Cultural appropriation mythicist angry that people have different tastes to her

[Metaphor]

So are those who object to having their culture appropriated by others. Cultural appropriation decreases their happiness and sense of well being.

My being openly gay decreases the happiness and wellbeing of homophobes, but that's no reason to ask me to stop being openly gay, is it?

Can you cite statutes that support your case?

No, I cannot cite any statues that take away human rights from Lakota people because tourist operators operate sweat lodges.

I think fraud is wrong. Don't you? Fraud is generally against the law. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, fraud is wrong.

Fraud is a wrong committed against both the consumer who purchased a fraudulent good or service but also for the owner of what is genuine, whose genuine articles may be devalued or passed over in favor of the fraudulent presented by a trusted white man. Who is trusted because he is white.

Who has committed fraud? Note that you're making a serious charge.

Also, is white women twerking 'fraud'? You are against cultural appropriation qua cultural appropriation, not against only subcategories of it that are also fraudulent activities.

Stealing artifacts is very much like stealing designs, ceremonies, and so on.

No, it's actually nothing like that. It's the difference between me seeing a painting I like in your house and stealing the physical painting from you, versus me really liking the painting and getting someone with talent to copy it so I can have one in my house.

Stealing a design, ideas, intellectual property, etc. is called plagiarism. It's frowned upon, may be illegal and is grounds for dismissal from academic institutions and will get you some seriously expensive law suits.

How many Lakota people do you intend to lock up, given how they've plagiarised the ideas of their ancestors? That's pretty harsh.

When the fraudulent idea/good/work of art, etc. is so widely distributed that it overwhelms the original, the original eventually dies. When the original dies out, it causes genuine harm to the owner of the original.

So, the millions of copies of the Mona Lisa, the infinite number of its digital representations, the endless number of parodies of it, all the column and book inches that have been written about it, the multiple and conflicting theories about it, all of this served to lessen and overwhelm the original, right?

I hear when you go to the Louvre to see it, it's totally not like being cattle in a high-density feedlot, and you can totally look at it for ages before being herded through, and it's not behind super-duper bulletproof glass because it isn't that valuable or anything.

 

[Toni]

My being openly gay decreases the happiness and wellbeing of homophobes, but that's no reason to ask me to stop being openly gay, is it?

I dont' see how it decreases the well being of homophobes but since being openly gay is not illegal, is part of who you are, of course there is no reason for you to stop being open about your orientation.

Can you cite statutes that support your case?

No, I cannot cite any statues that take away human rights from Lakota people because tourist operators operate sweat lodges.

Try casting your net wider. And being on point. For a change.

Yes, fraud is wrong.

So misrepresenting something as authentic when it is not is wrong, correct?

Fraud is a wrong committed against both the consumer who purchased a fraudulent good or service but also for the owner of what is genuine, whose genuine articles may be devalued or passed over in favor of the fraudulent presented by a trusted white man. Who is trusted because he is white.

Who has committed fraud? Note that you're making a serious charge.

In your example: the guy selling 'sweat lodge experiences.'

Also, is white women twerking 'fraud'? You are against cultural appropriation qua cultural appropriation, not against only subcategories of it that are also fraudulent activities.

As far as I can tell, it is not fraud. The woman in your example is obviously white, is dancing in a style which was founded...somewhere? It is hard to make a case that she is misrepresenting anything.

Stealing artifacts is very much like stealing designs, ceremonies, and so on.

No, it's actually nothing like that. It's the difference between me seeing a painting I like in your house and stealing the physical painting from you, versus me really liking the painting and getting someone with talent to copy it so I can have one in my house.

No, you are wrong. If you see a painting in my house and have it copied so that you can hang the copy in your house--and represent it or allow it to be perceived to be by the original artist, then that is fraud. The painting is plagiarized. Depending on the value of the painting, etc., you could find yourself on the wrong end of a very expensive lawsuit.

