Is American "movement liberalism" the most anti-"culture" ideology?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Much aa I lack the experience of BRTD, who has undergone an impressive Jane Goodall-esque immersive experience in liberal Americana, I'm sceptical.  He has two central hypotheses:

A) that liberal Americans are more hostile to cultural deviation and find more solace in a monoculture than, say, non-liberal Americans or liberal non-Americans

B)  that liberal Americans are more dismissive of their own ethnic background than others, as they are more bound by non-ethnic socio/political/economic/'cultural ties than their ancestry.

I outright disagree with Point A. From what I know of American liberalism it doesn't square at all. If you were talking about French liberalism, then yes, BE FREE LIKE ME OR BE SHUNNED would be a fair catchphrase. But American liberalism is often:
- hostile to cultural imperialism (whatever that is). At its most extreme this goes to the ridiculousness of 'cultural appropriation', but American liberals seem very concerned about cultures being Americanised etc.

- liberals are often proud of their supposed connection with foreign or indigenous cultures. It's old stereotypes: the urbane liberal proudly lists their experience with exotic foods and looks down on the sort of person who considers Olive Garden as an authentic Italian experience.  Liberals are stereotyped as going to Native American reservations, or yogic retreats, or trips to Paris to "find themselves". I mean, perhaps that shows something more disturbing if you wish to pooh-pooh these people (I.e. liberals view other cultures as some sort of interesting buffet to be sampled at one's amusement), but I don't see hostility or demands to assimilate in there.

Part B is more accurate, but hardly unique to liberal Americans. First, I'd like to point out that region where most Americans identify themselves as Americans (as opposed to HyphenatedWhiteAmericans) is the South. Like right-wing evangelical south. Clearly it isn't just liberals who eschew the labels of their ancestors in favour of some new common ground to form an in-group with.

Basically people will form groups around anything. When new groups are formed they tend to focus on common ground (like passion for emoviolent post punk) rather than increasingly distant ethnic labels. Most white ethnics, unless they are in groups hostile to mixed marriage, are basically dissipating throughout the country. (There are still enclaves, but I think they're more the exception rather than the rule).

It's a young person's instinct to to form a micro-community that reflects their values and create their own personal utopia, often by explicitly rejecting the labels that our parents used to describe themselves. It's our privilege. I don't see any evidence that such behaviour is any more common in liberal white Americans than any other group.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Are Isis fighters the most anti culture ideology?

Something that came to me in a discussion on AAD. But most Muslim 'Isis fighters " do not give a f[inks] if any practice or element of one's identity is heavily tied to their culture or heritage if it has any conflict with shariah values. Anything that contradicts salafosm in any way must be destroyed. Notice how they don't care in the slightest about Yazidi temples importance to the Yazidi community, it must be abolished for not representing salafi values. They oppose any attempts to block Sufis and Shias from convering but once they do they want them to be completely Salafi.

Also as I noted, the strongholds of ISIS fighters tend to be extremely assimilated Sunni, generic islamic culture places. Al-Raqqa, Mosul, are all notable for not having any real "minority" neighborhoods left, almost all the Muslims here are very assimilated Sunni ypes.

Think of a stereotypical Baghdadi supporter. Does that seem like someone who'd frequently celebrate their ethnic traditions and heritage?