Is the destruction and annihilation of culture in the US inevitable?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also what is being referred to is largely what "cultural appropriation" is but as I've pointed out before no one but the biggest dumbsh!ts on the Internet including 4channers has a problem with that.

[Human]

I agree with BRTD completely.

I hope the destruction and annihilation of culture is inevitable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, let me take this occasion to finally point out that "exquisite" is not a word in French. No idea if BRTD is referencing something, but that still annoys me.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also, let me take this occasion to finally point out that "exquisite" is not a word in French. No idea if BRTD is referencing something, but that still annoys me.

https://youtu.be/3CkqhWIrMYM

[Mopsus]

First I thought BRTD was talking about the collapse of White "ethnic" culture into a general or regional (White) American identity, and I was like "okay that's a interesting discussion", then I found out he was talking about a general collapse of a collective American cultural identity and tradition, and my opinion changed to "that's the stupidest thing I have heard this month".

No BRTD the collective culture is not becoming annihilated, in fact the creation of mass media and standardised education have resulted in it becoming less heterogene. A author archetypes can through mass education become universal among a population, while mass media have allowed the spread of things like Black Friday or St. Patricks day.

That's kind of point. Mass media means people are no longer locked into a culture they are born into. They're free to select and associate with aspects of others they want to and simply choose whatever they like best. Your heritage becomes a non-factor.

To incorporate aspects of other cultures into your identity, you'll need more familiarity with them than reading a Wikipedia article can give you (otherwise, your incorporation will be half-whole at best, mere exoticization at worst). Getting the right familiarity is a challenge when you were neither raised in the tradition, nor have access to those communities where the tradition is practiced.

[Cassius]

I'd also like to add that, if what BRTD says about 'Millennials' is true (which I don't believe in the slightest), then far from casting off the bonds of 'culture' and leaving everyone free to 'self select', they are simply forming a new culture that they will foist upon their kids.

I mean, to say that one can self select their identity is in and of itself an expression of a particular culture. One example we see of this today is when people claim that they can select a gender identity for themselves, or a label for their sexuality (leaving these particular debates to one side for the moment), something I'm sure BRTD would applaud; this is not an example of people becoming unmoored from culture as an abstract concept, it's an example of them becoming unmoored from a specific culture (or indeed cultures), as a result of the emergence of a new culture. Culture as a concept cannot be destroyed or annihilated, as it's ultimately what makes us human, it can simply be modified or replaced.

[TJ in Oregon]

You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.

But is any of that actually consistent with reality?

For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist. Therefore, change is impossible.

But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.

The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.

If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

If the left has their way, yes.  The right is fighting against multiculturalism (or maybe more monoculturalism, which is the endgame of the left's ideas). Of course the counter-argument is that these people are bigoted, racist, sexist, etc.

Is fighting for the existence of your culture really racist, sexist, or whatever? No. There are bigots in the group, yes but it's not the great majority of them.  People like to live with similar people whether that's ideology-based, religion-based, race-based, etc.  Trying to homogenize the human race into one culture isn't going to work.

[Mopsus]

You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.

But is any of that actually consistent with reality?

For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist. Therefore, change is impossible.

But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.

The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.

If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.

Is this a quote from somewhere?

[ingemann]

First I thought BRTD was talking about the collapse of White "ethnic" culture into a general or regional (White) American identity, and I was like "okay that's a interesting discussion", then I found out he was talking about a general collapse of a collective American cultural identity and tradition, and my opinion changed to "that's the stupidest thing I have heard this month".

No BRTD the collective culture is not becoming annihilated, in fact the creation of mass media and standardised education have resulted in it becoming less heterogene. A author archetypes can through mass education become universal among a population, while mass media have allowed the spread of things like Black Friday or St. Patricks day.

That's kind of point. Mass media means people are no longer locked into a culture they are born into. They're free to select and associate with aspects of others they want to and simply choose whatever they like best. Your heritage becomes a non-factor.

