|
PittTheElder posted:I thought the surprising thing was that cops fired into a crowd of civilians and then some of them were actually convicted for manslaughter. I guess the victims were white though. There’s a possibility it was an accidental discharge that started the shooting. Lots of witness accounts differ. There’s a big problem with people trying to earn woke points by interpreting history from a modern perspective and applying their own morality, which is where you get takes like “American independence was all about rich people trying to get richer and no common man had any reason to support the revolution.” Remember that when the Founding Fathers excluded the right to vote from women and black people, the average person on the street wouldn’t have much problem with it either. They weren’t any worse than was normal for the era.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
GotLag posted:I once read an account from a Canadian soldier, relating how he and his fellow soldiers tried and failed to make themselves understood at a Norman village with their high-school French, until the man they were talking to just told them to speak English (he'd been a steward on the liner Normandie). This was a problem for Cajuns in France, too. Picture two people from the most rural parts of Ireland and Idaho trying to have a conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Presumably there would be a great deal of potato-based discourse. Did you know the Irish dialect has 20 words for the potato plant, whereas the Idaho dialect has 31 for the tuber itself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Now that said a Founding Father did get one of the cops off, so perhaps some things don't change. Also when armed soldiers are used as crowd control, people panic, people hear things, and then shooting starts. They were probably terrified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Chamale posted:This was a problem for Cajuns in France, too. Picture two people from the most rural parts of Ireland and Idaho trying to have a conversation. Which is the Cajun in this analogy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
HMC T82 and other SPGs on the Light Tank M5 chassis Queue: HMC M37, GMC M41, Archer, T-29-5, Avenger I, FIAT 3000, FIAT L6-40, [M13/40, M14/41, M15/42], Carro Armato P40 and prospective Italian heavy tanks, Grosstraktor, Panzer IV/70, SU-85, KV-85, Tank sleds, Proposed Soviet heavy tank destroyers, IS-2 mod. 1944, Airborne tanks, Soviet WWII pistol and rifle suppressors, SU-100, DS-39 tank machinegun, Flakpanzers on the PzIV chassis, Sentinel, Comet, Faustpatrone, [Puppchen, Panzerschreck, and other anti-tank rocket launchers], Heavy Tank T32, Heavy Tanks T30 and T34, T-80 (the light tank), MS-1 production, Churchill Mk.VII, Alecto, Assault Tank T14, S-51, SU-76I, T-26 with mine detection equipment, T-34M/T-44 (1941), T-43 (1942), T-43 (1943), Maus development in 1943-44, Trials of the LT vz. 35 in the USSR, Development of Slovakian tank forces 1939-1941, T-46, SU-76M (SU-15M) production, Object 237 (IS-1 prototype), ISU-122, Object 704, Jagdpanzer IV, VK 30.02 DB and other predecessors of the Panther, RSO tank destroyer, Sd.Kfz. 10/4, Czech anti-tank rifles in German service, Hotchkiss H 39/Pz.Kpfw.38H(f) in German service, Flakpanzer 38(t), Grille series, Jagdpanther, Boys and PIAT, Heavy Tank T26E5, History of German diesel engines for tanks, King Tiger trials in the USSR, T-44 prototypes, T-44 prototypes second round, Black Prince, PT-76, M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman, M4A2 Sherman in the Red Army Available for request:  T-44 prototypes T-44 prototypes second round T-44 production Soviet HEAT anti-tank grenades PT-76 modernizations T-34-85M  German anti-tank rifles 15 cm sFH 13/1 (Sf) Oerlikon and Solothurn anti-tank rifles Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.H-J NEW  Lahti L-39
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:Everyone deserves rights under the law, even your enemies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:No current politics! I don't know what secondary source to believe, because the way people talk about Germans in ww1 is influenced by the way they talk about Nazis in ww2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
It's a joke about Soldier F. The trial starts next month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:OK: how many of the reports of German atrocities in Belgium and France during the opening weeks of ww1 were due to something like this, and how many weren't? Green troops panicking in a country they've been told is full of guerrillas seems like some of what happened, but then you get deliberate retaliation killings of hostages and thiings like that, which seems different.  got some cover because people went completely bananas with claiming the Hun was eating Belgian nuns and in actual fact, while German occupation was hardly a walk in the park, WW1 Germany did not in fact chop Belgian nuns up for rations and so forth? While all that poo poo was basically true about Hitler even if some details may have gotten sloppy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Remember that when the Founding Fathers excluded the right to vote from women and black people, the average person on the street wouldn’t have much problem with it either. They weren’t any worse than was normal for the era. The founding fathers didn't exclude women and black people from the vote, that came later, as part of the push to disentangle sufferage from property ownership.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:One of the things military history, and other forms of history, teaches me is that most people really do not want to kill or fight one another. Throw rocks, piss on their flags, sure, but actually fight and beat to death? It's not easy. We tend to remember the Jack Churchills complaining we could've kept WWII going another five or ten years and forget that there was one of those guys and hundreds of thousands of random Englishmen. I don't know if I can agree with that. Guys love fighting, and often, they love killing. Killing someone in war gets men respect and status, they often seek it out. Especially in pre-modern societies, the way people regard war is often almost like a sport. Only you get points by killing someone instead of putting a ball through a hoop. If you look at say, a classical Greek city state in any random year, more likely than not it is fighting a war. They could hardly abide a peace. Vice put out this interesting documentary about a festival on the island of Sumba in Indonesia. The climax of the festival is a sport which is basically just a traditional tribal battle between several villages in which combatants hurl javelins at one another from horseback. The primary difference between this game and a real battle is that the javelins haven't got points, but otherwise it looks very much like traditional small scale warfare. Take a blunt javelin in the eye and you'll still die, and people often do. When the host asks locals how they feel about this, they aren't just blase about the risk, they actually think people dying is good. Spilling blood produces a good harvest, and the whole community celebrates it. In fact the more injuries and deaths the better. They only changed to blunted darts in the first place because the colonial government made them, and it seems likely if there was nobody looking over their shoulder the battles would become much less ceremonial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIu38uhrBFk
