BR Reminder?

[Kadagar_AV]

Just as a reminder.

Attacks in regards to race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity and other such bearings have never been permitted on the .ORG, the rules in regards of these are in the post above this. Any such statements will be met with a polite reminder and an infraction

Thank you.

How can one attack culture without attacking ethnicity?

How can one attack certain parts of the geographical sphere without attacking ethnicity?


I claim Swedish guys use more snuff than any other part of the world, BECAUSE THEY ARE SWEDISH.

Will I get an infraction now?

[Beskar]

The rules have not been 'Updated' there was a reminder they are there. If you read the rules, you will see the following to answer your question:

Nation and Religion Bashing

This occupation, a variant of trolling behaviour, deserves special mention. It is perfectly acceptable to take issue with a government or religious grouping, but we frown upon generalised insults.
Acceptable: "I can't stand the Lilliputian government's excessive use of hemp rope against innocents"
Unacceptable: " Lilliputians are small-minded pygmies"

Just remember that Respect thing we talked about. Would you like what you wrote said about your own nationality?

Religion is another powder keg. Please remember that we have patrons of all religions and none here, and that their beliefs are sincerely held. They are also very often very important to a person's self-image - literally "sacred" - and insults aimed at fellow believers (and unbelievers) provoke hurt and upset. There's nothing wrong with using historical and factual data to make a point, but with care please.

I hope this answers your question.

[Kadagar_AV]

The rules have not been 'Updated' there was a reminder they are there. If you read the rules, you will see the following to answer your question:


I hope this answers your question.

It does.

Sorry, I still have a hard time shaking off the last moderators impact.

MEH!! My bad, please lock or preferably delete thread.

[Hax]

How can one attack culture without attacking ethnicity

The two are not the same.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, I thought it was ironic that Kadagar asked the question in the OP.

On some level, he has embodied the answer to his own question for months if not years.

He's taken shots at "USAnian" values, and ways of doing things -- in short, an attack on aspects of culture -- while using labels that make it clear that no particular US ethnicity is involved. The USA, being multi-ethnic, has a culture that superimposes (though never supplants) ethnic culture.

[Kadagar_AV]

Actually, I thought it was ironic that Kadagar asked the question in the OP.

On some level, he has embodied the answer to his own question for months if not years.

He's taken shots at "USAnian" values, and ways of doing things -- in short, an attack on aspects of culture -- while using labels that make it clear that no particular US ethnicity is involved. The USA, being multi-ethnic, has a culture that superimposes (though never supplants) ethnic culture.

I still find the rule problematic, as the line between ethnicity and culture at times are razor thin... Take gypsies as an example, or jews. Also, discussing racial traits would be.... problematic... no?

Would I be allowed to say that white guys sure seem to run worse than black guys? It's (kind of) an attack on ethnicity, but then a quick look at the olympics make it a fair point.

Is there a USAnian ethnicity? How many hundred years can you have a nation before you start talking ethnicity?

However, I think moderation works real well now, great even. Specially when you consider the 50 shades of grey that is the BR

[Beskar]

You want to know a secret, @Kadagar_AV ?

The way I do I moderation is like this. If you can make a thought-out logical and reasoned post, I will not give you an infraction. If you make a foolish error of judgement, you can usually catch yourself sometimes and edit it away, and I won't give you an infraction.

I would only give an infraction for foolishly-given statements that are obviously offensive and I will 'deduce' the nature of the spirit it is given. You are simply spiteful and hateful, trying to be as offensive as possible, I will point it out and give the infraction. If you simply badly worded something and it is clear you tried, I would/will message you pointing out where you went wrong and how to do it better next time and I may be lenient, perhaps just edit the post and/or give a warning, infraction still if really bad but I would attempt to assist you in my message.

I would avoid to be seen as being bias too, so I would never punish you for thinking red is the best colour, opposed to blue, for example. If a post is openly offensive to me myself. I would 'report' the post myself, then edit any major infringements, then I would have another moderator/admin review the post to cast any judgements upon it.

I would like/hope to think you are in safe-hands, if not, feel free to report me, even!

[Hax]

I still find the rule problematic, as the line between ethnicity and culture at times are razor thin... Take gypsies as an example, or jews. Also, discussing racial traits would be.... problematic... no?

I do not feel qualified to talk about the Roma, however...

Which Jews are you talking about?

It's funny to read stuff like this, partially because your reasoning seems to imply that globalisation and people mixing is a modern process, and that mixed marriages are a new phenomenon. However, a quick glance at the history of basically..anywhere reveals that through trade, or conquest, or for whatever other reason, people have been moving from one place to another for a very long time.

To use an example; when I was in Tallinn (Estonia) this summer, I was standing in the lobby of this hostel and I was talking to some random guy about how I'd been travelling through Estonia for some time, at which point he said that I wouldn't find any "true" Estonians in Tallinn. I asked him to specify what he meant exactly by saying that, especially when you look at Estonia's history, and especially when you consider that it was under German, Danish, Swedish, Polish-Lithuanian and Russian domination at different times in history.

