is r2 racist or discrimating religions

[Alsatia01]

The law applies to social sites where linkage of online identity to true identity is mandatory, such as FB, Twitter, etc.
Individuals and organizations have been actively pursuing the offenders and some cases have been deemed valid in court.
As for the 'traumatized' statement, it could apply when cyberbullying applies to that particular flame war.
But I agree it's going to be an uphill battle to prove it, and the outcome might become a new case law.

A forum IS a social medium. There are forums where true identity is mandated. It is libel to falsely defame another person in those places.
R2 forum, in particular, does not require revelation of true identity to other participants, so it is not legally libeling to do the same thing.

+1

It's very refreshing to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about on the subject matter. Kudos.

[R238423534]

+1

It's very refreshing to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about on the subject matter. Kudos.

+kudos back for the same reason

[R27377783]

lol keep it coming bro

What's wrong is the pollution to the human genepool.

Seriously, "appropriating someone else's culture"? WTH? Have you even considered the rammifiation of someone actually coming up with that as something to be outraged about? And YOU dare to call someone else a hillbilly? Really?

Someone get the chlorine already!

SO how do you/who is polluting this "gene pool?." who gets to decide what are the best genetic sequences,YOU? and why? I'd take the bet that your sequences would eventually selected for removal from the pool. You can't predict the evolutionary future, and none of us alive now or in any other era actually had anything to do with creating/designing gene pool by scientific intent so I don't really see what criteria we could use (or allow others) to determine the perfect or "unpolluted" version. Conceptually the "gene pool" is just that..a pool whatever is there, is there, it has never been pure and will never be pure because genetic structures have a tendency to prefer "diversity", not "purity". Unless I'm just not getting the correct usage of your term "purity." What do you exactly mean by that? To determine what I think you mean, we'd need to know the exact genetic markers for the first humankind's(something we'd actually have to also DEFINE to everyone on the committee's agreement.)

IN reality the first "humans" that could make babies would be the first culprits of "polluting" their genetic lines and it just hasn't stopped with any generation of people yet, so I think its unavoidable so long as the species reproduces genetically...because everyone is genetically unique so every time a baby is conceived to two parents its no longer a pure example of EITHER of their genetic "perfection". Cloning may be the answer to the purity issue, but I don't think its a viable nor preferable reproduction method ..WHY are we "purifying" the genome again?

In other thoughts, cultural appropriations can be characterized as pretty much the communal versions of: identity theft, non-consensual usage of likenesses/identity,and or intellectual property.Plain Theft misusage and misrepresentation of a tools origins or purposes. Thats an example of my definition so far when it comes to the offensive forms of it.***The terms I've presented are for analogical purposes and not meant to be an exhaustive list of legalist applications.*** These are meant to illustrate the social ramifications and frustrations already experienced by those who feel they or their culture has been exploited or abused by unjust cultural appropriations. My point here is that CA can be just as valid an objection as any other objection such as forillaging, blatant disrespect or mockery.
IF I disrespect you and your family heritage, if I catch you by surprise or have any power over you at your joib or social club, you will not be happy. You will have an ethical/moral right to call me out for it..Maybe I don't have a to give a $#!^ in some places, but not giving a **** for no reasons is usually an antisocial and counterproductive attitude. But noone is likely to question your right to complain/protest about it. that is essentially an analogy of what your doing here and what privileged social class defenders and status quo reactionaries have res surged for a few years now in response to general demands of respect equality/equity for all population classified groups...They claim it is a form of censorship to demand social awareness/responsibility/refinement from institutions, but yet quite hypocritically the reactionaries tend to denounce the very action of so many people "complaining" about these issues. But here with me, as I've done with Melv earlier, I'll just reiterate on the point someone made to me when I didn't understand Cultural Appropriation as well as I think I do now: IF you don't even have the decency and respect for others to respect their feelings about their own heritage, then why should they have any regard for your objections to THEIR right and feelings to object? Its the very kind of social stalemate that chauvinism and disrespect usually fosters. I guess we can all just go take a walk, as Lou Reed once suggested in a song.

