Cultural practices / values you wholly disapprove of or disagree with

[placidchap]

... In short, intolerance to something you don't understand is just as stupid as yelling something to someone who doesn't understand.

Well, if it is their first language (Spanish, I mean) then it would be better for them to yell at you in their own language, if their English is poor.  Imagine being yelled at in a foreign language, you wouldn't understand it but would think, "Damn! They sound pissed!".  Whereas if they yell at you in English, but can barely speak it, then it just sounds stupid and/or funny, "Hey you! You fucking blow job! Go out of here!"

[Thought]

Generally, I find that if one adds "centrism" to many words one gets a cultural practice that I disapprove and disagree with. And as I like to make words up...

Moderno-centrism: The belief that present society beliefs, morals, and etc are far superior to those of the past (and, generally, in sync with those of the future). This is largely a western belief.
Pre-historo-centrism: The belief that periods before recorded history were far superior to those of recorded history and the present, particularly in terms of sincerity, morals, and social beliefs. This is largely a western sub-culture belief (Asatru, I'm looking at you... apparently I am a poet, and you did not know it).
Politico-centrism: The belief that one's particular political persuasion is right and that anyone who disagrees (particularly if they disagree substantially) is not only wrong, but fundamentally corrupt, base, and vile (essentially, how some conservatives treat H. Clinton and how some liberals treat G.W. Bush). This is really a universal practice.
Non-westerno-centrism: The belief that anything not-western is inherently superior to anything western. Oddly enough, this is not only a belief in non-western societies but also in certain circles in western-society.
Presumed-Educational-Elitism: Not a centrism (I tried to add centrism in there, but couldn't). The belief that one's education directly reflects on one's character. That is, the belief that Doctors are morally (not just educationally) superior to non-doctors. Basically anywhere there are doctors, people have this problem.
Educational-Elitism: The belief that one's education is an indication of one's intelligence.
Simple-Centrism: (woo, a centrism again) The belief that "simple-folk" are superior in terms of moral character than "those thar educamated folk." This is largely a western (possibly specifically American) belief.
Rudeness: The belief that good manners aren't needed in any given situation because obviously the one being rude is too important. (f everyone had good manners then half of society's problems would disappear). This is largely a western practice.
Manner-Nazi-ism: The belief that good form, proper manners, and a tyrannical adherence to such, are indicators of one's character. This is largely an eastern belief.

[teaflower]

... In short, intolerance to something you don't understand is just as stupid as yelling something to someone who doesn't understand.

Well, if it is their first language (Spanish, I mean) then it would be better for them to yell at you in their own language, if their English is poor.  Imagine being yelled at in a foreign language, you wouldn't understand it but would think, "Damn! They sound pissed!".  Whereas if they yell at you in English, but can barely speak it, then it just sounds stupid and/or funny, "Hey you! You fucking blow job! Go out of here!"

You see, this is where it gets interesting: Most people speak both languages well. Very well. Like... kids in my school. Yelling at each other in class/in the hall in Spanish, but when they get into class they speak English very well. It's annoying in that it's rude and that I get a vague grasp of what is being said (I know a few choice words in Spanish, but not enough to speak the language) but can't fill in the holes.

... I'm done ranting. AGAIN.

[ZeaLitY]

I hate filial piety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_piety

More than other facets of Eastern thought, it came across to me as especially stupid when I learned of it ages ago in a world studies class. It appears to be some kind of vestige of human ancestor worship that fundamentally says, "do not question authority." And authority should always be questioned when it is reasonable to do so. There are bigger things I don't like in the East, like the pervasive collectivism, but filial piety strikes me as exemplary of backwards ritual. Fortunately, Bruce Lee rejected mindless tradition long before I did, so he can speak better on the subject.