The person in the above case you would be harming would be primarily the artist. Unauthorized copies and misrepresentations of the artists' work devalues the authentic work of the artist. Secondarily, you would be harming me if you caused the value of my painting to diminish, or if you caused me to have to invest time and money to prevent you from representing the fraudulent, plagiarized painting as authentic.

Try googling art fraud.

Stealing a design, ideas, intellectual property, etc. is called plagiarism. It's frowned upon, may be illegal and is grounds for dismissal from academic institutions and will get you some seriously expensive law suits.

How many Lakota people do you intend to lock up, given how they've plagiarised the ideas of their ancestors? That's pretty harsh.

Since Lakota share the culture of their ancestors and are indeed, seeking to preserve the culture--against tremendous odds, btw, there is no plagiarism or theft.

When the fraudulent idea/good/work of art, etc. is so widely distributed that it overwhelms the original, the original eventually dies. When the original dies out, it causes genuine harm to the owner of the original.

So, the millions of copies of the Mona Lisa, the infinite number of its digital representations, the endless number of parodies of it, all the column and book inches that have been written about it, the multiple and conflicting theories about it, all of this served to lessen and overwhelm the original, right?

I hear when you go to the Louvre to see it, it's totally not like being cattle in a high-density feedlot, and you can totally look at it for ages before being herded through, and it's not behind super-duper bulletproof glass because it isn't that valuable or anything.

None of those digital copies are represented as being the 'real' Mona Lisa. Notice I said 'fraudulent.' What you are describing is not fraudulent. In fact, those thousands upon thousands of copies of the real Mona Lisa are licensed by the legal owners of the art work. Museums have very strict guidelines about photographs of their collections, severely restrict the distribution of such images, etc. To protect the integrity of the original.

Interestingly enough, I was recently at an exhibit of Rembrandts--and fake Rembrandts. Part of the exhibit was whether one could tell and how/why.

 

[tantric]

racial identity is maya. suffering comes from attachment - to things and to ideas. attachment to racial identity often causes people to assume that idea is a part of them, and if it is attacked or criticized, they project it as an attack on themselves. this is nonsense. i saw an episode of CSI:miami where a guy marries a women shortly after meeting her. later he finds out that her grandfather was black and the she is in fact black, even though she looks like an angloamerican. so he kills her. wtf?

in truth, the basic idea of owning information is nonsense. yes, copyright law enables many people to earn money. but it is gigantic legal fiction designed for a world where information was attached to paper, it worked - much new information was created. setting up your own publishing house and selling copies of the book was, frankly, not economical. historically, america ripped off stuff from england right and left - printed books and did theater and didn't pay for shit. it was considers a basic right. then the powers that be created copyright laws, so they could get the money, at least a share, and used force to shut down everything else. i'm serious. and now people think that 'intellectual property' is a real thing, not an idea, even if it only exists as bits on a computer. accepting this is frank denial of reality, a cultural neurosis powered by capitalism. it blocks the information age, which at this point resembles what some cultures do to babies - putting blocks on their head so their skull develops weird, or like binding feet. all the stuff y'all talking about is an epiphenomenon of this and it will never be resolved. trying to fix it empowers it.if you want change, you have to destroy the illusion, maya,. in buddhism, the lord of hell is the lord of maya - the source of all suffering. y'all are dancing with the devil, and you should know how that ends. seriously. peace.

 

[abaddon]

How many Lakota people do you intend to lock up, given how they've plagiarised the ideas of their ancestors? That's pretty harsh.

No. Their ancestors deliberately intended their traditions and sacred rites as a gift very specifically to their own descendants and no one else. It’s sacred to these people because it’s some of the very very very little that they have left from their ancestors, considering pretty much everything has been taken and all more-or-less legally because of course the takers write their laws to make taking whatever they want easy for them to do, all feelings being "rationally"... self-servingly... cast aside as irrelevant.