I think a major problem here is that you may be the least cosmopolitan person on this board (no insult), you doesn't seem to get what makes up culture, likely because you belong to the cultural dominant culture not just in USA but also in the world. As such you have a very superficial understanding of what makes up culture. As example when I meet a Arab I don't look him into his eyes or show him the soles of my feet, not unless I want to insult him, when I meet a Dane I don't know at a bus stop, I don't talk to him no matter how long we wait side by side, unless I have a impersonal question to him ("have that or that bus arrived", do you know what bus I have to shift to and where to get to some specific place" etc), or to complain over the weather (the social acceptable smalltalk). When I go into the bus I don't sit down beside a person if there's still empty seats, where I can avoid sitting down next to a person, I don't talk in the bus and try my best to ignore everyone around me, unless of course I meet someone I know, this is seen as the proper behaviour. If I for example was a Turk I would sit down next to a person, and it would be impolite not to make small talk.

All that is make up real culture, running around playing Ingress, listening to specific kind of music or go into a specific a specific chuch are not usual part of a culture, that's part of a subculture. 

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Lol


but, please stop

[Intell]

Stop, You're not smart. Not everybody is white (not even in the us), and this is also impossible among white people as well. LGBT culture, feminist culture, white ethnic culture, common american culture, consumerist culture.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Did Americans have culture to begin with? /european

[Mr. Smith]

Well duh, culture is finite, civilizations come and go.

[TJ in Oregon]

You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.

But is any of that actually consistent with reality?

For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist. Therefore, change is impossible.

But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.

The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.

If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.

Is this a quote from somewhere?

The first half of it is Heraclitus and Parmenides, where there are links.

[Mopsus]

You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.

But is any of that actually consistent with reality?

For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist. Therefore, change is impossible.

But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.

The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.

If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.

Is this a quote from somewhere?

The first half of it is Heraclitus and Parmenides, where there are links.

I'm familiar with their work. I just didn't expect to hear them mentioned on the Atlas Forum, which is why I asked

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

First I thought BRTD was talking about the collapse of White "ethnic" culture into a general or regional (White) American identity, and I was like "okay that's a interesting discussion", then I found out he was talking about a general collapse of a collective American cultural identity and tradition, and my opinion changed to "that's the stupidest thing I have heard this month".

No BRTD the collective culture is not becoming annihilated, in fact the creation of mass media and standardised education have resulted in it becoming less heterogene. A author archetypes can through mass education become universal among a population, while mass media have allowed the spread of things like Black Friday or St. Patricks day.

That's kind of point. Mass media means people are no longer locked into a culture they are born into. They're free to select and associate with aspects of others they want to and simply choose whatever they like best. Your heritage becomes a non-factor.

I think a major problem here is that you may be the least cosmopolitan person on this board (no insult)

I live in a majority non-white neighborhood.

you doesn't seem to get what makes up culture, likely because you belong to the cultural dominant culture not just in USA but also in the world.

Actually if certain posters are to be believed, that is not true. As I've said before, I have some Catholic ancestry, and if being Catholic is just like being a race as many on Atlas believe, that makes me 1/4 Catholic, and we all know that Catholic culture is completely different and distinct from the rest of mainstream culture, so I clearly have some connection to an out of the mainstream culture.

But in all seriousness, yeah that statement is obviously true.

As such you have a very superficial understanding of what makes up culture. As example when I meet a Arab I don't look him into his eyes or show him the soles of my feet, not unless I want to insult him, when I meet a Dane I don't know at a bus stop, I don't talk to him no matter how long we wait side by side, unless I have a impersonal question to him ("have that or that bus arrived", do you know what bus I have to shift to and where to get to some specific place" etc), or to complain over the weather (the social acceptable smalltalk). When I go into the bus I don't sit down beside a person if there's still empty seats, where I can avoid sitting down next to a person, I don't talk in the bus and try my best to ignore everyone around me, unless of course I meet someone I know, this is seen as the proper behaviour. If I for example was a Turk I would sit down next to a person, and it would be impolite not to make small talk.

Actually I never knew any of that.

But truth is, the way you described what Danes do at bus stops is exactly what everyone does here. And as you probably know Minneapolis does actually have many immigrants and refugees, and you're more likely to see them on a bus than mainstream white American-born Minnesotans.

