[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Like watching ants scurrying about when you life up a stone; it's most amusing to watch right-wingers squirm and wriggle about in the corner they've constructed for themselves.

A childish ad hominem. If you have an argument against our policy, present it. Don't hide behind self-satisfied rhetoric.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JacobW)
A childish ad hominem. If you have an argument against our policy, present it. Don't hide behind self-satisfied rhetoric.

I didn't attack you, so you can leave that out. I made my point about the contradictory nature of your desire to preserve "British" culture from outside interference whilst wanting government to be left well outside the cultural sphere. Who is going to do the preserving, exactly? Society itself? The self-same society that constantly challenges the dimensions of "British" culture and extends its boundaries? That doesn't really hold with your seeming defintion of a one-true-Britishness. So, as I said, you've got yourself stuck into a corner and are now wiggling to try and escape from it.

[JPKC]

(Original post by JacobW)
I don't see the relevance of your point about organic development. The government does not equate the absence of outside interference with government initiatives; we don't want either. Curries are a part of British culture as a result of the assimilation of the culture of immigrants through a process of change resulting from individuals' judgements about their own lives. Nobody considers their prominence to be the result of interference by foreign organisations.

How're you defining outside interference then? What foreign organisations currently interfere with British culture? Hollywood?

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I didn't attack you, so you can leave that out. I made my point about the contradictory nature of your desire to preserve "British" culture from outside interference whilst wanting government to be left well outside the cultural sphere. Who is going to do the preserving, exactly? Society itself? The self-same society that constantly challenges the dimensions of "British" culture and extends its boundaries? That doesn't really hold with your seeming defintion of a one-true-Britishness. So, as I said, you've got yourself stuck into a corner and are now wiggling to try and escape from it.

You've completely misunderstood our position. We want the government to have no positive role in the cultural sphere, promoting change; we support a negative role for the state, preventing other organisations from bringing about change through non-organic processes. We do not believe for a minute such a thing as "true Britishness" can exist unless it is subject to constant change and refers merely to the British people's current values and culture without including any fixed attributes thereof. I'm not in a corner at all; the walls are phantasms that you've failed to recognise as such.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JacobW)
You've completely misunderstood our position. We want the government to have no positive role in the cultural sphere, promoting change; we support a negative role for the state, preventing other organisations from bringing about change through non-organic processes. We do not believe for a minute such a thing as "true Britishness" can exist unless it is subject to constant change and refers merely to the British people's current values and culture without including any fixed attributes thereof. I'm not in a corner at all; the walls are phantasms that you've failed to recognise as such.

You mean to tell me that, I see dead people!? Grief, that hasn't happened since I met Bruce Willis in about 1999. Oooh. So, then, what nasty organisations are out there trying to promote change through non-organic processes that you want the government to stop? I mean, you wouldn't want us getting the wrong end of your stick now would you?

[JPKC]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
So, then, what nasty organisations are out there trying to promote change through non-organic processes that you want the government to stop?

The Catholic Church, presumably.

[JacobW]

(Original post by JPKC)
How're you defining outside interference then? What foreign organisations currently interfere with British culture? Hollywood?

I would define it as change brought about as a result of processes other than individuals' decisions about how to live their own lives, causally dependent on the actions of a foreign organisation. I don't think the government considers much of what Hollywood does to constitute outside interference; but one such organisation would be the European Union.
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/the-ras...kAAAEvzTkHowsR
Silly as this comic might be, I would consider it a (trivial) example of cultural propaganda, since it is attempting to influence people's values and beliefs in such a way as to prevent them from rationally evaluating the ideas with which they are presented.

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
You mean to tell me that, I see dead people!? Grief, that hasn't happened since I met Bruce Willis in about 1999. Oooh. So, then, what nasty organisations are out there trying to promote change through non-organic processes that you want the government to stop? I mean, you wouldn't want us getting the wrong end of your stick now would you?

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JPKC)
The Catholic Church, presumably.

But if we accept that cultural change is a process which follows from dialogue and organic interaction, I'm not really sure how you can say one organisation is promoting good change and another is promoting bad change. For all we know, he might see Peter Tatchell and Republic as promoting bad non-organic change (does this come with free mud?) and the Conservative Party and the BNP as promoting good change. Who knows.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JacobW)
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

You told me I see phantasmical walls. So I riffed off that. It's not my fault you've not seen, or cannot recall in this particular moment at any rate, the Sixth Sense.

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
You told me I see phantasmical walls. So I riffed off that. It's not my fault you've not seen, or cannot recall in this particular moment at any rate, the Sixth Sense.

