• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

Story Monday, Nov 18, 2019 [Party-089]

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Right. I meant correct pronunciation. Which probably isn't available on that translation site at all.

 

Also, "modern" pronunciation of Latin has drifted from the classic use--for example, in Classic Latin, a "C" was always pronounced with a "K" sound and never with a "S" sound, and there was no "J" sound at all--the letter was "I" and pronounced as such. Thus, "Julius Caesar" should be pronounced like "Yulius Kaiser", not "Joolius Seesar".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Also, "modern" pronunciation of Latin has drifted from the classic use--for example, in Classic Latin, a "C" was always pronounced with a "K" sound and never with a "S" sound, and there was no "J" sound at all--the letter was "I" and pronounced as such. Thus, "Julius Caesar" should be pronounced like "Yulius Kaiser", not "Joolius Seesar".

Also, there was no "G", no "Y", no "U", and no "W". "V" stood mostly for our "U" sound, and Caesar's famous quote "Veni, vidi, vici" ("I came; I saw; I conquered") sounded like "Wennee, Weedee, Weekee".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
19 hours ago, mlooney said:

\me takes a note and adds "Trying too hard"

Are you saying I'm floundering?

\me underlines the trying to hard comment.  Adds a star...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mlooney said:

\me underlines the trying to hard comment.  Adds a star...

Oooh! I earned a star! That must be a really good thing. (... and now, I'm a starfish, which sadly, isn't nearly a fish.)

Also sadly, I'm barely trying. ... Let me rephrase that; I'm barely putting effort into punning, but I agree, it may indeed be a trying ordeal.

(... I could be the sheriff, now. What kind of star did you say it was?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ijuin said:
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Right. I meant correct pronunciation. Which probably isn't available on that translation site at all.

 

Also, "modern" pronunciation of Latin has drifted from the classic use--for example, in Classic Latin, a "C" was always pronounced with a "K" sound and never with a "S" sound, and there was no "J" sound at all--the letter was "I" and pronounced as such. Thus, "Julius Caesar" should be pronounced like "Yulius Kaiser", not "Joolius Seesar".

7 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:
7 hours ago, ijuin said:

Also, "modern" pronunciation of Latin has drifted from the classic use--for example, in Classic Latin, a "C" was always pronounced with a "K" sound and never with a "S" sound, and there was no "J" sound at all--the letter was "I" and pronounced as such. Thus, "Julius Caesar" should be pronounced like "Yulius Kaiser", not "Joolius Seesar".

Also, there was no "G", no "Y", no "U", and no "W". "V" stood mostly for our "U" sound, and Caesar's famous quote "Veni, vidi, vici" ("I came; I saw; I conquered") sounded like "Wennee, Weedee, Weekee".

Are you trying to describe how Latin (where individual letters mostly corresponded to individual phonemes) is pronounced using examples of how someone would spell the pronunciation in English, which is one of languages with most complicated differences between pronounciation and spelling?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Are you trying to describe how Latin (where individual letters mostly corresponded to individual phonemes) is pronounced using examples of how someone would spell the pronunciation in English, which is one of languages with most complicated differences between pronounciation and spelling?

It isn't so much the English spelling; we've incorporated so many words from so many other languages that we are constantly trying (and failing) to guess from which language we borrowed a particular word, as well as how much or how little we modified it after borrowing it. Each of those other languages has different rules for spelling, and we might follow our rules or their rules, with some words modified enough that the original rules won't work at which point we might or might not change completely to English rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haylo said:

we've incorporated so many words from so many other languages

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

-- James Davis Nicoll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person who said that English is a result of Norman soldiers chatting up Saxon barmaids and about as legitimate as the other results thereof, was oversimplifying.

The Norman soldiers (and the Norman French language) were themselves the result of Norse soldiers chatting up barmaids who were the result of Germanic soldiers chatting up barmaids who were the result of Roman soldiers chatting up Celtic barmaids.

The Saxon barmaids were the result of Saxon warriors chatting up barmaids who were the result of Roman soldiers chatting up (a different group of) Celtic barmaids.

And I'm sure that if I knew the history further back...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

And I'm sure that if I knew the history further back...

I guess Troy might be involved in Roman Soldiers history ... I mean, the Trojan prince Aeneas is supposed ancestor of the founders of Rome and the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Of course, Aeneas's mother is supposed to be Aphrodite, and I'm pretty sure Aphrodite wasn't barmaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

And I'm sure that if I knew the history further back...

Well, since we are on the subject of the Norse...

About two and a half thousand years ago, my ancestors arrived at a small peninsula and a handful of islands of varying sizes stuck like a kind of outgrowth atop Germany. They actually came from pretty far east, having been displaced by some rude people who came from further east, who had in turn... well, you get the idea.

Anyway, my ancestors arrived and saw a beautiful country that was inhabited by war criminals. (They were guilty of the war crime of using flint and stone weaponry against bronze spears and swords. The punishment for that is usually severe.) Obviously my ancestors had no other choice than to take charge of this land, and in the process they intermarried with the locals, creating the stock the Danish part of my family is descended from.

