(no subject)
So the things talked about in my last two entries have been taken down by my request.
Ugh though, the things people think they can get away with.
Question. How does one define a social norm? What's considered rational behavior? Are they logical assumptions? Moreover, how does one define what's *outside* those confines?
As you may or may not know, it's a common autistic trait to avoid eye contact. Yet most people consider this imperative to communication. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I get told "it's cultural", but why is it so? And that's not universal either--there's a lot of cultures where eye contact is considered confrontational. What is looking at someone's eyes going to tell me that their body language isn't? I would think that if you're wasting time looking at their eyes, you're going to miss far more important things said by their body. The eyes really don't tell anything. The skin around the eyes might, but eyes themselves are highly inexpressive.
Regarding the cultural thing, I know that what's considered rational behavior takes culture and religion into account. But what if your actions and assumptions are in line with a culture and/or religion you're not part of? Is that considered irrational entirely then? Wouldn't it be still rational because those are accepted ways of thinking for SOMEONE?
That said, I don't understand the concept of cultural appropiation. Why is it OK for some groups to take on certain characteristics, but not others? Shouldn't that be seen as a way of celebrating a global culture? And why is there such a double standard? Like, why is it seen as wrong for a non-native American to adopt cultural beliefs/symbols of native culture, but perfectly acceptable for a modern Brit to adopt cultural beliefs/symbols of early Celtic culture? Both are cultures that were/are threatened by the now-dominant invaders. Is it more acceptable for the Brit/Celt thing because they're the same race? If so, what does that have to do with it? A race is a pretty broad thing, encompassing several cultures. Is it considered offensive for, say, a Cherokee person to adopt the beliefs/symbols of Paiute culture? If so, why? If not, why not? Is it considered offensive for a Norse person to adopt the beliefs/symbols of Italian culture? If so, why? If not, why not?
Why is it Not OK to take a foreign-made movie and remake it in English, but it's a Film Classic when Kurosawa remakes Macbeth with samurai? To me that's identical, it's telling a story in ways that your localized audience will better identify with. Why isn't that percieved as the same thing?
And does this have to do with me feeling like I'm adopting the culture around me rather than feeling like it's my own natural one?
Ugh though, the things people think they can get away with.
Question. How does one define a social norm? What's considered rational behavior? Are they logical assumptions? Moreover, how does one define what's *outside* those confines?
As you may or may not know, it's a common autistic trait to avoid eye contact. Yet most people consider this imperative to communication. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I get told "it's cultural", but why is it so? And that's not universal either--there's a lot of cultures where eye contact is considered confrontational. What is looking at someone's eyes going to tell me that their body language isn't? I would think that if you're wasting time looking at their eyes, you're going to miss far more important things said by their body. The eyes really don't tell anything. The skin around the eyes might, but eyes themselves are highly inexpressive.
Regarding the cultural thing, I know that what's considered rational behavior takes culture and religion into account. But what if your actions and assumptions are in line with a culture and/or religion you're not part of? Is that considered irrational entirely then? Wouldn't it be still rational because those are accepted ways of thinking for SOMEONE?
That said, I don't understand the concept of cultural appropiation. Why is it OK for some groups to take on certain characteristics, but not others? Shouldn't that be seen as a way of celebrating a global culture? And why is there such a double standard? Like, why is it seen as wrong for a non-native American to adopt cultural beliefs/symbols of native culture, but perfectly acceptable for a modern Brit to adopt cultural beliefs/symbols of early Celtic culture? Both are cultures that were/are threatened by the now-dominant invaders. Is it more acceptable for the Brit/Celt thing because they're the same race? If so, what does that have to do with it? A race is a pretty broad thing, encompassing several cultures. Is it considered offensive for, say, a Cherokee person to adopt the beliefs/symbols of Paiute culture? If so, why? If not, why not? Is it considered offensive for a Norse person to adopt the beliefs/symbols of Italian culture? If so, why? If not, why not?
Why is it Not OK to take a foreign-made movie and remake it in English, but it's a Film Classic when Kurosawa remakes Macbeth with samurai? To me that's identical, it's telling a story in ways that your localized audience will better identify with. Why isn't that percieved as the same thing?
And does this have to do with me feeling like I'm adopting the culture around me rather than feeling like it's my own natural one?