I’m not OP but I would say one difference is the fact that they don’t mind that people of different ethnicity live in the same country, but they don’t want them to mix what’s part of their culture… Or if we’re honest, in most cases they want the majority to not adopt things that are associated to other cultures because they assume that it’s done with bad intentions or that’s it’s a form of theft, but I’m sure they wouldn’t say a thing if a minority did the same…
So they’re in favor of a world where whites are exposed to everyone else (contrary to the right) but don’t mix up with them, not as a way to keep them “pure” (contrary to the right), but as a way to stop them from “stealing” from other cultures what makes them unique…
Hence the quotation marks, telling someone they’re doing cultural appropriation is basically accusing them of stealing something that’s unique to another culture and that can’t be replicated by someone who isn’t part of it.
Oh fuck, how dare you ask someone on here to actually give reason, facts or prove of anything they make up in their heads!
Here, take my downvotes, there is no need to argue if I can just ramble and feel superior to you that way!
Sorry for the delay, I am actually right in the middle of celebrating the lunar New Year!
I do agree with what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think you’re going about it in the right way, and I have enough time to complain(sorry, your heart’s on the right place).
Your comment has two main problems, 1) hat on a hat and 2) unsubstantiated equivocation
The rebuttal within the meme is funny, welcoming and correct by the standards of the drip making the first irritating comment and the progressive audience who agrees(with you) that sharing is caring.
Agreeing with the sentiment is fine, but you go out of your way to re-explain their perfect rebuttal in a less accurate and more pedantic way.
“humanity absolutely thrives when cultures mix” is a positive and accurate comment within context, while the remainder of your comment and its reasoning is beyond shaky and certainly unhelpful.
You’re making unsubstantiated assumptions on the “natural conclusion” of well-intentioned, though misguided protectiveness.
You maintain, without proof or sound logical argument, that the natural conclusion of protecting the cultural practices of others is the intentional separation of all ethnicities, and the implied sterilization of “lesser” ethnicities.
I don’t mind the sentiment of your argument so much as the inaccurate and harmful logical process that equivocates irritating do-gooders with murderous bigots.
I’m interested in your opinion. Do you care to elaborate?
I’m not OP but I would say one difference is the fact that they don’t mind that people of different ethnicity live in the same country, but they don’t want them to mix what’s part of their culture… Or if we’re honest, in most cases they want the majority to not adopt things that are associated to other cultures because they assume that it’s done with bad intentions or that’s it’s a form of theft, but I’m sure they wouldn’t say a thing if a minority did the same…
So they’re in favor of a world where whites are exposed to everyone else (contrary to the right) but don’t mix up with them, not as a way to keep them “pure” (contrary to the right), but as a way to stop them from “stealing” from other cultures what makes them unique…
Either way, it’s stupid 🤷
It’s not possible to steal culture, this is ridiculous
You wouldn’t download a culture…
Hence the quotation marks, telling someone they’re doing cultural appropriation is basically accusing them of stealing something that’s unique to another culture and that can’t be replicated by someone who isn’t part of it.
Oh fuck, how dare you ask someone on here to actually give reason, facts or prove of anything they make up in their heads! Here, take my downvotes, there is no need to argue if I can just ramble and feel superior to you that way!
/s , obvioisly.
Sorry for the delay, I am actually right in the middle of celebrating the lunar New Year!
I do agree with what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think you’re going about it in the right way, and I have enough time to complain(sorry, your heart’s on the right place).
Your comment has two main problems, 1) hat on a hat and 2) unsubstantiated equivocation
Agreeing with the sentiment is fine, but you go out of your way to re-explain their perfect rebuttal in a less accurate and more pedantic way.
You’re making unsubstantiated assumptions on the “natural conclusion” of well-intentioned, though misguided protectiveness.
You maintain, without proof or sound logical argument, that the natural conclusion of protecting the cultural practices of others is the intentional separation of all ethnicities, and the implied sterilization of “lesser” ethnicities.
I don’t mind the sentiment of your argument so much as the inaccurate and harmful logical process that equivocates irritating do-gooders with murderous bigots.