And you told me I was backed into a corner; but I didn't take the analogy literally and suppose you were referring to the physical location of my body. By 'phantasm', I meant 'an image of the imagination'. I meant that you were imagining the tension between our policies.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JacobW)
And you told me I was backed into a corner; but I didn't take the analogy literally and suppose you were referring to the physical location of my body. By 'phantasm', I meant 'an image of the imagination'.

Ooh aren't you clever. Did you get a dictionary for Christmas!? I'm perfectly able to grasp what you are saying, I just intended taking the piss out of it. Why so serious?

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
But if we accept that cultural change is a process which follows from dialogue and organic interaction, I'm not really sure how you can say one organisation is promoting good change and another is promoting bad change. For all we know, he might see Peter Tatchell and Republic as promoting bad non-organic change (does this come with free mud?) and the Conservative Party and the BNP as promoting good change. Who knows.

As I explained, it's not the state's business to decide what change is desirable (or 'good'/'bad'), only what is organic/inorganic. I'm not using the two sets of terms as synonyms; it's a gross misrepresentation of our position to suggest that I am.

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Ooh aren't you clever. Did you get a dictionary for Christmas!? I'm perfectly able to grasp what you are saying, I just intended taking the piss out of it. Why so serious?

Ah, ok then. Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JacobW)
As I explained, it's not the state's business to decide what change is desirable (or 'good'/'bad'), only what is organic/inorganic. I'm not using the two sets of terms as synonyms; it's a gross misrepresentation of our position to suggest that I am.

Well you must have some notion of a definition, which enables whatever body it is you intend to regulate this, for organic change and inorganic change. The implications of what you are saying are that one is for the better and the other is not. Now, you may not accept my dichotomy of good / bad but that's a language issue we can cross when we have to. The difficulty I have with your "proposals" as such is that no-one is ever going to agree on what organic change is or is not. In other words, that regulatory body is going to have to impose its will on those who do not share its view. That, surely, is inorganic change.

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Well you must have some notion of a definition, which enables whatever body it is you intend to regulate this, for organic change and inorganic change. The implications of what you are saying are that one is for the better and the other is not. Now, you may not accept my dichotomy of good / bad but that's a language issue we can cross when we have to. The difficulty I have with your "proposals" as such is that no-one is ever going to agree on what organic change is or is not. In other words, that regulatory body is going to have to impose its will on those who do not share its view. That, surely, is inorganic change.

I gave a definition eight posts above this one.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JacobW)
I gave a definition eight posts above this one.

So American cultural imperialism is fine but European soft power is a crude attempt at indoctrination? You see how crude this all is?

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
So American cultural imperialism is fine but European soft power is a crude attempt at indoctrination? You see how crude this all is?

Are you suggesting Hollywood practices cultural imperialism? I don't think much of what it produces is; but either way, you haven't exposed any incoherence in the definition, just practical difficulties in using it, which I fully accept will exist.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by JacobW)
Are you suggesting Hollywood practices cultural imperialism? I don't think much of what it produces is; but either way, you haven't exposed any incoherence in the definition, just practical difficulties in using it, which I fully accept will exist.

Yes, yes I am. Much of what Hollywood produces seeks to inculcate American values around the world. In as much as an EU booklet talking about a continent without borders is propaganda, so too are films elaborating on the "American dream" or the "American way of life". It's all soft power and all impacts on so-called British culture. In my experience, the British government - of any persuasion - is normally quite good at letting society play with its toys and often has to play catch up to prevailing values. But anyway, the incoherence remains the same as I raised at the beginning. Everything you've said after that point has convinced me further of that. The practical difficulties such as we've examined arise because of the incoherence, I'm afraid.

[JacobW]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Yes, yes I am. Much of what Hollywood produces seeks to inculcate American values around the world. In as much as an EU booklet talking about a continent without borders is propaganda, so too are films elaborating on the "American dream" or the "American way of life". It's all soft power and all impacts on so-called British culture. In my experience, the British government - of any persuasion - is normally quite good at letting society play with its toys and often has to play catch up to prevailing values. But anyway, the incoherence remains the same as I raised at the beginning. Everything you've said after that point has convinced me further of that. The practical difficulties such as we've examined arise because of the incoherence, I'm afraid.

IIRC, you're initial claim was that the policy is inconsistent because the state can't seek to prevent outside intereference in culture whilst claiming not to be interfering itself. I explained why this isn't the case, using the concept of organic development, which you now claim is incoherent; but you've yet to provide an argument as to why it is incoherent.