The lesson was obvious: immigrants are trouble. Therefore today we have the Danish People's Party which despises all outsiders because WE of course have always possessed this land forever and ever since time out of mind, the previous inhabitants didn't count and don't get a vote. Better keep those darn immigrants out!

So anyway, this mixed stock then eventually started to spread out. Some of them went to Norway. Others went to England. There they established the Danelage and intermarried further with the locals.

Here things get confusing. The Norwegian side of the family then decided to go to France and settle there. They established themselves in Normandy and became the people known as Normans. They intermarried a lot with the French, too.

So, then they decided they wanted a slice of England, too, and invaded. Here they ran into their own kin the Danes who had intermarried with the English and decided they were clearly superior because they were Danish-descended Norwegians who had intermarried with the French. They took over England and intermarried with the... but you get the idea.

Racial purity is nonsense. It's all about who moved where last. I think my last racially pure ancestor gave up on the idea of purity about the same time it came up with a method of reproduction that involved swapping genes with a fairly similar partner instead of just doing fission like a sensible single cell organism. White supremacists are all toxic imbeciles and ought to read a book sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

having been displaced by some rude people who came from further east

Hmmmm ... I don't know enough about history to know if I should take offense ...

7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

and in the process they intermarried with the locals

Note that the words "rape" and "consent" were not invented yet so we can't be more specific. In any case, they definitely weren't married in Catholic sense, given the lack of Catholic priests in that area of world ... and time ... :)

7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Racial purity is nonsense. It's all about who moved where last. I think my last racially pure ancestor gave up on the idea of purity about the same time it came up with a method of reproduction that involved swapping genes with a fairly similar partner instead of just doing fission like a sensible single cell organism. White supremacists are all toxic imbeciles and ought to read a book sometime.

The racial purity is not in danger as long as all involved are the same race. Considering the idea of race didn't appeared until 16th century, obviously everyone was racially pure before that :)

I wonder if there are any racially pure white supremacists. Sounds unlikely. Most of the secluded people who can most likely claim racial purity are unlikely to be able to claim to be white with straight face.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Note that the words "rape" and "consent" were not invented yet so we can't be more specific.

Also of some importance, it is impossible to establish at this remote in time precisely what happened. I can only speculate based on historical examples of what happens when two populations meet in this way. It is my hypothesis that some of these relationships involved consent for reasons of either passion, love or convenience, and that some... did not.

To which proportion either happened I have no idea. I am sufficiently of a romantic to hope that it was as much as was possible of the former and as little of the latter. But I do not have high hopes, I am afraid.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I wonder if there are any racially pure white supremacists. Sounds unlikely. Most of the secluded people who can most likely claim racial purity are unlikely to be able to claim to be white with straight face.

*scratches head* According to prevailing anthropological and genetic knowledge, the only 100% racially pure Homo sapiens sapiens left on the planet are certain peoples in Africa who have yet to have children with people from other parts of the world. The humans who migrated north and east through Europe and Asia Minor encountered Homo neanderthalensis there and interbred with them. Also, both of these are now believed to have interbred with another subspecies of Homo commonly referred to as the Denisovans and tentatively named Homo denisova, Homo altaiensis, or Homo sapiens denisova. No scientific consensus of precisely what to call them has been arrived at yet, at least as far as I know.

I do admire the irony. Hitler, white supremacists and similar buffoons notwithstanding, it seems that the purest of human beings still alive are Black and largely live in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

White supremacists are all toxic imbeciles and ought to read a book sometime.

That's part of the problem
They have read A book

The most toxic have read (or the people to whom they listen have read) only a few books (maybe 66?)
Intellectual growth is facilitated by examining and considering ideas with which you do not currently understand or agree
People who are only comfortable within their own opinions don't bother to read the works of authors they find confusing or offensive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

People who are only comfortable within their own opinions don't bother to read the works of authors they find confusing or offensive

It can be helpful to start in small doses with people who themselves are capable of critical thought. I have gained significant insight in conservative thinking by reading Rick Wilson, for example, and following conservative opinion writers I respect. And I have certainly balked at the ideas they presented more than once -- frequently, even -- but every single time I forced myself to read them through carefully and consider them as impersonally as I was able, I was forced to concede that they had valid points.

I might still not agree with them, mind you. But having acknowledged their validity I find that I am no longer able to merely dismiss them out of hand. More, on several major issues I am compelled to say that they have such good points that I not only fully understand why they oppose my viewpoint -- I even applaud them for it and consider their stance a not only valuable but absolutely vital opposition. Ideas can get out of hand, be they good or bad -- and then it is very, very helpful to have people around who are able and willing to pull the brakes.

That, by the way, is the worst tragedy of this rampant partisan stampede towards the extremes. When nobody is willing to listen to the other side, the swings can only end up oscillating out of control, taking us on a madcap ride where ultimately no-one is in charge.