[Alsatia01]

SO how do you/who is polluting this "gene pool?." who gets to decide what are the best genetic sequences,YOU? and why? I'd take the bet that your sequences would eventually selected for removal from the pool. You can't predict the evolutionary future, and none of us alive now or in any other era actually had anything to do with creating/designing gene pool by scientific intent so I don't really see what criteria we could use (or allow others) to determine the perfect or "unpolluted" version. Conceptually the "gene pool" is just that..a pool whatever is there, is there, it has never been pure and will never be pure because genetic structures have a tendency to prefer "diversity", not "purity". Unless I'm just not getting the correct usage of your term "purity." What do you exactly mean by that? To determine what I think you mean, we'd need to know the exact genetic markers for the first humankind's(something we'd actually have to also DEFINE to everyone on the committee's agreement.)

IN reality the first "humans" that could make babies would be the first culprits of "polluting" their genetic lines and it just hasn't stopped with any generation of people yet, so I think its unavoidable so long as the species reproduces genetically...because everyone is genetically unique so every time a baby is conceived to two parents its no longer a pure example of EITHER of their genetic "perfection". Cloning may be the answer to the purity issue, but I don't think its a viable nor preferable reproduction method ..WHY are we "purifying" the genome again?

I think Ada was just essentially saying..... "You're an idiot".

You don't need to go into the details explaining the details on the human condition.

In other thoughts, cultural appropriations can be characterized as pretty much the communal versions of: identity theft, non-consensual usage of likenesses/identity,and or intellectual property.

No.

You can't in one hand say that we are all genetically and socially linked, and in the other hand say that certain aspects of culture belongs specifically to one culture. No culture heritage of look, song, dance, art, whatever belongs solely to one culture, for the exact same reasons you stated; cultures and people intermingle. There is therefore, essentially, no such thing as cultural appropriation.... sort of.

Plain Theft misusage and misrepresentation of a tools origins or purposes. Thats an example of my definition so far when it comes to the offensive forms of it.***The terms I've presented are for analogical purposes and not meant to be an exhaustive list of legalist applications.*** These are meant to illustrate the social ramifications and frustrations already experienced by those who feel they or their culture has been exploited or abused by unjust cultural appropriations. My point here is that CA can be just as valid an objection as any other objection such as forillaging, blatant disrespect or mockery.

How about a thought experiment.

For example. Say society 'A' invaded society 'B' a long time ago. When society 'A' would attack, they would have a very specific battle cry. This would make it difficult for society 'B' to coordinate their defenses when society 'A' attacked. So, so society 'B' decided to use war-drums, so their soldiers could drown out the sound of the war-cries, and coordinate their defenses better. Over time, the war-cry and the battle-drum become integral parts of their culture.

Does the war-cry and the battle-drum belong to society 'A' and 'B' respectively? No. Not in any sense.

For one, society 'B' developed their tactic as a direct result of the society 'A's actions. That is to say, it would not exist without them. Society 'A's war-cry developed long before that, and it's exact origins are unknown. All of this is pointless debate, because society 'C' and 'D' that lived over a thousand miles away, also developed war-cries and battle-drums that were almost identical.

These are also, real world examples, if you're so interested.

IF I disrespect you and your family heritage, if I catch you by surprise or have any power over you at your joib or social club, you will not be happy. You will have an ethical/moral right to call me out for it..Maybe I don't have a to give a $#!^ in some places, but not giving a **** for no reasons is usually an antisocial and counterproductive attitude.

You do not have the right to never be offended. At least not where I live. In that scenario, if you actively discriminated against someone on those basis, that's when the problem occurs.

that is essentially an analogy of what your doing here and what privileged social class defenders and status quo reactionaries have res surged for a few years now in response to general demands of respect equality/equity for all population classified groups...They claim it is a form of censorship to demand social awareness/responsibility/refinement from institutions, but yet quite hypocritically the reactionaries tend to denounce the very action of so many people "complaining" about these issues.

People asking for equality is not the same as you believing your culture belongs to only you (and the people of your 'culture').

But here with me, as I've done with Melv earlier, I'll just reiterate on the point someone made to me when I didn't understand Cultural Appropriation as well as I think I do now: IF you don't even have the decency and respect for others to respect their feelings about their own heritage, then why should they have any regard for your objections to THEIR right and feelings to object? Its the very kind of social stalemate that chauvinism and disrespect usually fosters. I guess we can all just go take a walk, as Lou Reed once suggested in a song.

