Hollywood mostly only likes "person from one culture goes somewhere else to save the day" when it's a white dude
but yeah I would watch the shit out of that
Who's silver shipments were they? Because if the escaped slaves were robbing the government I kind of feel like they're where my sympathies would lie, not with the armed mercs.
Hollywood mostly only likes "person from one culture goes somewhere else to save the day" when it's a white dude
but yeah I would watch the shit out of that
Who's silver shipments were they? Because if the escaped slaves were robbing the government I kind of feel like they're where my sympathies would lie, not with the armed mercs.
I hear what you're saying, we need a white guy to lead the slaves against the Mexican Samurai mercenaries! Box office smash!
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
Ever since I listened to the audiobook of "Lafayette in the somewhat united states" I can't read anything Washington wrote without Nick Offerman's voice in my head.
Ever since I listened to the audiobook of "Lafayette in the somewhat united states" I can't read anything Washington wrote without Nick Offerman's voice in my head.
Ever since I listened to the audiobook of "Lafayette in the somewhat united states" I can't read anything Washington wrote without Nick Offerman's voice in my head.
Hollywood mostly only likes "person from one culture goes somewhere else to save the day" when it's a white dude
but yeah I would watch the shit out of that
Who's silver shipments were they? Because if the escaped slaves were robbing the government I kind of feel like they're where my sympathies would lie, not with the armed mercs.
It would be the Spanish's silver.
Here's my movie pitch:
There's a ronin stuck in Mexico whose only real desire is to go back home. Disillusioned with his former life as a mercenary for the Spanish he now wanders the Mexican country side. Eventually he encounters a band of escaped slaves who've dedicated themselves to fighting against their former Spanish oppressors and looting their silver shipments. The Spanish have hired a group of mercenaries led by another samurai from our Ronin's past to hunt down and destroy the slaves. The slaves talk the ronin into helping them leading to an ultimate samurai face off between former comrades.
Sword fights, conquistadors, the rolling deserts of red sand and scrub, a battle for freedom and justice between the Opressed and the Opressors.
I heard them treasure hunters dickheads had to give all the sunken treasure they found back to Spain I woulda throwed that shit back in the drink where I found it
+3
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
edited July 2019
You know the old story that when a ship was sinking, "Women and children first"? Toxic masculinity MRA types have been claiming that it's all part of the conspiracy that holds down men and gives women all the power.
Abstract
Since the sinking of the Titanic, there has been a widespread belief that the social norm of “women and children first” (WCF) gives women a survival advantage over men in maritime disasters, and that captains and crew members give priority to passengers. We analyze a database of 18 maritime disasters spanning three centuries, covering the fate of over 15,000 individuals of more than 30 nationalities. Our results provide a unique picture of maritime disasters. Women have a distinct survival disadvantage compared with men. Captains and crew survive at a significantly higher rate than passengers. We also find that: the captain has the power to enforce normative behavior; there seems to be no association between duration of a disaster and the impact of social norms; women fare no better when they constitute a small share of the ship’s complement; the length of the voyage before the disaster appears to have no impact on women’s relative survival rate; the sex gap in survival rates has declined since World War I; and women have a larger disadvantage in British shipwrecks. Taken together, our findings show that human behavior in life-and-death situations is best captured by the expression “every man for himself.”
Not that this will dissuade the trolls any since they're already beyond logic and facts to an emotional realm where reality is defined by whatever validates their frothing hatred at the moment, but if any of you come across this "argument", this study might help with the fence-sitters.
I follow Medieval Death-Bot on twitter and 98% of people who died in the 14th century either fell into wells or creeks and drowned or were killed by angry clerks.
I follow Medieval Death-Bot on twitter and 98% of people who died in the 14th century either fell into wells or creeks and drowned or were killed by angry clerks.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western-- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-rounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Submitted to provoke thought and maybe a bit of discussion. Consider reading the whole piece.
Happy Fourth of July.
what this really shows you is how little faith the founders actually had in democracy (even in their relatively undemocratic republican form) to govern a country; washington was against political parties basically because he was against the whole idea of mass politics
like, the framers designed a country intended to be controlled in perpetuity by the landed gentry; the government had what sparse powers they granted it only because their previous attempt at federal organization proved too weak even to sustain itself. A certain segment of modern observers love to trot out the old 'yanno, washington opposed political parties' chestnut and it makes me wanna grab'em and shake'em
(which I realize is not what you're doing, but still)
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western-- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-rounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Submitted to provoke thought and maybe a bit of discussion. Consider reading the whole piece.