[Burning Zeppelin]

I am against filial piety as well, but I wouldn't call it a "backwards ritual". That's just cultural ignorance. Why should your values and morals be considered superior and "better" than that of another culture who is happy to live with theirs? In the time of Confucious, survival was based around the family, and therefore a tightknit family and a family structure was needed. The young child needs the middle aged adult to live; in the same way, the elderly person needs a middled aged adult to exist happily. Of course, the nature of society has transcended such restrictions, but if a society can run on such a system, who cares? Sometimes these societys work better than ours. Although this does sound pretty good:

"Indian Buddhism did not have a strong notion of filial piety. Buddhism in India rejected respect for ancestors and parents. The true Buddhist had to reject all family ties, just as they had to reject social and class ties if they were to pursue Nirvana. Family was viewed as just another encumbrance of mortal life that had to be dealt with."

[ZeaLitY]

Because I feel individualism is ethically and practically better than collectivism.

[placidchap]

For a society to thrive, there needs to be a balance of individualism and collectivism, if possible.

[ZeaLitY]

Right, right. But over there, it's maniacal. Japan is virtually ruled by the aphorism that the nail which sticks out gets hammered back in...and that's a democracy, for goodness sake. Communism is even worse in perverting basic humanity. When a single person fears the action of standing up and dreaming, or breaking tradition, or changing, something is very wrong.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Speak of the devil, I was just reading about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Geez, I'm often sympathetic about different cultures and political systems - heck, I've been sympathetic of Stalinism - but if I were the President of the USA, I would've invaded Cambodia, no questions asked. Their policies weren't Marxist, or even communist. It was practically feudalism. Although they did something right when they abolished terms used to describe social classes, and rituals to acknowledge a higher level of class (too bad they didn't practice what they preached and implemented "some people are more equal than others")

[placidchap]

And if I were the President, I would stop bombing countries.  And stop trying to "fix" other countries problems. And stop invading while I am at it. 

[Thought]

And if I were the President, I would stop bombing countries.  And stop trying to "fix" other countries problems. And stop invading while I am at it. 

To play the devil's advocate...

Equality is inherently expansionistic. After all, people in Iraq or Afghanistan are just deserving of equality as Americans, aren't they? Thus if the American military is willing to defend the rights and equality of Americans, shouldn't it also be willing to defend the rights and equality of non-Americans as well? After all, if all people are equal, non-Americans are just as deserving such defense.

If, then, you were to stop "bombing countries," stop "trying to fix" them, and stop invading governments opposed to equality, then you are effectively stating that Americans are "more equal" than non-Americans, that not all men are created equal (as you are unwilling to offer all men the same protection of their equality). If, then, Americans are "more equal" than non-Americans, you'll have set a precedent that inequality is acceptable for America. What sort of inequality would you're presidency bring next?

Note: the above, rhetoric-filled comments may or may not reflect reality. Use only as directed. Some side effects may occur, including foaming at the mouth, increased blood pressure, headache, muscle-ache, and slight monsterism. Ask your doctor if rhetoric is right for you.

[placidchap]

They are deserving of equality, sure, but if they want it, they need to have a revolution against whatever is preventing their inequality.  They need to do it.  We can help, no problem, as long as they ask.  I don't recall Iraq or Afghanistan knocking on our door, asking for help with their problems.  We are effectively stating that Americans are "more equal" by deciding on their behalf, that things need to change in their country.  We are effectively saying that you can't do it, but we can, so step aside, chump.  And what?  The UN says otherwise?  To hell with them, we are America, we are the greatest blah blah.  We are not doing it for the good of that country, we are doing it to protect our own interests, nothing more.  We only stick our chubby little fingers into the pot when it is something useful to us.  Darfur doesn't have any natural resources for us, so bollocks to them!

[ZeaLitY]

You will receive no objection from me on stopping the Iraq occupation. It is a money pit of billions poured into a culture hostile to the United States and democracy.

[Thought]

They are deserving of equality, sure, but if they want it, they need to have a revolution against whatever is preventing their inequality.  They need to do it.  We can help, no problem, as long as they ask.

Would the 1995 attempt at a revolution count?

[Burning Zeppelin]

As I said, I'm all for sovereign rights, but when it comes to something like the Khmer Rouge, something needs to be done. If they as a nation can torture their people, we as a nation can free them. The reason I disagree with the Iraq invasion is not the invasion itself, but the way it was executed.