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
It wasn't until 1870, with the 15th Amendment and the Civil Rights act of 1870 that there was any real federal law about voting at all. Before that, it was strictly on the state level. Women could vote in New Jersey from 1776-1807, when a law was passed taking that away, and, as of 1837 in Kentucky, any widow or woman with her own household who paid school taxes could vote. Black men could vote in New Jersey (until 1808), Pennsylvania (until 1838), and in New York if they owned property, and in a few other states without property requirements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:It's a joke about Soldier F. The trial starts next month. I had no clue what this was until I looked it up. Wow. I’m surprised it hasn’t at least received a little coverage in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
CoffeeBooze posted:I had no clue what this was until I looked it up. Wow. I’m surprised it hasn’t at least received a little coverage in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don't know if I can agree with that. Guys love fighting, and often, they love killing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
I love fighting, but I think I'd feel like I had sinned if I killed someone. Fortunately reenacting and fencing exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:I love fighting, but I think I'd feel like I had sinned if I killed someone. Fortunately reenacting and fencing exist. what if you killed hitler though
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 10:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:what if you killed hitler though If you killed Hitler then you would be a) dead and b) Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 10:50
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I was about to post the same thing but if we look at the Western world from the 20th century onwards, people volunteering for the military or even joining a boxing club are in the minority. There's been a definite social trend towards nonviolence in both ideals and practice over the past 100 years or so. Nenonen posted:If you killed Hitler then you would be a) dead and b) Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
The 'stache of course transfers after the whirl wind.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
Hitler killed himself to deny Stalin his essence, which would have made him unstoppable
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:If you killed Hitler then you would be a) dead and b) Hitler. That's why you make it look like a suicide
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Hitler killed the worst nazi in history. I haven't even blown a rasberry to a nazi, let alone punched one. I'm literally worse human being than Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
'He drowned in a vat of #9 sky blue, open and cut case boys...'
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I never thought of it that way. Makes it sound like the Quickening when you put it that way. The cursed mantle of the kung fuhrer. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:'He drowned in a vat of #9 sky blue, open and cut case boys...' 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I was about to post the same thing but if we look at the Western world from the 20th century onwards, people volunteering for the military or even joining a boxing club are in the minority. There's been a definite social trend towards nonviolence in both ideals and practice over the past 100 years or so. That's true, but then you're kind of stepping away from the original point. It's not so much then that most people really don't want to kill, but that in one specific context they don't do it often and over time there seems to be a decreasing tendency towards violence. That doesn't say much about people in general so much as it says something about the society in which we live. Nessus posted:Yeah, I think there's a desire to work hard, show off, and thump the other guy, but there is way less of a motivation to just straight up murder people in the direct sense. It's not impossible to do but we don't have to have complex rituals and public structures to avoid people goring each other to death like overcrowded antelope. (To be clear I'm talking about the micro-scale of the individual, not societal-scale actions. Most people will probably never strike a planned blow in anger in their lives, and this likely includes people in modern militaries.) We have extremely complex rituals designed to keep us from killing each other. Virtually every public space is going to have someone around who will have the explicit responsibility of interrupting public violence when it occurs. Start a fight at school, in a restaurant, on a bus, at an office and there will be a teacher, manager, bus driver, or somebody whose job it is to stop it. Despite all that there is the nigh universal phenomena of modernity of young men organizing extralegal associations and customs designed to facilitate violence against each other. For example there is the Bōsōzoku subculture of Japan, in which teens organized bike clubs and constantly engaged in vicious turf wars. Such organizations invariably end up involved in organized crime, but I think it's wrong to assume that that is their raison d'être. To a large extent the violence is itself the end goal. When there is mistrust and conflict between communities and the state/police, this kind of low scale intercommunal violence can really spiral out of control. I don't think its an accident that Honduras and El Salvador exit the civil war period with in the nineties with inconclusive peace settlements only to become two of the most violent countries on earth. You can't trust the police to solve your problems when you can still remember when those same officers were daily dumping dead bodies in the river. Yet without that trust the system for containing petty everyday violence breaks down, and the persistent insecurity fosters cycles of retaliation and retribution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
