Is it wrong to respectfully dislike a culture?

["Melyssa K" Kennedy]

Of course it's fine to respectfully dislike a culture. I think it's even healthy. Some cultures live and act like fucking animals from the Jurassic period. It's like their evolutionary process just stopped about 3500 years ago.

I can't even begin to point out how dumb this part of your statement is. The Jurassic period was full of animals that were not particularly intelligent, but operated largely on instinct. The cultures you are referring to don't act on instinct at all. They act on how they were raised by their parents and according to their religion. Second, 3,500 years is virtually nothing in the span of evolutionary processes. Yes, traits can change and micro-evolution occurs on the genetic level, but you don't see drastic phenotypic changes in that short a time, especially on the functional level.

[Llamas]

I see, but if you dislike several habits or traditions of a certain culture, doesn't it follow that you could say that you generally dislike that culture as a whole?

No...? I dislike quite a few habits or traditions of American culture, but I'd never say I dislike our culture. Because there are plenty of good things, as well, and a lot of the negative things make more sense when you research the origin. There are things to love and hate about every single culture. Let's take gypsy culture, for example. I dislike their tendency to pickpocket and how careless they are with their possessions - their homes and such are almost always in ruins, even if they're given a new one. However, as careless as they might be, I appreciate their carefree ways. They're such friendly people, so easy-going... and they take such great care of each other. So much more than many cultures do. So I may hate a few things about their culture, but I also respect other parts and can't say I dislike the culture. It just seems like a very uninformed thing to say. If someone says they dislike a culture, my guess is that they don't know much about it except a few things they don't like.

[Paint_It_Black]

Wouldn't you recognize this view of yours as uncommon and socially unacceptable though? You're sort of acting as though I'm making an issue of nothing, yet I would say this view is very uncommon to express.

Ah, but you see, you didn't ask me to explain to you what mainstream society thinks. Your question was phrased like you were looking for personal opinions.

I'm really not particularly interested anymore in what mainstream society thinks to be honest with you. Mainstream society watch X Factor and listen to N-Dubz. I've accepted that mainstream society and I are better off living apart.

[MOTO13]

I can't even begin to point out how dumb this part of your statement is. The Jurassic period was full of animals that were not particularly intelligent, but operated largely on instinct. The cultures you are referring to don't act on instinct at all. They act on how they were raised by their parents and according to their religion. Second, 3,500 years is virtually nothing in the span of evolutionary processes. Yes, traits can change and micro-evolution occurs on the genetic level, but you don't see drastic phenotypic changes in that short a time, especially on the functional level.

Try not to take everything LITERALLY. Try to find the hidden message in there. Go ahead and look, you'll get it eventually...maybe.

[Paint_It_Black]

I suspect having a conversation with "Melyssa K" would be like talking to Lore's little brother.



Though it should be noted that I say this with only positivity and affection in my heart.

Also, typing "lt commander" into my browser just filled me with joy upon discovering that Data was the top result.



But seeing Chief O'Brien in the wrong uniform was deeply upsetting. Unlike Worf, O'Brien does not look good in red.

Live long and prosper, yo. This thread has just been Trek'd.

[Llamas]

Just noticed this:

There's no right answer because everyone has their own views spanning the spectrum from anti-hate and all-loving to just plain ignorant and genocidal.

Genocidal? I'm not sure which word you meant to write, but I'm pretty sure it's not that. :P An individual can not be genocidal. Maybe murderous?

[Paint_It_Black]

An individual can not be genocidal. Maybe murderous?

Why not? Surely genocidal is the adjective form of genocide just as homicidal is the adjective form of homicide? Murderous is definitely not an acceptable substitute in this case because that is synonymous with homicidal. Genocide is generally considered a far more heinous crime than simple homicide so to replace her use of genocidal with murderous would not convey the same weight of meaning at all. Right? Or would you also say that a person cannot be homicidal? I could possibly see an argument you could make for that but it would go very strongly against common usage.

Also, because I like to be a spectacular pedant, I feel I must point out that "Melyssa K" did not actually assert that an individual could be genocidal. She was referring to views that an individual could hold and as such was asserting that opinions can be genocidal. I'm not sure if that makes any difference for you.

Just to be on the safe side I will state as always that I do acknowledge your expertise in this area and I challenge you only in the spirit of an enthusiastic amateur engaging a professional.