 

[abaddon]

racial identity is maya. suffering comes from attachment - to things and to ideas. attachment to racial identity often causes people to assume that idea is a part of them, and if it is attacked or criticized, they project it as an attack on themselves. this is nonsense. i saw an episode of CSI:miami where a guy marries a women shortly after meeting her. later he finds out that her grandfather was black and the she is in fact black, even though she looks like an angloamerican. so he kills her. wtf?

in truth, the basic idea of owning information is nonsense. yes, copyright law enables many people to earn money. but it is gigantic legal fiction designed for a world where information was attached to paper, it worked - much new information was created. setting up your own publishing house and selling copies of the book was, frankly, not economical. historically, america ripped off stuff from england right and left - printed books and did theater and didn't pay for shit. it was considers a basic right. then the powers that be created copyright laws, so they could get the money, at least a share, and used force to shut down everything else. i'm serious. and now people think that 'intellectual property' is a real thing, not an idea, even if it only exists as bits on a computer. accepting this is frank denial of reality, a cultural neurosis powered by capitalism. it blocks the information age, which at this point resembles what some cultures do to babies - putting blocks on their head so their skull develops weird, or like binding feet. all the stuff y'all talking about is an epiphenomenon of this and it will never be resolved. trying to fix it empowers it.if you want change, you have to destroy the illusion, maya,. in buddhism, the lord of hell is the lord of maya - the source of all suffering. y'all are dancing with the devil, and you should know how that ends. seriously. peace.

Some people like their maya. I sure do.

Diversity and uniqueness matter more than the blur that mysticism wants to make of everything. And your sentiment is no surprise, coming a proselytic religion that wants to morph to fit whatever culture it finds its way into. Individuals are members of cultures and each of them unique no less than the marvelous diversity of plants and animals in their various bioregions. Call it "maya" if there's something else (and what? a universal "Mind"?) that you want for an identity.

But how we’re different matters.

 

[Metaphor]

I dont' see how it decreases the well being of homophobes but since being openly gay is not illegal, is part of who you are, of course there is no reason for you to stop being open about your orientation.

So the comfort of other people’s feelings about any particular act is certainly not a sufficient reason to ask people to stop doing those acts.

Try casting your net wider. And being on point. For a change.

I have no idea what fucking point you think I’ve made. You claimed that copying sweat lodge ceremonies took away rights from Lakota people. I said they didn’t.

So misrepresenting something as authentic when it is not is wrong, correct?

Don’t give me this bullshit, Toni. You don’t object to cultural appropriation because it fraudulently markets itself as “authentic” (whatever that means) when it isn’t. You object to cultural appropriation qua[/] cultural appropriation.

It would not matter to you if Cracker McWhitebread marketed his sweat lodge tours as ‘authentic Lakota sweat lodge’ or ‘inspired by Lakota traditions’ or ‘inspired by native American traditions’ or ‘in the style of certain religious practises’. It’s the sweat lodge appropriation itself you object to, and you’d object to any cracker operating one for fun or profit no matter how he marketed himself.

In your example: the guy selling 'sweat lodge experiences.'

What has he done that is fraudulent?

No, you are wrong. If you see a painting in my house and have it copied so that you can hang the copy in your house--and represent it or allow it to be perceived to be by the original artist, then that is fraud. The painting is plagiarized. Depending on the value of the painting, etc., you could find yourself on the wrong end of a very expensive lawsuit.

Oy vey. There’s no “and represent it or allow it to be perceived”.

I copy the painting in your house and I put it in my house. When people ask me about it, I tell them it’s a copy of the painting.
Do you object to that scenario?

The person in the above case you would be harming would be primarily the artist. Unauthorized copies and misrepresentations of the artists' work devalues the authentic work of the artist. Secondarily, you would be harming me if you caused the value of my painting to diminish, or if you caused me to have to invest time and money to prevent you from representing the fraudulent, plagiarized painting as authentic.

Try googling art fraud.

