works than you do, no offense.
You have failed to demonstrate this. You have succeeded in the opposite.

>Sure, but would you seriously claim that culture arose due to genetic drift??
It's a similar process. Something may have had some biological basis, but drifts so far away from that that it can even be

>I never claimed the contrary. I would not compare two cultures based on chin-shape.
I didn't say you would. Stop being obtuse.

>For example, agricultural or pastoralist cultures are OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR to hunter gatherer cultures.
In what way? In your own value system sure, but what if people value hunting and gathering?

>What? They remain hunter gatherers to this day. Are you sure you're not thinking about another people?
I'm saying hunter/gatherer tribes being less prevalent isn't proof of anything when an outside culture came into the area and imposed it's own value system upon them through force.

[Anonymous No.6904040]

>>6904029
Fuck I'm not even finishing things. I'm going to sleep. If this thread survives until I wake up, I'll respond then. I doubt you'll have anything interesting to say since you're just repeating yourself over and over without providing anything to substantiate your claims, but maybe you will who knows. Stranger shit has happened. For now I must sleep. I'm having trouble keeping my thoughts coherent.

[Anonymous No.6904042]

>>6904001
>I think you're retarded. I've tried to indulge you. Saying "I cannot be objective" is different from saying "I am objective". And besides my claims to inobjectivity are within the context of making value judgments about systems outside of my own cultural value system. It's not like I don't think there aren't any objective facts. The sun is a ball of gas undergoing a nuclear reaction. That's an objective fact.
I think the objectivity of the stance "I cannot be objective" is not remotely comparable to the objectivity of physical facts such as the Sun being a ball a gas.

Anyways, I have to go to lunch. Nice talking to you, although your opinions are retarded. Although your habit of avoiding some parts of my post is infuriating. I told you to use the Aztecs as a basis for comparison with western civilization.

Thx for the link on Diamondberg, I'll read it later.

>The boys being "traumatized" wouldn't agree with you.
Wouldn't they? I have a hard time believing that.

>Because you have a cultural system you're already embedded in.
What if I'm embedded in every single culture. I don't believe this idea that you are "locked" into a single culture.

Anyways, Edward Said is a faggot.

Bye.

[Anonymous No.6904087]

>>6904040
Good night sweet prince

>>6904029
>You've already shown you have a tenuous grasp of evolution.
Quite the contrary friendo. You seem to be unable to understand the basic tenet of evolution on which I base my argument on : cultures arose because they gave a reproductive advantage to the humans who adopted it. Cultures asserted dominance above others because they gave a greater reproductive advantage (for instance, agricultural cultures). This is basic evolution.

Let me summarize by argument once and for all:

Traits which give a reproductive advantage get passed on.

Cultures are universal among humans. There are no acultural humans

Hence, culture gives humans a reproductive advantage.

Tbh it's basic common fucking sense. A solitary individual is more vulnerable than a tribe.

I then expanded on my argument by stating that superior, objectively superior, cultures are those who give a bigger reproductive advantage compared to other, thus inferior, cultures.

The culture of the tribe in New Guinea which practices prepubescent gangrape never left the few square miles in which that tribe has lived in for thousands of years. The culture of western europe made it conquer the world. This proves that western culture is superior to the culture of that New Guinea tribe.

I guess you could say I have a darwinian criteria of the superiority of cultures.

>In what way? In your own value system sure, but what if people value hunting and gathering?
I don't care what those people value. They are objectively inferior.

>I'm saying hunter/gatherer tribes being less prevalent isn't proof of anything when an outside culture came into the area and imposed it's own value system upon them through force.
It's proof that the outside culture is superior. Humans didn't settle down and start farming because it gave them an inferior reproductive advantage.

[Anonymous No.6904094]

>>6904087
>Hence, culture gives humans a reproductive advantage.
Hence cultures must have given humans a reproductive advantage, otherwise they would not have arisen*

[Anonymous No.6904183]

>>6903911
>Anything that gives a reproductive edge gets transmitted down to future generations.
Wrong. Everything that is disadvantageous doesn't get to be passed down.

Big difference.

[Anonymous No.6906106]

>>6903131
What if I like my culture and want to preserve it?

[Anonymous No.6906347]

>>6903435
You're wrong. Macedonia spread Hellenism everywhere, Rome spread its customs everywhere, Britain did, holland did, etc

[Anonymous No.6906360]

"We" Euros left our mark. Pretty much every Asian culture is Anglophilic--British butlers are highly fashionable in China, for example, and the baroque concert tradition is beloved everywhere. The influence of Western culture on the East has been tremendous at this point. Even if our influence wanes, they're worthy heirs to the traditions.

[Anonymous No.6906442]

>>6906106
What if I like low tide and want to prevent the sea from encroaching on my spot of sand?

[Anonymous No.6906471]

>>6903078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjwPp6UxVY

[Anonymous No.6906578]

>>6906106
As we've learned you just need to declare that killing people of other cultures is part of your culture.

[Anonymous No.6906642]

>>6904042
Ok, I'm back.

>I think the objectivity of the stance "I cannot be objective" is not remotely comparable to the objectivity of physical facts such as the Sun being a ball a gas.
I didn't make that claim. I claimed not to reject the possibility of objectivity as a whole, merely in relation to cultural value judgements.

>Aztecs as a basis for comparison with western civilization.
I'm assuming in relation to cannibalism. Well when we compare Aztec practices of cannibalism they're public, state sanctioned and highly ritualized. The rituals (as rituals often do) have the effect of binding the society together, making it more cohesive by forging a stronger group identity. Cannibalism in the US alternatively, is not public, not state sanctioned, though based on criminal psychological profiling, often ritualistic. However, the difference is that the ritual in this case isn't public in the sense that it is broadly shared within the culture. Western cannibals are subcultures that deviate from established norms. Thus their rituals only serve to severe them from society. Within the context of what best serves society, we can see that one type of cannibalism is "good" while the other is not.

>Wouldn't they? I have a hard time believing that.
Because it is a normal rite of passage. It's normalized behavior. The psychological effect is totally different. Your ability to believe that is irrelevant.

>What if I'm embedded in every single culture. I don't believe this idea that you are "locked" into a single culture.
You're not locked into a single culture, but the culture you existed in during your so called formative years, will always be the predominate one. Children's minds are impressionable, and you normalize a lot of practices, beliefs, behaviors, inclinations, habits, etc during this time. Also there are too many cultures for you to be embedded in every single one. Your scenario is ridiculous.

>Anyways, Edward Said is a faggot.
I'm not aware of his sexual orientation.

Next.

Your entire argument for western culture being superior is that their culture gives them a reproductive advantage. Yet western cultures are a world minority in terms of population. Most "developed" nations have falling birth rates. How is this a coherent argument?


>I don't care what those people value. They are objectively inferior.
No, you FEEL they are inferior. Even if your basis for superiority is having greater reproductive advantage, how has western culture demonstrated that? The highest populations (and growing) are India and China, that have cultures very different from the west, even despite globalization.

>It's proof that the outside culture is superior. Humans didn't settle down and start farming because it gave them an inferior reproductive advantage.
Do you have data to back that up, or is that how you FEEL about it? You make a lot of claims that you also claim to be self-evident.