Happy Fourth of July.
what this really shows you is how little faith the founders actually had in democracy (even in their relatively undemocratic republican form) to govern a country; washington was against political parties basically because he was against the whole idea of mass politics
like, the framers designed a country intended to be controlled in perpetuity by the landed gentry; the government had what sparse powers they granted it only because their previous attempt at federal organization proved too weak even to sustain itself. A certain segment of modern observers love to trot out the old 'yanno, washington opposed political parties' chestnut and it makes me wanna grab'em and shake'em
(which I realize is not what you're doing, but still)
There's a line of thinking that the founders generally looked at the decline and fall of the Roman Republic and tried to pre-empt those sort of issues happening to the US. Yes, they were against political parties, because those were one of the things that led rather directly to the Empire (along with populism, lol)
the idea that they were against political parties is belied by the fact that most of them joined one almost immediately; it's also not as though at the time there were no examples of functional political parties (the first republic had not quite been formed in france but the treaty of union was nearly 100 years old and political parties were alive and well in both countries)
fwiw I don't think washington's position was some craven desire for control of the country; if he possessed that he might well have been king. He was probably specifically influenced by his family history with the english civil wars; it's not that hard to imagine him wanting more or less the english system of the mid 16th century, with a less powerful 'monarch' in the position of president.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western-- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-rounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Submitted to provoke thought and maybe a bit of discussion. Consider reading the whole piece.
Happy Fourth of July.
what this really shows you is how little faith the founders actually had in democracy (even in their relatively undemocratic republican form) to govern a country; washington was against political parties basically because he was against the whole idea of mass politics
like, the framers designed a country intended to be controlled in perpetuity by the landed gentry; the government had what sparse powers they granted it only because their previous attempt at federal organization proved too weak even to sustain itself. A certain segment of modern observers love to trot out the old 'yanno, washington opposed political parties' chestnut and it makes me wanna grab'em and shake'em
(which I realize is not what you're doing, but still)
I do generally think a lot of what is said in this particular speech was remarkably prescient, but I'm also painfully aware of how removed from the context of the time, culture, and political climate we are, so throwing this stuff up here to get reactions and different perspectives is a good way to sort through how much is actually still useful and how much is no longer relevant, I figure.
I don't see much value in them as anything other than a window into politely worded upper class elitism and white nationalism
+1
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I think the actual written words of the founding fathers is more interesting because of the worship of them. We're a country without unified mythology (which is its own thing that I could get into at length) and as a result have turned our history into mythology (in contrast, say, to ancient Rome and many other ancient cultures, who turned their mythology into history).
Being able to cross reference the folk mythology that has been created over the past few centuries with actual factual texts, that's interesting.
Washington's opinions aren't worth a fucking thing
The worship of the founding fathers is disgusting
The mythology of the founding of America isn’t even a mythology, it’s ephemeral fervor about a bunch of people nobody fucking remembers. You should read and understand shit they actually said, did, and believed especially if you disagree with it, if for no other reason that it is explicitly and directly connected to where and what the nation is today.
DD you’re a solid dude but you seem to be under the misapprehension that righteous indignation and a well-meaning attitude is all you need to do the right thing in life. “I already know everything I need to know about this thing I don’t know much about” is one of them won’t-huntin’ dogs.
Madison and Hamilton and to a lesser extent Adams are extremely interesting; Jefferson has become bizarrely overrated in hindsight (the declaration has the one good line and that’s it, fight me)
The problem is we don’t analyze them as politicians; at least in the popular culture they’re basically canonized en bloc.
Which is of course actually the result of mid 20th century revisionist propaganda, but we don’t analyze that much either.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yeah it's an interesting if oft overlooked fact that for much of its history Egypt, even Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, was (by the standards of the times) fairly egalitarian between men and women. While women weren't generally allowed positions of direct political power, their other legal rights were basically on par with their male counterparts.
It is a big part of the reasons why Rome, one of history's most fervent preachers for a highly patriarchal society, so reviled Egypt. (Even as they were jealous at how cool Egypt was.)
I dunno, I see a bunch of dudes who were greedy enough to rebel against taxes and hold on to their invention of white supremacy to rationalize why they didn’t have to pay labor...and the nation they built on top of those beliefs and the systems put in place to maintain power for those like themselves...and look at where we are today...
I mean we don’t do enough critical study of those monsters!
I studied the founding fathers for years and years and I'm sick of them
Very, very little of the writings and research available to me in high school and college years was anything other than facts and worship
Sorry for being cranky and stupid
When I took civics for the 2nd time stripped of their pedestals. They are human with all the faults and positivity one can have was interesting to see. to learn about other people in the creation of the US and how they just didn't know hoping for people with a better answer down the road is really eye opening
The founding fathers don't really deserve to be lionized but also people love to lionize historical figures.
They are super interesting to read about, and some of the mistakes and bad things they did are still useful lessons, but like literally all of them were flawed people by either our standards or theirs.
Gundi on
+4
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Every single human being except Fred Rogers and Jesus have been flawed
Posts
Who's silver shipments were they? Because if the escaped slaves were robbing the government I kind of feel like they're where my sympathies would lie, not with the armed mercs.