Name one piece of 'heritage' that belongs solely to one culture, or group of peoples.

[AdaJames]

And yes, in addition to what Alsatia said, you can go take a walk, because I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with a cultural supremecists like you.

[dennyh]

but you have plenty of time to troll the forums it seems...

[AdaJames]

I told you before, kid, that just because you are wrong and I point it out doesn't make it trolling. Learn some English.

[R27377783]

I think Ada was just essentially saying..... "You're an idiot".

No. He/She and Meikura have already more than once outed themselves as cultural/ethnic bigots and reactionary chauvinists, all you've done is given AJ an opportunity to smokescreen the meaning of his/her words so he can be done with the conversation as it turns south for them. He/she was talking about genetic purity. I asked him to clarify this and also tried to outline the lunacy of the concept, an unscientific and common racist concept. Your interpretation is flawed unless you decide to interpret his remarks as facetious which I don't. Your assumption is flawed because "idiocy" of the type that can come up with any sort of complex cultural thesis is clearly not genetic. How do you "cleanse" the gene pool of an opinion or ideology? You don't and he/she knows it(I hope). Re-read what Adajames wrote and it becomes clear what he/she was talking about. I couldn't have possibly said or done anything to prompt a better outting than this. On his/her own AdaJames was all too eager to vent his/her bigoted feelings on ethnic/cultural realities other than his/her own, I'm not sure I would even be able to go back and identify any particular point or post that might have triggered it, You;'ve clear been holding this back for some time AJ..go ahead and vent, no one here can stop you.

You don't need to go into the details explaining the details on the human condition.

I'll be the judge of what I need to do or explain in support of my discussions. You waste your time trying to influence my style of argumentation.

No.

You can't in one hand say that we are all genetically and socially linked, and in the other hand say that certain aspects of culture belongs specifically to one culture. No culture heritage of look, song, dance, art, whatever belongs solely to one culture, for the exact same reasons you stated; cultures and people intermingle. There is therefore, essentially, no such thing as cultural appropriation.... sort of.

Yes, I can. Because those are two different realities. One is the physical reality of biology..physically there are no cultural boundaries, cultures are social realities just like so called "races". Much of the "race" problem is that many still believe that "races" and cultures are also physical/biological realities within individuals, when in truth they are hardly even social realities..in terms of individuality..) one cannot realistically expect to actually have much in common with someone else(socially,genetically,politically,even culturally) solely on the basis of being of the same "race" as they are popularly defined today except within the boundaries of regional contexts.(eg ostensibly, IF two white people from Brooklyn,NY can be expected to have more in common than a white and black person from Brooklyn,NY. Its because of race based social conditions in Brooklyn, NY, NOT "becuase" they are both from some biologic or even sociological "white" race.
Even though that is generally true, being a social reality does NOT automatically make something nonexistent and social realities are capable of having weight in (of course) societies,historical contexts and in courts. Does the social reality of Navaho "Indian" tribe's existence mean that there is any definite, permanent and significant genetic distinction between them and the rest of humanity? No. But...does that fact mean that they can't have cultural attributes that are distinct to their tribe as a matter of historic fact (as a cultural identity /social reality?) Also,No.

How about a thought experiment.

I like your thought experiment/scenario very good analogy..however it does not support your argument at all.

Does the war-cry and the battle-drum belong to society 'A' and 'B' respectively? No. Not in any sense.

Absolutely Yes, even after one overcomes the other unless the history and their cultures forget that they were once two separate groups at war and they become historically considered one cultural reality, then it stands to reason that the history of how the two tactics came to exist would have also been forgotten. Then there would be no sociological reason to consider either the drums or the warcry cultural distinctions inside the merged culture, but if a third tribe had begun to interact with them then these again might become a source of distinction. This kind of thing happened routinely throughout history its called adoption,assimilation,and now also in a modern context: cultural appropriations. Anthropologists try to keep track of that stuff so they can understand the development of human civilization/tech and migratory patterns. People of distinct cultural/ethnic racial social identities have begun to keep track because they realize their customs are routinely abused, bastardized, commercialized, and even used against them (usually as disrespectful stereotypes) in chauvinist imperialistic societies.