Try making a coherent point. I have a copy of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I in my living room. People might visit me and look at the copy and think ‘oh that isn’t very good’ and then they aren’t interested in looking at Klimt (I think it’s a very good copy, in fact).

But according to you, should this copy be confiscated from me, because the Neue Gallery paid US$135m for the original? Should all the joy I get from gazing upon it be extinguished because it’s a copy and not the ‘real deal’?

Since Lakota share the culture of their ancestors and are indeed, seeking to preserve the culture--against tremendous odds, btw, there is no plagiarism or theft.

The Lakota people alive today did not invent Lakota traditions; their ancestors did.

None of those digital copies are represented as being the 'real' Mona Lisa.

Irrelevant. You would object to Cracker McWhitebread marketing ‘sweat lodge experiences’ full stop, whether or not he used the word ‘authentic’; in fact no matter what words he used.

 

[Toni]

So the comfort of other people’s feelings about any particular act is certainly not a sufficient reason to ask people to stop doing those acts.

Try casting your net wider. And being on point. For a change.

I have no idea what fucking point you think I’ve made. You claimed that copying sweat lodge ceremonies took away rights from Lakota people. I said they didn’t.

So misrepresenting something as authentic when it is not is wrong, correct?

Don’t give me this bullshit, Toni. You don’t object to cultural appropriation because it fraudulently markets itself as “authentic” (whatever that means) when it isn’t. You object to cultural appropriation qua[/] cultural appropriation.

It would not matter to you if Cracker McWhitebread marketed his sweat lodge tours as ‘authentic Lakota sweat lodge’ or ‘inspired by Lakota traditions’ or ‘inspired by native American traditions’ or ‘in the style of certain religious practises’. It’s the sweat lodge appropriation itself you object to, and you’d object to any cracker operating one for fun or profit no matter how he marketed himself.

In your example: the guy selling 'sweat lodge experiences.'

What has he done that is fraudulent?

No, you are wrong. If you see a painting in my house and have it copied so that you can hang the copy in your house--and represent it or allow it to be perceived to be by the original artist, then that is fraud. The painting is plagiarized. Depending on the value of the painting, etc., you could find yourself on the wrong end of a very expensive lawsuit.

Oy vey. There’s no “and represent it or allow it to be perceived”.

I copy the painting in your house and I put it in my house. When people ask me about it, I tell them it’s a copy of the painting.
Do you object to that scenario?

The person in the above case you would be harming would be primarily the artist. Unauthorized copies and misrepresentations of the artists' work devalues the authentic work of the artist. Secondarily, you would be harming me if you caused the value of my painting to diminish, or if you caused me to have to invest time and money to prevent you from representing the fraudulent, plagiarized painting as authentic.

Try googling art fraud.

Try making a coherent point. I have a copy of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I in my living room. People might visit me and look at the copy and think ‘oh that isn’t very good’ and then they aren’t interested in looking at Klimt (I think it’s a very good copy, in fact).

But according to you, should this copy be confiscated from me, because the Neue Gallery paid US$135m for the original? Should all the joy I get from gazing upon it be extinguished because it’s a copy and not the ‘real deal’?

Since Lakota share the culture of their ancestors and are indeed, seeking to preserve the culture--against tremendous odds, btw, there is no plagiarism or theft.

The Lakota people alive today did not invent Lakota traditions; their ancestors did.

None of those digital copies are represented as being the 'real' Mona Lisa.

Irrelevant. You would object to Cracker McWhitebread marketing ‘sweat lodge experiences’ full stop, whether or not he used the word ‘authentic’; in fact no matter what words he used.

Nothing in your post makes even a little sense. You are not unintelligent so I can only conclude that you are deliberately moving goal posts, changing parameters and being deliberately obtuse. It's not worth addressing on a point by point basis.

 

[Metaphor]

dupe, stupid internets

 

[Metaphor]

So the comfort of other people’s feelings about any particular act is certainly not a sufficient reason to ask people to stop doing those acts.