[Llamas]

Why not? Surely genocidal is the adjective form of genocide just as homicidal is the adjective form of homicide? Murderous is definitely not an acceptable substitute in this case because that is synonymous with homicidal. Genocide is generally considered a far more heinous crime than simple homicide so to replace her use of genocidal with murderous would not convey the same weight of meaning at all. Right? Or would you also say that a person cannot be homicidal? I could possibly see an argument you could make for that but it would go very strongly against common usage.

Also, because I like to be a spectacular pedant, I feel I must point out that "Melyssa K" did not actually assert that an individual could be genocidal. She was referring to views that an individual could hold and as such was asserting that opinions can be genocidal. I'm not sure if that makes any difference for you.

Just to be on the safe side I will state as always that I do acknowledge your expertise in this area and I challenge you only in the spirit of an enthusiastic amateur engaging a professional.

1) It is not a real word. Every single definition for it is a definition for genocide, not genocidal. https://www.google.si/search?q=is+ge...icial&safe=off

2) Even if it was a word, I would argue that a person can not be such. Yes, I think people can be homicidal. But the majority of studies on genocide inform us that genocide is not planned. In fact, it's funny that you pointed out that she was describing opinions rather than people as genocidal - if I were to accept this as a word, I'd say we could say "genocidal leaders", and we could also say, "with everything the government and the paramilitary groups were doing, more and more people became genocidal." I still don't like it because in the former situation, we'd say "genocide leaders", and in the latter, I'd prefer, "with everything the government and the paramilitary groups were doing, more and more people were sucked into contributing to the genocide," or something similar.

3) Homicidal has a definition, and murderous is a synonym: "capable of or tending towards murder; murderous." One can not be "capable of or tending towards genocide." (That reminds me of an argument in another thread - according to you and this definition, every single person is homicidal because we are all capable of homicide. :P) There are basically two kinds of people who are involved in acts of genocide: a) those who are roped in in masses because people do not think for themselves - these people hate themselves for the rest of their lives afterward, and b) those with multiple screws loose who don't actually intend to wipe out a race, but rather they do not care what happens to said people. Hitler himself didn't even intend to wipe out the Jews. He read speeches and laws written by other people and liked to choose things that were extreme - to get people paying attention. The guy (Wagner) who wrote the laws was for sterilizing the Jews, but he was not for killing them. Hitler didn't even read the laws ahead of time before giving his speech. But he read it, and that incited violence. I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe that anyone can be "genocidal", and even if you look at a guy like Heinrich Himmler, he was just a hateful person who liked to hurt others, and he saw what was being imposed in Germany and ran with it as an outlet for his hate. He was also not "genocidal", but definitely murderous/homicidal. He just wanted to oppress people. Heydrich was maybe closer, but he really just wanted power. He got a job working as in security for the Nazis, and just did everything he could to move up the ranks - and successfully got to a point where he was only taking orders from Hitler, Himmler, and Göring. To me, genocidal would mean that you tend toward wanting to wipe out an entire race, and if you take a really serious look at the culture of genocides throughout history, that just doesn't happen. I only used Nazi leaders as examples, but you can name one person you consider to have been "genocidal" and I will explain why I don't think they were

[Baldwin]

The 'tism is strong in this thread.

PiB, Llamas, I'm ashamed of you both. Sperging out over star trek and the correct definition of words and generally acting more autistic than bighead. For shame!

PS, llamas, the correct answer was Adolf Eichmann. Now, outside the Reich, explain how Cato the Elder wasn't genocidal.

[Paint_It_Black]

To me, genocidal would mean that you tend toward wanting to wipe out an entire race, and if you take a really serious look at the culture of genocides throughout history, that just doesn't happen.

I totally agree that's what genocidal means but I don't understand why you don't think it applies to anyone. Still, rather than get sidetracked by that, don't you think it could be applied nicely to certain views, opinions or ideologies at least?



This guy subscribes to a genocidal ideology. Genocidal is an exquisitely apt adjective in the case of modern neo-nazi white supremacists. Their entire lifestyle is built around advocating the extermination of non-whites.

Every single definition for it is a definition for genocide, not genocidal.

So? Merriam-Webster lists genocidal as the adjective of genocide. It doesn't need its own entry.

That reminds me of an argument in another thread - according to you and this definition, every single person is homicidal because we are all capable of homicide. :P

Not quite. My stance in that argument was that we all have untapped potential for extreme violence and murder. We would only be homicidal once that potential has been realized. But never mind that.

Sperging out over star trek and the correct definition of words

Mind your tongue patak lest someone free you of it.