For one, society 'B' developed their tactic as a direct result of the society 'A's actions. That is to say, it would not exist without them. Society 'A's war-cry developed long before that, and it's exact origins are unknown. All of this is pointless debate, because society 'C' and 'D' that lived over a thousand miles away, also developed war-cries and battle-drums that were almost identical.

A ******** argument if I ever saw one. In what way has that kind of causality ever been considered as an effect on cultural attribution or any kind of authorship? **** it may have been bad weather problems that started their war in the first place does that mean that the weather created the distinct warcry or drum beats? GTFOH.

You do not have the right to never be offended. At least not where I live.

I'm not gonna call you an idiot like you've tried to do here with me, but I'll just say: I do have the right to call ******** and offense when I see it, where I live..I'm betting so do you. Noone is expecting to never be offended, people are expecting to have the right to take action,call ********,offense when they see it and be respected. These ******** are OFFENDED that people have the audacity to expressing when they offended by **** that is taken for granted in their communities.
They don't give a **** whose culture they offend because its not their own culture that is being disrespected or appropriated, and apparently they want to have the right to not have to hear the complaints either. SO their attitude is: **** those people..but they don't like it if the reply is **** you too. The big term for it is "privileged entitlement".

People asking for equality is not the same as you believing your culture belongs to only you (and the people of your 'culture').

I want you to re-read what you wrote here, for yourself. Then later delete out of your mind anything regarding equality for this conversation where not talking about equality here in any relevant context to cultural appropriation. When your ready I'd like you to tell me who the hell else would someones culture "belong to" if not the people who "belong" to that culture? Now that hopefully you've come back to us, since you mention it we can briefly discuss how "equality" or the pursuit of it can easily and legally relate to cultural appropriation/chauvinism,and...we'll call it..."cultural stanchioning". To this end I'll clarify that more often than not to promote equality in environments where inequality has already arisen (however so) between ostensibly differing population groups it becomes necessary to authoritatively define and distinguish these groups from one anther so as to properly ration whatever measures of equality are to be redistributed to each. It is entirely possible that class groups will be created even if only temporarily in order to do this. If a class group is determined to be protected and that protection extends to their artifacts or customs or the properties on which those customs take place, it can take on the characteristics of intellectual properties as well. Here now we know that it can carry consequences to duplicate or bastardize something that is protected by intellectual property ideals. I wont go into further clarification..I think you can see already where I'm going with that. I'll summarize my point there: IF it becomes necessary to assign intellectual property to class groups in the interest of the pursuit of equality and fair treatment of cultural heritage then I don't think it will be a very difficult to make a case for doing so. Particularly if the appropriations continue to become increasingly egregious, economically disparaging, and exploitative to the extent that it can be proven to have impacts on populations in proportions that promote widespread discriminatory practices and damaging effect on the social and professional lives of individuals in a given community.

Name one piece of 'heritage' that belongs solely to one culture, or group of peoples.

I wont take the bait for your straw man argument. IF Google and history has not already led you to believe that any cultural artifact or tradition is unique enough to be considered distinct form the rest of humanity's works then there isn't anything that I can show you that will change your mind, you've already decided that the differences are too trivial to deem respectable from a perspective of unique appreciation. I will not assist you in denigrating even a single piece of cultural heritage. Well maybe one, have at it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tan_Ribbon.jpg

[AdaJames]

Genetic purity? WTH? Stop making things up. I don't talk about genetic purity. Never have.

The only one with strawmen is you. Your previous post is full of strawmen. All you do is deliberately miscontrue what others say and then go on a rant about how oppressed you are.

Get a life, fool! Most of us don't give a flying rat's arse what you think or how you live your life. You are nothing to us, as are your feelings of "oppression".

[Meikura001]

And again, why do we need to learn all this <expletive> when we can just enjoy the holiday as it was given. The bleeding hearts are those who try to "correct" others with this nonsense. If you don't celebrate it or celebrate it differently, then power to you. However, don't spoil it for the rest who are trying to get down in enjoying something that probably won't come again in about 365.25 days. Whether it was religious or pagan, I really don't care. What I really care about is when people put different words into something that is already commonly known as.