Of course, this is just an example, but "even" nations that have never been dominated by any foreign power will have had ethnic mixing. It's been happening for a very long time and it will probably happen for a very long time as well. Cultural identification has nothing to do with "race" or "ethnicity" but with how people see themselves and others.

What is the difference between a Norwegian, Swede, a Dane, an Icelander and a Faroer?

[Kadagar_AV]

I do not feel qualified to talk about the Roma, however...

Which Jews are you talking about?

It's funny to read stuff like this, partially because your reasoning seems to imply that globalisation and people mixing is a modern process, and that mixed marriages are a new phenomenon. However, a quick glance at the history of basically..anywhere reveals that through trade, or conquest, or for whatever other reason, people have been moving from one place to another for a very long time.

To use an example; when I was in Tallinn (Estonia) this summer, I was standing in the lobby of this hostel and I was talking to some random guy about how I'd been travelling through Estonia for some time, at which point he said that I wouldn't find any "true" Estonians in Tallinn. I asked him to specify what he meant exactly by saying that, especially when you look at Estonia's history, and especially when you consider that it was under German, Danish, Swedish, Polish-Lithuanian and Russian domination at different times in history.

Of course, this is just an example, but "even" nations that have never been dominated by any foreign power will have had ethnic mixing. It's been happening for a very long time and it will probably happen for a very long time as well. Cultural identification has nothing to do with "race" or "ethnicity" but with how people see themselves and others.

What is the difference between a Norwegian, Swede, a Dane, an Icelander and a Faroer?

You seem to read a whole lot of stuff into what I said. Don't. Doesn't make you come off as very intellectual.

Oh, and if you claim there is no such thing as "Jews", giving them a state sure seems like a bad idea. Though they seemed all up for it, no?

Cultural identification has nothing to do with "race" or "ethnicity" but with how people see themselves and others.

Yeah, but how they see themselves and others are tied together with what race and ethnicity they are... So.... Yeah... Kind of a moot point.

[Hax]

Yeah, but how they see themselves and others are tied together with what race and ethnicity they are... So.... Yeah... Kind of a moot point.

Race is not a valid scientific term.

Where it concerns ethnicity, well, now everything is so mixed anyways that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Look at the Baltic states, for example.

Oh, and if you claim there is no such thing as "Jews", giving them a state sure seems like a bad idea. Though they seemed all up for it, no?

Who is reading too much into something here? I never said there is no such thing as "Jews"; I simply demonstrated that the cultural self-identification as "Jewish" clearly transcends ethnic lines.

[Kadagar_AV]

Race is not a valid scientific term.

No?

You sure you don't just not want it to be?

Where it concerns ethnicity, well, now everything is so mixed anyways that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Look at the Baltic states, for example.

I don't agree. Even with pillaged-out western places like the Baltic States, you can still tell they are caucasian and not of the unnameable race known for dwelling on the African continent sub-sahara.

Who is reading too much into something here? I never said there is no such thing as "Jews"; I simply demonstrated that the cultural self-identification as "Jewish" clearly transcends ethnic lines.

So there are Jews then, of all sorts.


What are we debating and why?

[Montmorency]

you can still tell they are caucasian

What is a Caucasian?

[Kadagar_AV]

What is a Caucasian?

White.

[Montmorency]

What could be more worthless than a category based on skin color? That's even less than the "race" the others here reject.

[Hax]

Okay, let's go along with your logic.

Where does "white" stop. Are Iranians white? Or Russians?

[Kadagar_AV]

Okay, let's go along with your logic.

Where does "white" stop. Are Iranians white? Or Russians?

White Iranians and white Russians, sure? Doh!

[Hax]

So what does the term white mean, exactly? What are its characteristics and what are its implications?

[Fragony]

So what does the term white mean, exactly? What are its characteristics and what are its implications?

Caucasian are white, what's the big deal. If there isn't any hostility or downgrading involved what's the problem. It's not a classification.

[Kagemusha]

Caucasian are white, what's the big deal. If there isn't any hostility or downgrading involved what's the problem. It's not a classification.

But are there any "whites" in Caucasus?

[Hax]

Okay, then let's call a train a zurgiblopk, because it doesn't mean anything. You can make stuff up for things if you want to, but it has nothing to do with reality.

[Kagemusha]

Okay, then let's call a train a zurgiblopk, because it doesn't mean anything. You can make stuff up for things if you want to, but it has nothing to do with reality.

I actually like zurgiblopk fine. It sounds more trainish then train..;)

Sorry sometimes the urge to troll is too much to bear.

[Kadagar_AV]

So what does the term white mean, exactly? What are its characteristics and what are its implications?

I don't believe there is an exact definition of what "white" means, exactly. But then, some things are more easily definable by exclusion, not inclusion.