All that is make up real culture, running around playing Ingress, listening to specific kind of music or go into a specific a specific chuch are not usual part of a culture, that's part of a subculture. 

Yes. But that's sort of my point. People are abandoning their culture for subculture.

For example that video I linked above to show Tony where my name came from, the vocalist of that band has a very Italian last name, yet I've been told he goes to a hipster church in San Diego, he's very much showing hardcore fashion, I've seen him do interviews that use all sorts of terms and phrases that only people very much into the scene would understand, and yet nothing about distinct Italian-American stuff at all. He's just a very scene guy with an Italian name.

So does simply being an Italian-American make him more culturally similar to Keystone Phil than me? Of course not.

Hell I'd go so far as to way that I have more in common culturally with the people in the scene in South Africa than I do with other pasty whitebread white people in the Midwest who have never heard of the scene...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hell I'd go so far as to way that I have more in common culturally with the people in the scene in South Africa than I do with other pasty whitebread white people in the Midwest who have never heard of the scene...

If you had really understood ingemann's post, even you would be hesitant to claim this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hell I'd go so far as to way that I have more in common culturally with the people in the scene in South Africa than I do with other pasty whitebread white people in the Midwest who have never heard of the scene...

If you had really understood ingemann's post, even you would be hesitant to claim this.

Well I'll admit that might be a bit far fetched, but saying that the vocalist of Being as an Ocean has more in common culturally with me than Keystone Phil certainly isn't.

[ingemann]

Hell I'd go so far as to way that I have more in common culturally with the people in the scene in South Africa than I do with other pasty whitebread white people in the Midwest who have never heard of the scene...

If you had really understood ingemann's post, even you would be hesitant to claim this.

Well I'll admit that might be a bit far fetched, but saying that the vocalist of Being as an Ocean has more in common culturally with me than Keystone Phil certainly isn't.

When I deal with a fellow Dane, we get the same cultural clues, which foreigner often don't. Let me come with a example, I read a foreign (American) article about Denmark, in this he saw the fact that so many used bicycles in Copenhagen as a sign of poverty. A Dane would see a entire different signals, here's the fact you use it on the way to work a sign of status. You show you have control over your life by using more time in the morning to go to work, you show you're environmental and that you' focus on your health. Everything people does are cultural symbols and clues, a wheat bread is a sign of a unhealthy diet, rue bread is a sign of healthy diet, to such a degree that giving you children wheat bread in their pack lunch makes the other parents look down on you.

In the same way you and Keystone Phil would get many of the same cultural clues, which the vocalist or I wouldn't necessary get.

Cultural are the overarching element of a society, a subculture is something which exist below it, which can't replace it, because it lacks the universality of a culture.

[TJ in Oregon]

You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.

But is any of that actually consistent with reality?

For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist. Therefore, change is impossible.

But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.

The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.

If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.

Is this a quote from somewhere?

The first half of it is Heraclitus and Parmenides, where there are links.

I'm familiar with their work. I just didn't expect to hear them mentioned on the Atlas Forum, which is why I asked

Somehow it seemed like the appropriate response to this thread

[RINO Tom]

I would love to actually see what my reaction would be if someone like BRTD struck up this type of conversation in a bar or something and I overheard it.

[The Mikado]

Did Americans have culture to begin with? /european

Someone's never been to Louisiana. Very, very distinct.

[J. J.]

Culture, in just about any sense you use the term, will change, but it will not go away. 

[KingSweden]

I finally finished the last season of Girls (which is basically the most Millennial show ever) and I can not imagine any character on that show caring the slightest about their ethnic heritage and traditions. They're the very epitome of "rootless cosmopolitan".

Girls is a Millennial show in the sense that all Millennials are exclusively affluent New Yorkers who want to find themselves and explore their art with their pretentious self absorbed Brooklynite friends. Because the charmed experiences of an Upper East Side socialite who has been fawmed over in NY media circles since she was a child and has admitted to some odd sexual experiences involving her younger sister are pretty universal to people my age.