But that's okay, I am on a nice streak of <expletive>ing people off with their own "political correctness" medicine on things they do not count on happening. Next up, "The Holiday of Old Women who have Kids". I think it's very catchy title. Don't worry, I will end at 2016.12.31 when I go over the casualty list of holidays mauled in the name of "Holiday Equality" on my final netcast of the year before 2017.

[AdaJames]

I don't know, but there is always some idiot out there with a massive tree trunk on their shoulder. Like the "Black Lives Matter" crowd. Hell, I am not even white, and I am sick of their stupid nonsense and sense of racial victimhood. Just pi.ss off and leave the rest of us alone.

The atheist is another bunch with a group victimhood sense. Who the hell cares if the holiday has religious roots or not? Just enjoy the damned thing, and if you don't want a holiday (hello, root is HOLY DAY!!!) then go work and leave the rest of us alone.

The central cause of all this angst is not that they feel victimised, but because they feel it is their right to stick their beak into other people's business and dictate to them what to do and what to think and how to feel. It is a malignant, malevolent, tyrannical style of thinking that invariably causes them to bully, hound, scream, assault and hurt others into doing what they want.

Sickening d-heads, the lot of them.

[Meikura001]

I could pull up a massive list that will overload the forums of the many things (and people) that is idiotic to this day and age. However, I am just over here laughing my back end off, because most of it is just stupid. Some people just don't believe in "let live" and "leave alone".

As I have stated many posts back, I celebrate holidays that don't even fit within out of respect for friends who celebrate such and I always use that as a countdown to the one I am looking forward in celebrating. However, I am not going to have some beatnik ruin that for me or anyone else without first getting my size 13-wide boot (and breaking it off) up their hind end.

And even if I know the "origin" of a holiday, I will not spoil it for anyone else that wants to celebrate it.

[AdaJames]

Hey, don't look at me. I celebrate all sorts of holidays, ever since birth. Chinese New Year, Aidilfitri (the muslim end of Ramadan celebation), Deepavali/Diwali, Thaipusam. You name it. Doesn't matter to me. It is all in good fun and you get to learn so many things if you ask questions and listen.

It is those oh-so-"pure" minority *cough* that ruins it for everyone.

And don't even get me started on one frakking J.Gillard who claims to champion my gender. She doesn't and never will represent me, the hateful, lying *cough*.

[-M-]

The line was back that way. Please get back on the other side of it. Thank you.

[Alsatia01]

I'm going to skip your rant about Ada, she can speak for herself.

I'll be the judge of what I need to do or explain in support of my discussions. You waste your time trying to influence my style of argumentation.

My point, is that you basically just explained why Nazism is bad, when everyone already agrees that is the case. It's a pointless dialog, and I in no way attempted to influence your dialog or style of argumentation, aside from commenting that it is a colossal waste of time.

Yes, I can. Because those are two different realities. One is the physical reality of biology..physically there are no cultural boundaries, cultures are social realities just like so called "races".

Races are not just social constructs. There are also identifiable differences between races in terms of common traits and genes. Genetically speaking, we are all pretty close, but there is enough genetic diversity that scientists can determine your 'race' from your DNA; something that would not be possible if it was only a 'social reality.'

Much of the "race" problem is that many still believe that "races" and cultures are also physical/biological realities within individuals, when in truth they are hardly even cultural realities) one cannot realistically expect to actually have much in common with someone else(socially,genetically,politically,even culturally) solely on the basis of being of the same "race" as they are popularly defined today except within the boundaries of regional contexts.

As I eluded to before, there are some aspects that are biological and genetic in nature; not solely biological or genetic, but there are some genetic markers between races. Does that mean every person from X is going to have Y specific traits/genes? No, but there's a decent chance; and many other people from X location would have thosegenes and traits.

To make sure that you completely understand what I'm saying, allow me to reiterate. What I'm saying, is that someones 'race' is determined by a number of different factors, not limited to, but including, ethnicity, genetic makeup, and culture. Not just as a social construct, which is what you seem to be saying.

IF two white people from Brooklyn,NY can be expected to have more in common than a white and black person from Brooklyn,NY.Its because of race based social conditions in Brooklyn, NY, NOT "becuase" they are both from some biologic or even sociological "white" race.

