I really need to stop going deep into the comments on shitty parts of reddit. I just had an argument with a guy who was mad that some girl's friends supported her after she claimed to be raped (which turned out to be false, but they had no reason to believe so at the time) without asking for proof. The fuck am I doing with my life.
My sister's idiot boyfriend just softbricked her phone. There's half an hour of my life gone.
Get him to pay for your time or let your sister learn the consequence of letting people mess with her phone. Who knows what she's liable to let him mess with next time.
That is so stupid it makes me want to cry. Your ideas have been tested, and the fact that they have been expelled from polite society is the result of them failing that test.
I love how not only did they say he was non-Catholic, but that there was also a non-Catholic Pope 450 years before him, therefor implying that there had been TWO non-Catholic Popes.
Do people actually use free speech to mean that? Also, they need to define "public forum".
Yeah, there is evidently a vocal minority who has this whacked-out idea of "philosophical" free speech, which has literally never existed in any culture anywhere ever. There seem to be a few people who claim to want a society that is open and tolerant to any form of discussion, and that repressing anything anyone says is the highest possible crime.
Really, they just want a place where they can say asshole things without suffering repercussions.
Do people actually use free speech to mean that? Also, they need to define "public forum".
Reddit is a public utility to them, and needs full absolute government-mandated free speech.
But they're all also libertarians, and the government should have no role in regulating anything.
But none of them can vote yet, so it's sort of moot. The few who can will vote for Rand Paul or Ayn Rand or whatever and not matter.
They won't reproduce sexually, so the only real question is how more of them keep being made.
Actually I've seen an outpouring of support for Bernie Sanders lately, especially after the #blacklivesmatter protesters shoved him off the stage. I mean you're not wrong, there's a pretty strong libertarian slant, but I've always seen a lot more centerist comments.
Do people actually use free speech to mean that? Also, they need to define "public forum".
Yeah, there is evidently a vocal minority who has this whacked-out idea of "philosophical" free speech, which has literally never existed in any culture anywhere ever. There seem to be a few people who claim to want a society that is open and tolerant to any form of discussion, and that repressing anything anyone says is the highest possible crime.
Really, they just want a place where they can say asshole things without suffering repercussions.
I had someone try to argue that exact thing at me just yesterday. I pointed out that his opinion is all well and good, but Reddit, nor anyone else, has any obligation whatsoever to follow his philosophy, or any interpretation he has of their philosophy.
He did not seem to take the idea that Philosophy(particularly his own) is not objective very well.
It takes a special kind of instability to have an emotional breakdown over how one could have, but did not, hurt an elderly pug. I've met people in psych wards who are better grounded than that.
Did pretty shitty working the register today and was just kind of overwhelmed by everything even though I know its not that hard. Got sent home early because we were slow and they're really cheap but I'm just really paranoid that they'll fire me even though I'm pretty sure I've done fine working in the back.
So, this floated around Twitter, and I know it's trying to be progressive and helpful but it's pissing me off:
This map is hugely problematic for reasons most people won't know. Its greatest sin is ignorance of how Native Americans did not believe in political land borders. Much like in the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa, Injuns moved as they pleased. They were a nomadic people, and didn't dispute land until the arrival of Europeans who wanted it to be privately owned. That old bit of trivia of how Manhattan was bought for a few hundred dollars in beads? That was a great deal for the Injuns, as they didn't believe they had any more claim to it than the Dutch who decided to occupy it.
Furthermore, it misplaces many tribes. For instance, why are the Iriquois out in the great lakes when they inhabited what is now upstate New York? Why are the Aztecs so far north? Wouldn't they have had to conquer the Mayans (as they did, IRL) in order to get that far north? I understand that the map means to be of what the continent would look like in 2015 without Western interference, but it fails to keep tribes where they were. Or when they were, for that matter. The Olmec were long gone by the time of the Mayans who were extinct by the time of the Iriquois. To create a map like this for Europe would be like having the Soviet Union ruling in Scandinavia, just north of the Roman Empire and east of the not-yet-united Kingdom of England.
And there weren't that few tribes, either. Check out this map, that respects the nomadic nature of the indigenous people: Notice how many tribes there were? Most of the sections on the first map are families of tribes, rather than actual tribes. Native Americans were far more diverse than that.
Native Americans did not believe in political land borders. Much like in the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa, Injuns moved as they pleased. They were a nomadic people, and didn't dispute land until the arrival of Europeans who wanted it to be privately owned.
