This thread isn't about cannabalism. Although, I bet there are a few rites of passage that include such...
Yeah, again you get to go back and 'explain' yourself but point stands.
Forgetting what others like the monkey here perceive as culture or not, you first said utilitarianism is representative of American culture then go on to say that fast food like McDonald's, which you also say is utilitarian, is not representative of that culture.
In other words, your dribble goes something like : Y is and is not, and is and is not part of X.
No one is saying that McD's is the sole architecture of American culture as tea is not the sole representative of English culture either, but this does not take away from its being a representative of it.
Fastfood is as representative of America as General Motors and Mark Twain.
Something either is or is not, there's no need for the 'true' in 'true representative" here unless you think fastfood is lying.
Ok. Let me try to explain this a bit more clearly then. I thought my point was obvious. Perhaps its too obvious (to me) thus it is displaying itself as a difficulty to explain (to you.)
You say this:
"Y is and is not, and is and is not part of X."
Not quite.
For one thing, I want to explain that I'm not denying that MdD's IS an aspect of culture. It is so on many levels. I think that perhaps its strongest leel of culture is in the 'make a turd' utilitarian ideal that I mentioned earlier. In fact, I made the exact same point that you did to Spurious. Catching him in his contradiction.
I'd asked him for his definition of culture and he disappointed me by quoting wikipedia rather than defining exactly what it is that he feels is being 'annihilated' by McD's.
The thing is that what I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between types of culture.
Specifically, I want to point out the difference between the type of culture that is implied in the phrase "getting culture" and the more mainstream culture that is simply... societal norms (would this be an adequate definition? Hmm. More thought really is required... But do you see what I'm getting at?)
Basically, here's the thing. Spurious and many others look down on McDonalds and other fast food type restaurants (as well as other aspects of a quick and dirty, utilitarian culture... television for instance. Spurious was just mentioning in some other thread how he gets caught up with television and therefore his defense is to not have one around.... See? Weakness. The television proves his victor by the lengths he must go to avoid its... influences.) McD's would seem to be another thing which he has a weakness for. Or so it would seem. Else why would he object to it as he has? Why would he claim that it annihilates his culture the way it does? (Yes. I understand and was the first to make the point that it is not annihilating anything. Merely replacing one with the other...)
So. That's one thing. We both agree on that.
The distinction is that X can be both Y and not Y. Because both Y and not Y can be encompassed within X. This is not contradictory at all. (After all. Is culture a formal system striving for consistency?) Culture can be Rembrandt at the Louvre. It can also be Joe Shmoe picking his nose in public (where it is common practice to pick one's nose in public, you understand.) These two things have almost nothing in common, and yet they are both aspects of culture.
Hmmm.
Am I being clear?
I have this idea that I'm still being vague and undecipherable...
Fastfood is as representative of America as General Motors and Mark Twain.
Yes. I agree. However, would you compare GM with Mark Twain? Or with McDonalds? Or with Rembrandt?
My point is that the disdain for McDonald's is actually a symptom of something far greater. (You could even say its cultural.) Those who disparage such things don't really care about McDonalds. They have an agenda (I hate the word, but it does fit.) They compare the best of their culture with the worst of another.
McDonalds with the Louvre.
Wanna bet that there are other aspects of a culture that one could compare with McD's without McD's coming out so bad in comparison? Of course. But it never happens...
That's what I object to. And it is for this reason that I am drawing the distinction that I am. Yes. I'm picking nits. But there we are.
Something either is or is not, there's no need for the 'true' in 'true representative" here unless you think fastfood is lying.
What I meant by true was a simple method of seperating the two forms of culture. "True" culture would be the hoity-toity shit that people think of when they think of culture.
Yeah, again you get to go back and 'explain' yourself but point stands.
Absolutely. The point does stand. I never disagreed.
What makes you think I'm talking about you, then?
Hmm. "You idiots"? (I misquoted earlier and said "you fuckers" instead. Apologies.)
Why does a master make sure his slave never learns how to read?
The earliest scribes and the few literate in the ancient world were by and large slaves.
Anyway. Yes. Again. I don't deny that women have had it rough.
Much of this is an aspect of land ownership, of course. Before 'civilization' there was no real need for paternity. You remember those talks we had about primitive tribes and their mating habits, don't you? I forget all the names. There was one from China in which the males have no rights or responsibilities over their offspring. There isn't even a word for father in their language. And, there was that South American tribe where 'marriage' was a simple agreement to care for a child and sometimes involve multiple men with one woman. And that the husband actually encourages other men to sleep with his wife (especially during pregnancy) because she's often too much for him. And of course the South Pacific islanders...
But, once farming took hold and land began to be parceled out, it became necessary for some type of assurance that it is
your children inheriting your land that you slaved for.
It was at this time, in the early neolithic, that the early 'goddess' cultures were turned on their heads by their patriarchal descendents. You still haven't read Joseph Campbell, have you? The Masks of God explain this excellently. In many cases the myths were simply reversed, thus showing that the meaning of the myth wasn't important, but rather that it denied the earlier female-centric (or at least more balanced) myths which it replaced.
And when in control, what's this? Why, you take all the credit of course!!.
Well. Women have found many ways to their own form of power. Even in the days of rampant oppression. Catherine Medici, for instance.
Ergo, shove your cute 'so?' up your cornhole- you're the one that said
“Look at you females, so quick to take all the credit for yourself.”.
Stupid.
Ha!
You're right. I'm stupid. And you're not being feminine...
The feminine method is more centered around obscurement. The power behind the power. Most powerful females are invisible because they feed the egos of their males. They don't take the credit themselves. They use it as bait...
Anyway. All I meant was that you were trying to hog the limelight in the "my gender has suffered far more than yours in rites of passage" competition. I never once attempted to deny that women have suffered much.
You know. It really would be so much better to have a matriarchal society. There could never be doubt of maternity... could there? I suppose some few odd circumstances. But on the whole it's hard to say that a child that you've squeezed out your own vagina isn't yours and doesn't deserve a piece of your inheritence.
