4 ms·

I didn't say it was a good or bad thing, but these are fundamental changes to the basic norms of our society. Right or wrong is irrelevant, but the argument can

I didn't say it was a good or bad thing, but these are fundamental changes to the basic norms of our society. Right or wrong is irrelevant, but the argument can be made that it is under attack. If fundamental changes to a culture isn't a culture under attack, then what would you consider an attacked culture look like?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
colanderman 9y ago
You did imply degradation of so-called "American culture" is a bad thing: "Each one of those chip away at American culture. It _is_ in danger IMO."
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  If something is under attack, is it not in danger?
  - colanderman 9y ago
    I've re-read your comment a few times and am no longer sure how to parse it. At first read it very much sounds like you are defending several backward institutions which you term "American culture" (I would not), as opposed to an impartial observation. (Your use of words like "under attack", "our", and "danger", and negative examples of multiculturalism really make it sound like you wish women stayed at home and everyone was Christian.)
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      I used "under attack" and "danger" to emphasize the massive cultural shift occurring, and to imply that there will be resistance to it. This isn't just one or two minor things changing, it's several massive things, meaning current American culture is in danger of changing into something fundamentally different. Things can be "in danger" in a positive way. For example, in 1945 Nazi Germany was in danger of being defeated, but its defeat was a net positive for the world. I used "our" because I am an American in the midwest that is part of majority American culture, and I assume most readers are too. These changes affect me. I used negative examples of multiculturalism because people tend to react more strongly to negative stimuli, so these are the changes that most people are going to react negatively to, emphasizing the "under attack" portion of my statement. I did edit my original comment to emphasize that I'm not trying to attach my belief of whether or not it's a net positive or negative to the situation, so hopefully that will help a bit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nyolfen 9y ago
  almost everyone in the world is a pretty big fan of the culture they grew up in. if any third world culture was actively derided and in this way it would be considered downright colonial. “so-called moroccan culture” etc.
krapp 9y ago
It's an illusion that American culture (or any culture) has maintained some solid state until immigration or liberal ideology forced change. American culture has always changed from generation to generation, deviating from the norm, it just happened that until recently most of those changes had been implemented by demographic groups which already held power, and therefore tended to reinforce the status of a white, Christian, conservative default. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that the influence on American culture made by the demographic minority is less legitimate than that of the majority. As immigration to the US has increased and with it the political power of different ethnicities and religions, the locus of American identity has become distributed to reflect that greater complexity. And that's what's happening - an increase in cultural complexity reflecting an increase in demographic complexity and distribution of political and social power. Therefore, I submit that it's not possible to attack a culture from within that culture, as a participant of that culture.
andrewjl 9y ago
None of those basic norms you listed were espoused by the founders of the country. Freedom of speech, belief and equality under law for all was. (However imperfectly, both then and today.) What you consider to be under attack are echoes of a traditionalist past we're trying to put behind us. And good riddance.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  There's a difference between law and culture. It's legal for a man to go around and call everyone an asshole, but it's also fine for our culture to look negatively upon that person for his actions. Along the same vein, there can be legal freedoms provided to us while having cultural limitations placed on those freedoms. Social pressures are powerful and occur in every group.
  - andrewjl 9y ago
    The distinction is nebulous. Law is an artifact of culture, and reflects cultural attitudes towards subjects the law covers. Our culture is a culture of (espoused) equality, religious freedom, property rights, supremacy of secular institutions, and individual agency. Holidays, religious traditions, and to some extent language are artifacts of where the earliest American founders happened to be from, not bedrocks of culture nor the only foundations upon which communities can be built. Edit: The alienation you imply is happening is a direct result of our collective inability to let go of outdated traditionalism and give people space to explore who and what they truly are.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

colanderman 9y ago

You did imply degradation of so-called "American culture" is a bad thing: "Each one of those chip away at American culture. It _is_ in danger IMO."

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
If something is under attack, is it not in danger?
- colanderman 9y ago
  I've re-read your comment a few times and am no longer sure how to parse it. At first read it very much sounds like you are defending several backward institutions which you term "American culture" (I would not), as opposed to an impartial observation. (Your use of words like "under attack", "our", and "danger", and negative examples of multiculturalism really make it sound like you wish women stayed at home and everyone was Christian.)
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    I used "under attack" and "danger" to emphasize the massive cultural shift occurring, and to imply that there will be resistance to it. This isn't just one or two minor things changing, it's several massive things, meaning current American culture is in danger of changing into something fundamentally different. Things can be "in danger" in a positive way. For example, in 1945 Nazi Germany was in danger of being defeated, but its defeat was a net positive for the world. I used "our" because I am an American in the midwest that is part of majority American culture, and I assume most readers are too. These changes affect me. I used negative examples of multiculturalism because people tend to react more strongly to negative stimuli, so these are the changes that most people are going to react negatively to, emphasizing the "under attack" portion of my statement. I did edit my original comment to emphasize that I'm not trying to attach my belief of whether or not it's a net positive or negative to the situation, so hopefully that will help a bit.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nyolfen 9y ago
almost everyone in the world is a pretty big fan of the culture they grew up in. if any third world culture was actively derided and in this way it would be considered downright colonial. “so-called moroccan culture” etc.

krapp 9y ago

It's an illusion that American culture (or any culture) has maintained some solid state until immigration or liberal ideology forced change. American culture has always changed from generation to generation, deviating from the norm, it just happened that until recently most of those changes had been implemented by demographic groups which already held power, and therefore tended to reinforce the status of a white, Christian, conservative default. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that the influence on American culture made by the demographic minority is less legitimate than that of the majority. As immigration to the US has increased and with it the political power of different ethnicities and religions, the locus of American identity has become distributed to reflect that greater complexity. And that's what's happening - an increase in cultural complexity reflecting an increase in demographic complexity and distribution of political and social power. Therefore, I submit that it's not possible to attack a culture from within that culture, as a participant of that culture.

andrewjl 9y ago

None of those basic norms you listed were espoused by the founders of the country. Freedom of speech, belief and equality under law for all was. (However imperfectly, both then and today.) What you consider to be under attack are echoes of a traditionalist past we're trying to put behind us. And good riddance.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
There's a difference between law and culture. It's legal for a man to go around and call everyone an asshole, but it's also fine for our culture to look negatively upon that person for his actions. Along the same vein, there can be legal freedoms provided to us while having cultural limitations placed on those freedoms. Social pressures are powerful and occur in every group.
- andrewjl 9y ago
  The distinction is nebulous. Law is an artifact of culture, and reflects cultural attitudes towards subjects the law covers. Our culture is a culture of (espoused) equality, religious freedom, property rights, supremacy of secular institutions, and individual agency. Holidays, religious traditions, and to some extent language are artifacts of where the earliest American founders happened to be from, not bedrocks of culture nor the only foundations upon which communities can be built. Edit: The alienation you imply is happening is a direct result of our collective inability to let go of outdated traditionalism and give people space to explore who and what they truly are.