This is... not really true. Aztecs and other large southwestern groups had permanent settlements and defined territories. Many tribes were nomadic (or semi-nomadic with permanent settlements for seasonal agriculture), but even they had territories and disputes over them.
The Iroquois were throughout the whole Great Lakes region too, they were just not as dominant there, IIRC they often clashed with the Sioux.
I'll admit I don't know much about the southern Indians. I know a lot about the tribes involved in the War of 1812, and a lot about the great plains tribes like the Sioux, but my knowledge of Pueblo tribes and central American tribes' beliefs is severely lacking.
Regarding the Iroquois, I did a little bit of review and learned that they did hold parts of the Great Lakes in the 17th and early 18th century, but were then defeated by tribes like the Odawa back to New York, where they reside today. My knowledge of their presence is mostly late-18th Century through present day, which doesn't cover when they had control over that territory.
I maintain that the original image is overly simplistic and misrepresents the vast majority of tribe through ignorance of many of their traditions, and the complete omission of most tribes (i.e. the plethora of tribes who resided in what they call the "Apache Empire" who would not have identified as Apache. Furthermore, these technicalities fail to address the maps problematic placement of the Aztecs, and the confusing timeline of which tribes coexisted when.
Not to mention the application of questionable borders when a lot of the Native American tribes were highly mobile, particularly the tribes of the Great Plains.
I'll admit I don't know much about the southern Indians. I know a lot about the tribes involved in the War of 1812, and a lot about the great plains tribes like the Sioux, but my knowledge of Pueblo tribes and central American tribes' beliefs is severely lacking.
If you're ever in the southwest, there are tons of archaeological sites to visit that are very interesting and worth seeing. The scale and complexity of some structures is simply astounding.
I'd also like to add that the Mayans are not extinct. They still exist in Central America, though obviously they are nowhere near as powerful as they once were.
Comments
This is in reply to the XKCD comic...
On a more amusing note,
This would be in TOYD, but it is still a fail, so it goes here.
But they're all also libertarians, and the government should have no role in regulating anything.
But none of them can vote yet, so it's sort of moot. The few who can will vote for Rand Paul or Ayn Rand or whatever and not matter.
They won't reproduce sexually, so the only real question is how more of them keep being made.
Really, they just want a place where they can say asshole things without suffering repercussions.
He did not seem to take the idea that Philosophy(particularly his own) is not objective very well.
This map is hugely problematic for reasons most people won't know. Its greatest sin is ignorance of how Native Americans did not believe in political land borders. Much like in the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa, Injuns moved as they pleased. They were a nomadic people, and didn't dispute land until the arrival of Europeans who wanted it to be privately owned. That old bit of trivia of how Manhattan was bought for a few hundred dollars in beads? That was a great deal for the Injuns, as they didn't believe they had any more claim to it than the Dutch who decided to occupy it.
Furthermore, it misplaces many tribes. For instance, why are the Iriquois out in the great lakes when they inhabited what is now upstate New York? Why are the Aztecs so far north? Wouldn't they have had to conquer the Mayans (as they did, IRL) in order to get that far north? I understand that the map means to be of what the continent would look like in 2015 without Western interference, but it fails to keep tribes where they were. Or when they were, for that matter. The Olmec were long gone by the time of the Mayans who were extinct by the time of the Iriquois. To create a map like this for Europe would be like having the Soviet Union ruling in Scandinavia, just north of the Roman Empire and east of the not-yet-united Kingdom of England.
And there weren't that few tribes, either. Check out this map, that respects the nomadic nature of the indigenous people:
Notice how many tribes there were? Most of the sections on the first map are families of tribes, rather than actual tribes. Native Americans were far more diverse than that.
The Iroquois were throughout the whole Great Lakes region too, they were just not as dominant there, IIRC they often clashed with the Sioux.
Regarding the Iroquois, I did a little bit of review and learned that they did hold parts of the Great Lakes in the 17th and early 18th century, but were then defeated by tribes like the Odawa back to New York, where they reside today. My knowledge of their presence is mostly late-18th Century through present day, which doesn't cover when they had control over that territory.
I maintain that the original image is overly simplistic and misrepresents the vast majority of tribe through ignorance of many of their traditions, and the complete omission of most tribes (i.e. the plethora of tribes who resided in what they call the "Apache Empire" who would not have identified as Apache. Furthermore, these technicalities fail to address the maps problematic placement of the Aztecs, and the confusing timeline of which tribes coexisted when.