Common in what way?

They aren't necessarily politically, culturally, socially, or genetically similar, or anymore similar than a given white person in comparison to a black person. If you're suggesting otherwise, you're going to need to site some evidence to that effect. Or perhaps, you are suggesting that people perceive them to be similar simply because the color of their skin - if someone said that about two black people, wouldn't that be considered a racist statement? You'll have to be a lot more clear about exactly what you mean, I have no wish to put words in your mouth.

Even though that is generally true, being a social reality does NOT automatically make something nonexistent and social realities are capable of having weight in (of course) societies,historical contexts and in courts. Does the social reality of Navaho "Indian" tribe's existence mean that there is any definite, permanent and significant genetic distinction between them and the rest of humanity?

Depending on what you mean by 'significant', the answer would be yes. Isn't science amazing? How do you think they determine that Navaho 'Indians' are indeed, Navaho 'Indians'? They use science, to determine their genetic distinction between them and the general population. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it does work, and there is a real distinction.

But...does that fact mean that they can't have cultural attributes that are distinct to their tribe as a matter of historic fact (as a cultural identity /social reality?) Also,No.

A lot of the aspects that you would define as being distinct probably wouldn't be all that distinct by comparison. A lot of Native American tribes are pretty similar, including several aspects of the Navaho.

I like your thought experiment/scenario very good analogy..however it does not support your argument at all.

I suppose that is a matter of opinion, or perspective.

Absolutely, even after one overcomes the other unless they history and their cultures forget that they were once two separate groups at war and they become historically considered one cultural reality, then it stands to reason that the history of how the two tactics came to exist would have also been forgotten.

Not necessarily.

Then there would be no sociological reason to consider either the drums or the warcry cultural distinctions inside the merged culture, but if a third tribe had begun to interact with them then these again might become a source of distinction.

Again, not necessarily.

This kind of thing happened routinely throughout history its called adoption,assimilation,and now also in a modern context: cultural appropriations.

Yes and no. When cultures 'appropriated' the war-cry and battle drum, it was for one purpose; to survive. People took the idea of using drums from other cultures, because it worked. The modern context essentially boils down to - 'I have no idea what your culture is, but because you're using something I see as only my culture,I'm going to assert that you stole it from me.'

It's kind of like having the ridiculous argument that if someone several thousand years ago didn't invent fire, there would be no such thing as fire, or the wheel. Sometimes people figure things out on their own, independantly of each other, for one simple reason - It works; it helps people to survive.

And yes, historically sometimes things were just taken, for a number of different reasons.

People of distinct cultural/ethnic racial social identities have begun to keep track because they realize their customs are routinely abused, bastardized, commercialized, and even used against them (usually as disrespectful stereotypes) in chauvinist imperialistic societies.

As I essentially said in another post. Sometimes, when party 'A' asserts that party 'B' is stealing from them by means of cultural appropriation, party 'A' also stole those same things from party 'C'.

It's a pretty prevalent theme in media really. Someone claims that person X is appropriating their culture, and yet when they describe what their culture is and why and how they are being stolen from, they refuse to acknowledge that those same elements existed in several other cultures.

I can provide evidence of this, if you're so curious.

A ******** argument if I ever saw one. In what way has that kind of causality ever been considered as an effect on cultural attribution or any kind of authorship? **** it may have been bad weather problems that started their war in the first place does that mean that the weather created the distinct warcry or drum beats? GTFOH.

Exactly, how do you not see how that's a problem with your argument? Even if you could effectively determine the source of an aspect of a culture, it's irrelevant. Cultures sometimes develop things arbitrarily, like in the case of 'C' and 'D'.

I'm not gonna call you an idiot like you've tried to do here with me.

I've done no such thing. Citation.

I do have the right to call ******** and offense when I see it, where I live..I'm betting so do you.

No one asserted that you didn't.

Noone is expecting to never be offended, people are expecting to have the right to take action,call ********,offense when they see it and be respected.

You do not have the right to always be respected.

To be clear, I don't mean you specifically, I mean people in general.

These ******** are OFFENDED that people have the audacity to expressing when they offended by **** that is taken for granted in their communities.

Example?