I have no idea what fucking point you think I’ve made. You claimed that copying sweat lodge ceremonies took away rights from Lakota people. I said they didn’t.

So misrepresenting something as authentic when it is not is wrong, correct?

Don’t give me this bullshit, Toni. You don’t object to cultural appropriation because it fraudulently markets itself as “authentic” (whatever that means) when it isn’t. You object to cultural appropriation qua[/] cultural appropriation.

It would not matter to you if Cracker McWhitebread marketed his sweat lodge tours as ‘authentic Lakota sweat lodge’ or ‘inspired by Lakota traditions’ or ‘inspired by native American traditions’ or ‘in the style of certain religious practises’. It’s the sweat lodge appropriation itself you object to, and you’d object to any cracker operating one for fun or profit no matter how he marketed himself.

In your example: the guy selling 'sweat lodge experiences.'

What has he done that is fraudulent?

No, you are wrong. If you see a painting in my house and have it copied so that you can hang the copy in your house--and represent it or allow it to be perceived to be by the original artist, then that is fraud. The painting is plagiarized. Depending on the value of the painting, etc., you could find yourself on the wrong end of a very expensive lawsuit.

Oy vey. There’s no “and represent it or allow it to be perceived”.

I copy the painting in your house and I put it in my house. When people ask me about it, I tell them it’s a copy of the painting.
Do you object to that scenario?

The person in the above case you would be harming would be primarily the artist. Unauthorized copies and misrepresentations of the artists' work devalues the authentic work of the artist. Secondarily, you would be harming me if you caused the value of my painting to diminish, or if you caused me to have to invest time and money to prevent you from representing the fraudulent, plagiarized painting as authentic.

Try googling art fraud.

Try making a coherent point. I have a copy of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I in my living room. People might visit me and look at the copy and think ‘oh that isn’t very good’ and then they aren’t interested in looking at Klimt (I think it’s a very good copy, in fact).

But according to you, should this copy be confiscated from me, because the Neue Gallery paid US$135m for the original? Should all the joy I get from gazing upon it be extinguished because it’s a copy and not the ‘real deal’?

Since Lakota share the culture of their ancestors and are indeed, seeking to preserve the culture--against tremendous odds, btw, there is no plagiarism or theft.

The Lakota people alive today did not invent Lakota traditions; their ancestors did.

None of those digital copies are represented as being the 'real' Mona Lisa.

Irrelevant. You would object to Cracker McWhitebread marketing ‘sweat lodge experiences’ full stop, whether or not he used the word ‘authentic’; in fact no matter what words he used.

Nothing in your post makes even a little sense. You are not unintelligent so I can only conclude that you are deliberately moving goal posts, changing parameters and being deliberately obtuse. It's not worth addressing on a point by point basis.

Translation: you can't address my points so you're backing away.

That's okay. I don't like to advertise when I'm wrong, either.

 

[Toni]

So the comfort of other people’s feelings about any particular act is certainly not a sufficient reason to ask people to stop doing those acts.



I have no idea what fucking point you think I’ve made. You claimed that copying sweat lodge ceremonies took away rights from Lakota people. I said they didn’t.

So misrepresenting something as authentic when it is not is wrong, correct?

Don’t give me this bullshit, Toni. You don’t object to cultural appropriation because it fraudulently markets itself as “authentic” (whatever that means) when it isn’t. You object to cultural appropriation qua[/] cultural appropriation.

It would not matter to you if Cracker McWhitebread marketed his sweat lodge tours as ‘authentic Lakota sweat lodge’ or ‘inspired by Lakota traditions’ or ‘inspired by native American traditions’ or ‘in the style of certain religious practises’. It’s the sweat lodge appropriation itself you object to, and you’d object to any cracker operating one for fun or profit no matter how he marketed himself.

In your example: the guy selling 'sweat lodge experiences.'

What has he done that is fraudulent?