quote:We have extremely complex rituals designed to keep us from killing each other. Virtually every public space is going to have someone around who will have the explicit responsibility of interrupting public violence when it occurs. Start a fight at school, in a restaurant, on a bus, at an office and there will be a teacher, manager, bus driver, or somebody whose job it is to stop it. You sure about that? If we went out into a high street round where I live, I'd be willing to bet that fewer than half the restaurants you'd see would have the staff break up fights inside, and far fewer than half the buses would see the driver take more notice than pulling over and maybe calling for police. The cultural status of violence is not as universal as you seem to think it is. Squalid posted:That's true, but then you're kind of stepping away from the original point. It's not so much then that most people really don't want to kill, but that in one specific context they don't do it often and over time there seems to be a decreasing tendency towards violence. That doesn't say much about people in general so much as it says something about the society in which we live. What I'd argue, at least within my own cultural context, is that it's not nearly so much that violence itself has decreased within living memory, as the position of violence within society has completely changed. As late as the 1950s it was acceptable for respectable newspapers to carry leering articles gloating over how much fun it was to see the lower orders fighting each other. The start of public outrage and "What is to be done???" as the only socially acceptable response to people scrapping in public I would trace pretty starkly to the Mods and the Rockers on Brighton beach in 1964, and I'd say it's absolutely no coincidence that this is also when we were at the end of the process of recognising teenagers as a distinct Thing. There's always been young men fighting, but it's only very, very, very recently that the only polite response has become full-throated disapproval. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:You sure about that? If we went out into a high street round where I live, I'd be willing to bet that fewer than half the restaurants you'd see would have the staff break up fights inside, and far fewer than half the buses would see the driver take more notice than pulling over and maybe calling for police. The cultural status of violence is not as universal as you seem to think it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:I love fighting, but I think I'd feel like I had sinned if I killed someone. Fortunately reenacting and fencing exist. How did your guys handle this? I'm pretty sure I read something somewhere differentiating murder and killing people in a war, but it always felt a flimsy excuse. Also, in a more general note, does anyone have a recommendation for reading on the French Revolution? More specifically, on what the regular people were doing? The goings on of the Convention and the Committees is interesting, but often it feels like X made a speech, everyone clapped then Y got guillotined without really explaining why that could happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
I mean, thanks for telling me that I enjoy hurting other people, I never knew. In fact I was under the impression that it's the opposite. But if you say so it must surely be true, and not some hot take biotruth nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
I have no idea who you are talking to, but it doesn't seem like a helpful remark to make regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I never thought of it that way. Makes it sound like the Quickening when you put it that way. The cursed mantle of the kung fuhrer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury "Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler, a.k.a. "Kung Führer", enters the timeline and remotely guns down the police chief and attacks the precinct through a mobile phone."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
The Cursed Mantle Of The Kung Fuhrer is something you watch on the sci fi channel, eating snacks
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:You sure about that? If we went out into a high street round where I live, I'd be willing to bet that fewer than half the restaurants you'd see would have the staff break up fights inside, and far fewer than half the buses would see the driver take more notice than pulling over and maybe calling for police. The cultural status of violence is not as universal as you seem to think it is. I wasn't thinking that specifically. If I got into a fistfight with one of my coworkers at my workplace, my boss might not actively restrain me, but I'd also not be allowed to come back. If we ask a question like Do we have "complex rituals and public structures" to keep us from killing each other? I think the answer is clearly yes, and that becomes obvious if we stop and consider what would actually happen in different situations in our life if violence suddenly broke out. These customs of course vary dramatically over time and space, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
I wouldn't know if there's any instinctive call to violence, but it there is a fundamental pragmatism to it. Hurting somebody is one of the most basic ways to affect another human being, so if you wanted to assert your will on another person, that option's just always kinda there if you so choose. Many forms of interpersonal conflict will inevitably have violence baked in at some point or another. It's sometimes a chillingly effective solution, which leads to a horrible slippery slope of violence begetting more violence, where the pragmatism really wears out. One of the big tasks of society at large has been to suppress violence and try to contextualize it, which I feel like created its own kind of call to glory so that people dream of committing specifically state-sanctioned violence, since wars are often romanticized and praised in various ways by those who follow after, although there definitely seems to be a cooling off period relative to how bad the last conflict was. Although I think there's been an unusually successful wave of self-preservationist pacifism over the last century that while not suppressing war entirely, has so far prevented another all-out war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
I loved fighting in hockey and MMA but that's like a weird carefully sanctioned legal form of violence. not sure where this falls on the bio truth spectrum
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
yeah i don't want to hurt anyone and i'd feel like poo poo if i had to. it's the act of fighting i dig, not the product
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 01:45
|
|