They don't give a **** whose culture they offend because its not their own culture that is being disrespected or appropriated, and apparentlythey want to have the right to not have to hear the complaints either. SO their attitude is: **** those people..but they don't like it if the reply is **** you too. The big term for it is "privileged entitlement".

Example?

I'll even bite a hook for you. Some cultures do not deserve respect. Some cultures are inferior. Some cultures deserve ridicule for their treatment of others. Again, to make sure you understand exactly what I'm saying, notice I said 'cultures', and not 'peoples who are part of some cultures', there is an important distinction there.

Allow me to ask you a question. Are you a cultural relativist?

When your ready I'd like you to tell me who the hell else would someones culture "belong to" if not the people who "belong" to that culture?

Essentially, no one, and everyone.

As time goes on, we all intermix more and more, like you said yourself. Many aspects of culture, are at least thousands of years old. People didn't patent ideas, send them off to the copyright office and are now asserting authorship over those aspects. They are concepts, ideas and practices that have developed over a long period of time, and did not develop independently. You have no idea what someones ethnicity or culture is just by looking at them. You could just as easily be talking to someone of your own culture when you assert they are stealing your own.

Is it cultural appropriation when a white person wears Navaho garb and dances like a Native American? What if I told you that same persons, great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother, was a Navaho? How much Navaho blood does this person have to have before they can have the 'bigot', or 'racist' label removed from them?

If you specify an amount, you're a bigot. If you say 'any amount', 'no specific amount', or 'as long as they have something in common', then congratulations, as homo sapiens, we all share a common ancestor.

If you aren't liking that, allow me to reiterate. Since you have no ability to ascertain what someones background/ethnicity/culture is by looking at them, you have no basis for asserting they are stealing from you.

To this end I'll clarify that more often than not to promote equality in environments where inequality has already arisen (however so) between ostensibly differing population groups it becomes necessary to authoritatively define and distinguish these groups from one anther so as to properly ration whatever measures of equality are to be redistributed to each.

I think I understand what you're saying here. But I hope you understand why 'authoritatively distributing equality' and 'rationing equality' sound really cringe-worthy, right?

It is entirely possible that class groups will be created even if only temporarily in order to do this.

Then it's probably not a good idea.

If a class group is determined to be protected and that protection extends to their artifacts or customs or the properties on which those customs take place, it can take on the characteristics of intellectual properties as well.

So for example. If the Navaho 'Indians' are a protected group, and that extends to their artifacts and customs, any artifacts in museums for example, should be returned them them. And no one should be able to use their customs or aspects unless its them, or with their permission?

I believe this is an awful idea. I keep re-reading this to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding what you are saying, but it does seem to fit. You'll have to tell me how accurate you believe it is.

Here now we know that it can carry consequences to duplicate or bastardize something that is protected by intellectual property ideals.

That assumes they could actually prove that they authored whatever aspects would be considered to be protected under that intellectual property. In any pragmatic sense, it would be essentially impossible.

I wont go into further clarification..I think you can see already where I'm going with that.

I don't actually. I would like a more concrete explanation so I don't have to come up with my own examples for your ideas.

I'll summarize my point there: IF it becomes necessary to assign intellectual property to class groups in the interest of the pursuit of equality and fair treatment of cultural heritage then I don't think it will be a very difficult to make a case for doing so.

This sentence makes no sense.

You are saying - If it becomes necessary do to x, I don't think it will be difficult to do so.

Also, depending on where you live, not only would it be unfeasible, it would be impossible. Socially, culturally, and legally.

Particularly if the appropriations continue to become increasingly egregious, economically disparaging, and exploitative to the extent that it can be proven to have impacts on populations in proportions that promote widespread discriminatory practices and damaging effect on the social and professional lives of individuals in a given community.

Something you could never prove, even if the rule existed. Correlation does not equate to causation.

I wont take the bait for your straw man argument.

It's not a straw man. That's what you believe. You are advocating for aspects of specific cultures to become classified as intellectual property.

IF Google and history has not already led you to believe that any cultural artifact or tradition is unique enough to be considered distinct form the rest of humanity's works

That's not even your argument.

You're saying those artifacts and tradition belong solely to those specific cultures.

I'm saying, you have no basis for that assertion.