No, you are wrong. If you see a painting in my house and have it copied so that you can hang the copy in your house--and represent it or allow it to be perceived to be by the original artist, then that is fraud. The painting is plagiarized. Depending on the value of the painting, etc., you could find yourself on the wrong end of a very expensive lawsuit.

Oy vey. There’s no “and represent it or allow it to be perceived”.

I copy the painting in your house and I put it in my house. When people ask me about it, I tell them it’s a copy of the painting.
Do you object to that scenario?

The person in the above case you would be harming would be primarily the artist. Unauthorized copies and misrepresentations of the artists' work devalues the authentic work of the artist. Secondarily, you would be harming me if you caused the value of my painting to diminish, or if you caused me to have to invest time and money to prevent you from representing the fraudulent, plagiarized painting as authentic.

Try googling art fraud.

Try making a coherent point. I have a copy of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I in my living room. People might visit me and look at the copy and think ‘oh that isn’t very good’ and then they aren’t interested in looking at Klimt (I think it’s a very good copy, in fact).

But according to you, should this copy be confiscated from me, because the Neue Gallery paid US$135m for the original? Should all the joy I get from gazing upon it be extinguished because it’s a copy and not the ‘real deal’?

Since Lakota share the culture of their ancestors and are indeed, seeking to preserve the culture--against tremendous odds, btw, there is no plagiarism or theft.

The Lakota people alive today did not invent Lakota traditions; their ancestors did.

None of those digital copies are represented as being the 'real' Mona Lisa.

Irrelevant. You would object to Cracker McWhitebread marketing ‘sweat lodge experiences’ full stop, whether or not he used the word ‘authentic’; in fact no matter what words he used.

Nothing in your post makes even a little sense. You are not unintelligent so I can only conclude that you are deliberately moving goal posts, changing parameters and being deliberately obtuse. It's not worth addressing on a point by point basis.

Translation: you can't address my points so you're backing away.

That's okay. I don't like to advertise when I'm wrong, either.

Nah. You just don't make sense, shift goal posts and in general, aren't able to support your arguments at all.

Pretty often I don't agree with your arguments but these literally dont follow.

 

[Metaphor]

Pretty often I don't agree with your arguments but these literally dont follow.

They all follow, Toni. You just realise you've painted yourself into a corner.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you would not object to Cracker McWhitebread selling 'sweat lodge experiences in the style of and inspired by indigenous practises'.

Of course you would object, because the entire 'selling it as authentic' nonsense is a red herring. You don't care how he sells it. You'd think it was wrong no matter what. So don't give me your bullshit about fraud.

 

[laughing dog]

They all follow, Toni. You just realise you've painted yourself into a corner.

You had a number of "examples" within that post, and while they might be following "tantrum logic", it was not apparent they followed actual reason. So, if you were really interested in painting someone into a corner, you'd explain your reasoning instead of resorting to the ridiculous exercise of claiming to read minds.

 

[Metaphor]

They all follow, Toni. You just realise you've painted yourself into a corner.

You had a number of "examples" within that post, and while they might be following "tantrum logic", it was not apparent they followed actual reason. So, if you were really interested in painting someone into a corner, you'd explain your reasoning instead of resorting to the ridiculous exercise of claiming to read minds.

I am not claiming to read Toni's mind. I specifically and pointedly asked her whether she'd object to Cracker McWhitebread selling 'sweat lodge' experiences even if he made it clear it was not 'authentic' but 'inspired by' or 'copying'.

Her refusal to answer this simple question confirms my point. The 'authenticity' angle is a red herring, and her allusions to fraud baseless.