Extremely broadly speaking I have found that [nope] seem more civilized than people of [nope]. IMHO still mainly a cultural thing, but then I do find [nope] to be trash

[Husar]

I don't believe there is an exact definition of what "white" means, exactly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White

It is the color produced by the reflection, transmission or emission of all wavelengths of visible light, without absorption.

[Hax]

I actually like zurgiblopk fine. It sounds more trainish then train..;)

Sorry sometimes the urge to troll is too much to bear.

So do I, that's why I mentioned it. Come on, "train"; it just sounds made up.

[Tuuvi]

No?

You sure you don't just not want it to be?

Kadagar I thought you were one of those intellectuals who trusted science over ideology. Scientists have discarded racial categories because they are useless for studying humanity. In the first half of the 20th century any attempt at a scientific system of racial classification had to include dozens of "sub-races", and the boundaries between them were very hard to define. Which features and traits do you base your classifications on? How do you define groups like the Ainu, who have thick body hair and other European features, but have lived in Japan for thousands of years and have Asian traits as well?

I do agree that ethnicity is heavily intertwined with culture. To say that it's not amounts to using the term as another word for race. So how do you attack culture without attacking ethnicity? You don't. I think most people would be just as offended by having their culture called trash as they would their ethnicity. Your culture is your way of life, after all, and it's a big part of what makes you who you are.

A lot of the abuses minority groups face are caused in part by the belief that their culture is inferior to the culture of the majority. The experiences of Native Americans in boarding schools are a good example of this phenomenon. The majority culture of the US and Canada believed that American Indian cultures were savage and an impediment to civilized life, so they began forcing Indian children to go to boarding schools where they weren't allowed to speak their language and were taught how to live as Euro-Americans.

This was a traumatic experience for many of the children, because they didn't speak English and they were beaten and laughed at whenever they tried to speak in their own language. When they were allowed to return home, they couldn't communicate with family members and they didn't fit into the community anymore, so their family and social ties were broken. The attack on American Indian cultures was an attack on American Indian people.

That being said, I don't think it's necessary to attack a culture for aspects you don't approve of. Culture is not static, it is fluid and it evolves over time. Practices and beliefs can be modified or discontinued without radically changing the culture as a whole. Also, just because a practice is prevalent in a certain culture doesn't always mean that all members of the culture approve or engage in that practice. A culture is the sum of its parts, and I believe there is both good and bad in all cultures.

This doesn't mean immigrants should be given special treatment either. If you immigrate to a country, you should be prepared to follow its laws and deal with some of its customs that you might not like. Throwing Muslims in jail for honor killings does not amount to asking them to give up their language, food and religion.

[Sigurd]

What is the difference between a Norwegian, Swede, a Dane, an Icelander and a Faroer?

I feel this question has not been answered properly.

Outsiders might not see any obvious differences, but they exist.

Swedes might claim to be good at skiing, but reality shows they suck. Dane skiiers are non-existent. If a dane claims to be a skiier, its a lie. Iceland? ... HAHAHAHHA!!! Færøying.. what?
Danes are simple potato farmers - and seem to have one stuck in their throats (maybe they could try rice for a change?). Their laid-back farmer style made them snooze when the North Sea was divided between equal superiors.
Swedes on the seas? HAHAHA.. Their best effort capsized 2 meter from port. Danes on the seas is non-existent. If a dane claims to be a sailor, its a lie.
Icelanders are more or less the ancestors of Norwegian convicts, not unlike the relation between UK and Australia. There is a significant difference though - the mother land is superior in every aspect.
Færøyningene are the unholy union of Irish and Scottish settlers and Norwegian rejects.

Which can only lead to one conclusion: Norwegians are superior in every way.
Wait.. I am not done.
Within the borders of the blessed realm of superior beings, some are more exalted. The holy beings of the west coast outshine any of the other lesser beings.
But one group of the exalted and holy most perfect creation of the almighty, is more godly then the rest. Yes I am referring to the Bergenser. Oh Holy and most sacred of Gods creations, angels dwelling on sacred soil, barely able to stay material.
One more whiff of goodness will uproot this most sacred of cities and be places alongside the city of Enoch in the eternal realm of blessed exaltedness.

Which leads to the final conclusion - Norway, the blessed realm is surrounded by evil lesser beggar/liar nations. Any attempt by any of them to claim superiority over Gods people in the North are lies. You have been forewarned and will therefore clearly see it for what it is when materialized - as it will, in this thread.

[Greyblades]

Suddenly Norway joining the nazis in WW2 makes a lot more sense.
Edit: in case noone gets it, :P

[Fragony]

Suddenly Norway joining the nazis in WW2 makes a lot more sense.

There is a whale stuck in your sarcasm detector, get the poor thing out

[Husar]

There is a whale stuck in your sarcasm detector, get the poor thing out

And a spaceship is stuck in yours: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053574751

[Fisherking]

I just attributed it to there only being jötunn in Norway.