The ApproParty© is a hypothetical party where people are encouraged to wear the traditional clothings of ethnicities as far removed from one's own as possible. Think for example someone who originates from sub-saharan africa wearing viking clothings, or someone who originates from north-western Europe wearing samurai clothings, or someone from eastern asia wearing native american stuff. And people who are of mixed ethnicities may wear all sort of crazy hybrid stuff that is hilarious. Both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages are served, as well as tasty snacks. People party all night, dancing to techno remixes of traditional folk songs from all over the world! That'd be fun.
Note: in order to avoid unnecessary repetition, here's a template that one can apply to various options (namely: to the people who'd likely disapprove of the The ApproParty©). What if one disapproves of the The ApproParty©?
1: Live and let live mentality. They simply don't participate, but let people party in that way.
2: Boycott(?)(I'm not sure what to call it. Disassociation???). They don't participate, but it's not fully a live and let live mentality: they'll try their best to not associate with the people who went to that party. This can of course have varying degrees of extremity.
3: Try to prevent/sabotage that party through legal means.
4: Berserk mode: try to prevent/sabotage that party through any means.
How various types of people may react to the The ApproParty©:
1: Cultural segregationist(?): a view often held by people colloquially known as "SJW's" ("Social Justice Warriors", for a lack of a better, more neutral and formal term, "cultural segregationist" may suffice for now until I find a better word): everyone must only do/wear/eat/play/etc. things associated with their own ethnicity. As for the way the various ethnicities are categorized and how things are associated with that ethnicity, the method can vary, but this view requires that each individual conforms to the expected behaviors of their own ethnicity (as defined by the cultural segregationist). The treatment that ethnically mixed individuals may be subject to may vary depending on the exact interpretation of this view. Cultural segregationists will disapprove of the ApproParty© on the basis that it promotes "cultural promiscuity/appropriation/syncretism/eclecticism/globalism/whatever/etc.".
2: Descriptive racial supremacists(?): for the sake of the example, I'll use "white supremacists", but any type of racial supremacists will fit in this category. This view holds that, for example, "white" people are superior to everyone else, and so, such a person will disapprove of the ApproParty© on two grounds: 1) the presence of "non-white" people and 2) the presence of things (in this case, clothing and (techno remixes of) music) associated with "non-white" ethnicities.
3: Normative racial supremacists(?): this is a variation of the above, where one "race" (e.g. "white" people, but can be any other, really) is said to be superior to every other and therefore they should have access to all ideas ever produced (or borrowed from the realm of ideas) by humankind, whereas the other "races", being normatively (though not necessarily descriptively) "inferior", can make use of only things related to their ethnicities. A person who holds this view will disapprove of the ApproParty© on the basis that "non-white" people also have access to all the ideas of humankind.
4: (???): this view is the inverse of the above in some ways. There is a "race" (e.g. "white" people but again it can be any other) whose ideas that are associated with it can be used by the entire humankind, whereas the ideas associated with the other "races"/"ethnicites" are to be kept for those "races/ethnicities" only. This can be interpreted in two different ways: that the "race" whose ideas should be accessible to the entire humankind is superior, and therefore it can only be a good thing that the ideas of that "race" spread, in order to "civilize" the other "races" or something along those lines. The other "races", being "inferior" (and therefore their ideas as well, in this view), must keep their own ideas to themselves in order to avoid them being spread. The other interpretation is pretty much the opposite in terms of attitude: the "race" whose ideas should be accessible to the whole humankind is meant to be "humiliated" by the fact that their ideas spread to everyone (as well as the fact that that "race" shouldn't have access to the ideas of the other "races"), this view considers multiethnic acceptance of ideas to be a "devaluation" of such ideas, a way to make the ideas "cheap" or "promiscuous" or something, whereas the idea that the other "races" ought to keep their ideas to themselves is seen as a way to keep those ideas "pure" or "uncorrupted" or something like that, and is therefore seen as "non-humiliating" (perhaps even "empowering"). This is an example of how literally the same thing can be seen in fundamentally different ways. A person who holds this view, regardless of the attitude towards it, will disapprove of the ApproParty© on the basis that (in the context of this example) "white" people use the ideas of other "races" (regardless of whether that is disapproven of on the basis that the ideas of the other "races" are seen as inferior, or on the basis that that race is meant to be "humiliated" by the lack of access towards global ideas).
5: Cultural eclecticts/globalists/(???)(I suck at giving names haha): nothing wrong with the ApproParty©, since such hybridization is literally what they want.