 

[tantric]

racial identity is maya. suffering comes from attachment - to things and to ideas. attachment to racial identity often causes people to assume that idea is a part of them, and if it is attacked or criticized, they project it as an attack on themselves. this is nonsense. i saw an episode of CSI:miami where a guy marries a women shortly after meeting her. later he finds out that her grandfather was black and the she is in fact black, even though she looks like an angloamerican. so he kills her. wtf?

in truth, the basic idea of owning information is nonsense. yes, copyright law enables many people to earn money. but it is gigantic legal fiction designed for a world where information was attached to paper, it worked - much new information was created. setting up your own publishing house and selling copies of the book was, frankly, not economical. historically, america ripped off stuff from england right and left - printed books and did theater and didn't pay for shit. it was considers a basic right. then the powers that be created copyright laws, so they could get the money, at least a share, and used force to shut down everything else. i'm serious. and now people think that 'intellectual property' is a real thing, not an idea, even if it only exists as bits on a computer. accepting this is frank denial of reality, a cultural neurosis powered by capitalism. it blocks the information age, which at this point resembles what some cultures do to babies - putting blocks on their head so their skull develops weird, or like binding feet. all the stuff y'all talking about is an epiphenomenon of this and it will never be resolved. trying to fix it empowers it.if you want change, you have to destroy the illusion, maya,. in buddhism, the lord of hell is the lord of maya - the source of all suffering. y'all are dancing with the devil, and you should know how that ends. seriously. peace.

Some people like their maya. I sure do.

Diversity and uniqueness matter more than the blur that mysticism wants to make of everything. And your sentiment is no surprise, coming a proselytic religion that wants to morph to fit whatever culture it finds its way into. Individuals are members of cultures and each of them unique no less than the marvelous diversity of plants and animals in their various bioregions. Call it "maya" if there's something else (and what? a universal "Mind"?) that you want for an identity.

But how we’re different matters.

exactly. it's not just suffering, it's addiction. doing it pushes your 'goodie' button and you get a surge of dopamine in your brain. but then it's over - and all you have is emptiness and craving for more. real happiness, satisfaction, comes from being a good person, i call the goodie stuff 'pleasure'. you can do it your way, or you can IV cocaine - in the end, it's the same dopamine rush that screws your brain. we evolved that way- pleasure and pain when you fail, withdrawal. internal conditioning. you have to master that shit. instead of 'pleasure' seek 'joy' which comes from being a good person and having a 'right view' of reality (which includes nondualism - it's serious shit, shifting your paradigm to really accept that). when you follow that path, joy and bliss are just a part of you. that the 'getting high off life' that people talk about, but it's a real thing. when you get the dopamine monkey off your back, you feel things so intensely - serotonin rush. neurochemically, you can sit and meditate a minute or just find a beautiful flower while you're walkng, and it's like have a hit of good MDMA. a rush of bliss. but it's not like dopamine, you don't have to do anything to get it, it just happens. and when it's over, instead of feeling empty, when you remember it, you feel a bit of it again - because it's part of you.

aq proselytic religion? i'm an engaged buddhist, the first three of the fourteen precepts we follow are:

1)Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

2)Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

3)Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness.

if i have violated that, i apologize sincerely, bad day - diabetic neuralgia, which is BITCH and the neurontin i have to take to ease it messes with my head. namaste and peace.

 

[Toni]

You had a number of "examples" within that post, and while they might be following "tantrum logic", it was not apparent they followed actual reason. So, if you were really interested in painting someone into a corner, you'd explain your reasoning instead of resorting to the ridiculous exercise of claiming to read minds.

I am not claiming to read Toni's mind. I specifically and pointedly asked her whether she'd object to Cracker McWhitebread selling 'sweat lodge' experiences even if he made it clear it was not 'authentic' but 'inspired by' or 'copying'.

Her refusal to answer this simple question confirms my point. The 'authenticity' angle is a red herring, and her allusions to fraud baseless.

You are just flat out wrong on all accounts.

 

[Metaphor]

I am not claiming to read Toni's mind. I specifically and pointedly asked her whether she'd object to Cracker McWhitebread selling 'sweat lodge' experiences even if he made it clear it was not 'authentic' but 'inspired by' or 'copying'.

Her refusal to answer this simple question confirms my point. The 'authenticity' angle is a red herring, and her allusions to fraud baseless.