I hear what you're saying, we need a white guy to lead the slaves against the Mexican Samurai mercenaries! Box office smash!
Gravelly voice over:
"He's fought against them and then fought with them. Now he's returned to America and has to fight them once again"
This sounds... amazing?
Get the audiobook.
It's by Sarah vowell
It's good.
It would be the Spanish's silver.
Here's my movie pitch:
There's a ronin stuck in Mexico whose only real desire is to go back home. Disillusioned with his former life as a mercenary for the Spanish he now wanders the Mexican country side. Eventually he encounters a band of escaped slaves who've dedicated themselves to fighting against their former Spanish oppressors and looting their silver shipments. The Spanish have hired a group of mercenaries led by another samurai from our Ronin's past to hunt down and destroy the slaves. The slaves talk the ronin into helping them leading to an ultimate samurai face off between former comrades.
Sword fights, conquistadors, the rolling deserts of red sand and scrub, a battle for freedom and justice between the Opressed and the Opressors.
Fuckin just write me a check, Hollywood.
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
Seriously, fuck Spain
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Which is bullshit on more than one level. For starters, women die more in maritime accidents.
Not that this will dissuade the trolls any since they're already beyond logic and facts to an emotional realm where reality is defined by whatever validates their frothing hatred at the moment, but if any of you come across this "argument", this study might help with the fence-sitters.
Also it sometimes randomly lists the cost of whatever may have killed the person.
Like, Jon of Hamptonvillehamptontowne was killede by a ftone from a roof which did by mifchance fall pon his noggin. The ftone if worth 1d.
These tragic well-related deaths directly led to the invention of the Collie dog.
5:04
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
what this really shows you is how little faith the founders actually had in democracy (even in their relatively undemocratic republican form) to govern a country; washington was against political parties basically because he was against the whole idea of mass politics
like, the framers designed a country intended to be controlled in perpetuity by the landed gentry; the government had what sparse powers they granted it only because their previous attempt at federal organization proved too weak even to sustain itself. A certain segment of modern observers love to trot out the old 'yanno, washington opposed political parties' chestnut and it makes me wanna grab'em and shake'em
(which I realize is not what you're doing, but still)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I love that this one has a “don’t ask questions” vibe about it. You wanna be immersed and immediately die too huh? Mind your own business
There's a line of thinking that the founders generally looked at the decline and fall of the Roman Republic and tried to pre-empt those sort of issues happening to the US. Yes, they were against political parties, because those were one of the things that led rather directly to the Empire (along with populism, lol)
fwiw I don't think washington's position was some craven desire for control of the country; if he possessed that he might well have been king. He was probably specifically influenced by his family history with the english civil wars; it's not that hard to imagine him wanting more or less the english system of the mid 16th century, with a less powerful 'monarch' in the position of president.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I do generally think a lot of what is said in this particular speech was remarkably prescient, but I'm also painfully aware of how removed from the context of the time, culture, and political climate we are, so throwing this stuff up here to get reactions and different perspectives is a good way to sort through how much is actually still useful and how much is no longer relevant, I figure.
Thanks for chiming in.
The worship of the founding fathers is disgusting
I don't see much value in them as anything other than a window into politely worded upper class elitism and white nationalism
Being able to cross reference the folk mythology that has been created over the past few centuries with actual factual texts, that's interesting.
The mythology of the founding of America isn’t even a mythology, it’s ephemeral fervor about a bunch of people nobody fucking remembers. You should read and understand shit they actually said, did, and believed especially if you disagree with it, if for no other reason that it is explicitly and directly connected to where and what the nation is today.
DD you’re a solid dude but you seem to be under the misapprehension that righteous indignation and a well-meaning attitude is all you need to do the right thing in life. “I already know everything I need to know about this thing I don’t know much about” is one of them won’t-huntin’ dogs.
The problem is we don’t analyze them as politicians; at least in the popular culture they’re basically canonized en bloc.
Which is of course actually the result of mid 20th century revisionist propaganda, but we don’t analyze that much either.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
e: oh yeah, here we go "They were actually made of other materials such as hippopotamus ivory, brass, gold, and human teeth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_teeth
The skulls of British children
It is a big part of the reasons why Rome, one of history's most fervent preachers for a highly patriarchal society, so reviled Egypt. (Even as they were jealous at how cool Egypt was.)
I mean we don’t do enough critical study of those monsters!
Very, very little of the writings and research available to me in high school and college years was anything other than facts and worship
Sorry for being cranky and stupid
When I took civics for the 2nd time stripped of their pedestals. They are human with all the faults and positivity one can have was interesting to see. to learn about other people in the creation of the US and how they just didn't know hoping for people with a better answer down the road is really eye opening
They are super interesting to read about, and some of the mistakes and bad things they did are still useful lessons, but like literally all of them were flawed people by either our standards or theirs.
Washington couldnt even resist the temptations of the Apple of Eden.