6: Anti-alcohol people: may disapprove of the ApproParty© on the basis that they serve alcoholic beverages. May participate anyway without drinking alcohol, depending on the mentality.
7: Vegetarians/vegans: may disapprove of the ApproParty© in the case that meat (or animal-based products) are served. May participate anyway without consuming those foods, depending on the mentality.
8: Anti-music people: may disapprove of the ApproParty© on the basis that people there listen to music. Will not participate, but may also not have a problem with other people going there, depending if the anti-music rule is only for themselves (e.g. if they do that for self-control or something), or if it's something they believe should apply to everyone. The "disapproval template" applies here.
9: Anti-fun people: the people who don't want others to have fun, in any way.
Possible variations of the ApproParty©:
1: No alcohol is served (for various possible reasons).
2: Only vegetarian/vegan food is served.
3: Music is not played "publicly". In this case, some anti-music people may participate.
3.1: Instead, everyone is given a device and they listen to the music with headphones/earphones, that may or may not be provided by the managers of the ApproParty©.
3.2: Instead, one must bring their own devices and listen to the music with headphones/earphones, that may or may not be provided by the managers of the ApproParty©.
3.2.1: The music is offered by the managers of the ApproParty©.
3.2.2: One has to play "their own" music (in the sense of, music that they have access to... which in the age of the Internet in the 2020's may be easily accessed despite the existence of copyright). The managers of the ApproParty©, for copyright reasons (or other reasons), will not provide music for the guests.
3.2.3: Only non-copyrighted music can be listened to. It's either provided by the managers of the ApproParty©, or the guests have to already be able to access it and just listen to it with their headphones/earphones.
3.3: Listening to music is forbidden in the ApproParty©, one must dance with silence, or rather, the background-chatter of the other guests (which is likely to occur).
4: Music is played "publicly" but it's just non-copyrighted music.
5: Other variations (coming soon?).
1: The group of people whose ideas (that are associated with that group) are being copied.
1.1: The Approparty© is acceptable (in some interpretations even beneficial) regardless of the group(s) of people whose ideas are being copied.
1.2: The ideas of the group of people that is considered superior should/must be copied by the others, with the implication that the spreading of the ideas of the superior group of people is beneficial to humankind, in an effort to "civilize" the world.
1.3: The ideas of the group of people that is considered superior must not be copied by the others, with the implication that the people who are considered inferior are "unworthy" of "enjoying/using" the ideas associated with the superior group, and that the inferior group must keep going on only with their own ideas, hinting at a feeling of Schadenfreude.
1.4: The ideas associated with a group of people that is considered marginalized or vulnerable should/must be copied by the others, in order for that group's culture and ideas to spread, potentially fostering acceptance through repeated exposure of those ideas, even if not performed by the members of that group.
1.5: The ideas of a group of people that is considered marginalized or vulnerable must not be copied by the others, because:
1.5.1: A group that is marginalized and vulnerable, by retaining exclusive rights to using ideas associated with their own culture (or otherwise considered of their own ideation, collectively), has a better chance of using those ideas for economical gain compared to if everyone had free access to use those ideas. E.g. a marginalized group being the only one allowed to sell traditional clothings associated with their own culture may have some economic opportunity that they wouldn't have in a society where ideas could flow freely regardless of ethnicity or group belonging.
1.5.2: If ideas belonging to a marginalized group were to be used freely by everyone, there is a risk that those ideas may be distorted or adapted to a culture that is foreign to where those ideas originally came from. Of course, whether this is a good or bad thing is ultimately subjective.
1.6: The Approparty© is unacceptable regardless of the group(s) of people whose ideas are being copied. Everyone must only adhere to the ideas associated with their own ethnicity or group belonging. What rights (if any) are given to individuals of mixed ethnicities is unspecified by default.
1.6.1: There are no "intercultural" ideas (i.e. ideas that can be used by everyone, sort of like "public domain").
1.6.2: There are at least some "intercultural" ideas. Of course, it logically follows that in this interpretation, individuals of mixed ethnicities can at the very least use these ideas.
2: What kind (K) of ideas are being copied, and in what way (W).
2.1: The Approparty© is acceptable (in some interpretations even beneficial) regardless of what kind of ideas are being copied and in what way they are being copied.
2.K.1: Some ideas are ok to be copied and others are not.
2.W.1: Some ideas are ok to be consumed (by out-groups) but not produced.