You are just flat out wrong on all accounts.

So, I'm wrong.

Toni is okay with Cracker McWhitebread's cultural appropriation of sweat lodges, as long as he does not fraudulently market them as 'authentic'.

You heard it hear first, folks. Toni and I agree that Cracker McWhitebread's cultural appropriation of sweat lodges, as long as he does not fraudulently market them as 'authentic', is okay.

 

[laughing dog]

You had a number of "examples" within that post, and while they might be following "tantrum logic", it was not apparent they followed actual reason. So, if you were really interested in painting someone into a corner, you'd explain your reasoning instead of resorting to the ridiculous exercise of claiming to read minds.

I am not claiming to read Toni's mind.

"You just realise you've painted yourself into a corner." is mind reading.

I specifically and pointedly asked her whether she'd object to Cracker McWhitebread selling 'sweat lodge' experiences even if he made it clear it was not 'authentic' but 'inspired by' or 'copying'.

Her refusal to answer this simple question confirms my point. The 'authenticity' angle is a red herring, and her allusions to fraud baseless.

Nope. Your post was filled with seemingly disjointed and illogical examples. Nor is it clear she has refused to answer your question since may be the case she is rightly confused by your post.

 

[Toni]

You are just flat out wrong on all accounts.

So, I'm wrong.

Toni is okay with Cracker McWhitebread's cultural appropriation of sweat lodges, as long as he does not fraudulently market them as 'authentic'.

You heard it hear first, folks. Toni and I agree that Cracker McWhitebread's cultural appropriation of sweat lodges, as long as he does not fraudulently market them as 'authentic', is okay.

If you ever decide you would like an honest conversation--and if I find I have the time--then let me know. Frankly, I have enough shit going on in real life to bother with you.

 

[Metaphor]

So, I'm wrong.

Toni is okay with Cracker McWhitebread's cultural appropriation of sweat lodges, as long as he does not fraudulently market them as 'authentic'.

You heard it hear first, folks. Toni and I agree that Cracker McWhitebread's cultural appropriation of sweat lodges, as long as he does not fraudulently market them as 'authentic', is okay.

If you ever decide you would like an honest conversation--and if I find I have the time--then let me know. Frankly, I have enough shit going on in real life to bother with you.

But that's exactly what I want. An honest conversation. And I can't understand why you refuse to answer a straightforward question. Or rather, I'm pretty sure I know why you refuse to answer it, and what your answer would be, but, I'm not a mind reader.

Are you okay with Cracker McWhitebread's cultural appropriation of sweat lodges, as long as he does not fraudulently market them as 'authentic'.

 

[KeepTalking]

How many Lakota people do you intend to lock up, given how they've plagiarised the ideas of their ancestors? That's pretty harsh.

No. Their ancestors deliberately intended their traditions and sacred rites as a gift very specifically to their own descendants and no one else.

I seriously doubt that. The shamans who started those traditions likely wanted those traditions spread as far and as wide as they could imagine. Much like a modern day preacher, they would have wanted as large of an audience as possible to convert to their way of thinking, and to pull into their sphere of influence. It just so happens that those who fostered the modern day practitioners of those traditions were the only ones listening, so they eventually got it into their heads that they were the one and only target audience. It made them feel special, and tribalism took over from there.

It’s sacred to these people because it’s some of the very very very little that they have left from their ancestors, considering pretty much everything has been taken and all more-or-less legally because of course the takers write their laws to make taking whatever they want easy for them to do, all feelings being "rationally"... self-servingly... cast aside as irrelevant.

The only way a cultural tradition can be taken away from a people is by extinguishing those people who observe that tradition. Time will do that all on it's own, but others learning of, and enjoying the tradition, can only serve to propagate that tradition. The more people who do that, the longer it will survive, but no cultural tradition survives unchanged for long, regardless of who is observing that tradition. What their ancestors had that was taken from them was land, life, family, and possessions.