Or worse yet, just one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The humans who migrated north and east through Europe and Asia Minor encountered Homo neanderthalensis there and interbred with them. Also, both of these are now believed to have interbred with another subspecies of Homo commonly referred to as the Denisovans and tentatively named Homo denisova, Homo altaiensis, or Homo sapiens denisova. No scientific consensus of precisely what to call them has been arrived at yet, at least as far as I know.

And the Denisovans interbred with someone else. Not H.s.sapiens and H.s.neanderthalensis, and probably not H.erectus or H.heidelbergensis.

Thing is, if the someone else was not one of those four, then the only evidence of their existence that we are currently aware of is the traces in our few samples of Denisovan DNA.

About racial purity: according to a former coworker from South Africa, the apartheid government sponsored a research program that succeeded in identifying a set of genetic markers that could, collectively, distinguish allegedly-pureblood members of various South African black tribes from people in northern Europe who could trace their ancestry back a few hundred years all in northern Europe. Turned out that most officials of the apartheid government had markers identifying them as both... so the whole program was very carefully covered up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note that the words "rape" and "consent" were not invented yet so we can't be more specific.

Also of some importance, it is impossible to establish at this remote in time precisely what happened. I can only speculate based on historical examples of what happens when two populations meet in this way. It is my hypothesis that some of these relationships involved consent for reasons of either passion, love or convenience, and that some... did not.

Well, yes, considering the time frame (it wasn't SINGLE attack, it was happening over the course of multiple years) it's extremely likely both cases happened, but ...

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

To which proportion either happened I have no idea. I am sufficiently of a romantic to hope that it was as much as was possible of the former and as little of the latter. But I do not have high hopes, I am afraid.

... I suspect that only reason why the proportion of consentual ones would be higher would be if the women had so bad position in marriage with their own people that having relationship with (relatively) stranger looked like good idea.

There were times when women ruled ... but 500BC was not that.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I wonder if there are any racially pure white supremacists. Sounds unlikely. Most of the secluded people who can most likely claim racial purity are unlikely to be able to claim to be white with straight face.

*scratches head* According to prevailing anthropological and genetic knowledge, the only 100% racially pure Homo sapiens sapiens left on the planet are certain peoples in Africa who have yet to have children with people from other parts of the world.

I though there are some quite secluded people in south america, but, hmmm, not sure how pure they were when they got there.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The humans who migrated north and east through Europe and Asia Minor encountered Homo neanderthalensis there and interbred with them. Also, both of these are now believed to have interbred with another subspecies of Homo commonly referred to as the Denisovans and tentatively named Homo denisova, Homo altaiensis, or Homo sapiens denisova. No scientific consensus of precisely what to call them has been arrived at yet, at least as far as I know.

I do admire the irony. Hitler, white supremacists and similar buffoons notwithstanding, it seems that the purest of human beings still alive are Black and largely live in Africa.

There is rumor that Hitler himself was Jewish. The rumor is probably false in ordinary sense, but according to DNA tests, seems he wasn't exactly pure.

Meanwhile, the rumors that Jesus Christ was Jew and not exactly white are at least as certain as his existence itself.

9 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Intellectual growth is facilitated by examining and considering ideas with which you do not currently understand or agree
People who are only comfortable within their own opinions don't bother to read the works of authors they find confusing or offensive

Don't worry. Universities in USA are working hard on ensuring that noone would need to read anything confusing or offensive. It's something about safe space.

8 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Ideas can get out of hand, be they good or bad -- and then it is very, very helpful to have people around who are able and willing to pull the brakes.

That, by the way, is the worst tragedy of this rampant partisan stampede towards the extremes. When nobody is willing to listen to the other side, the swings can only end up oscillating out of control, taking us on a madcap ride where ultimately no-one is in charge.

Yes. Both parties stampede towards the extremes, ensuring that neither would be fit to govern: no matter which side will win the result will be catastrophic.

8 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Or worse yet, just one person.

Yeah ... noone is enough of a genius to not need someone to criticize his ideas. I've read that the reason why Star Wars 1-3 are worse than 4-6 is that noone dared to tell Lucas that some of his ideas are bad. Of course, it's much worse when it happens to ruler.

2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

And the Denisovans interbred with someone else. Not H.s.sapiens and H.s.neanderthalensis, and probably not H.erectus or H.heidelbergensis.

Thing is, if the someone else was not one of those four, then the only evidence of their existence that we are currently aware of is the traces in our few samples of Denisovan DNA.

.... wait. Were they gray, small with big eyes and from another planet? Or did they had pointed ears?

3 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

About racial purity: according to a former coworker from South Africa, the apartheid government sponsored a research program that succeeded in identifying a set of genetic markers that could, collectively, distinguish allegedly-pureblood members of various South African black tribes from people in northern Europe who could trace their ancestry back a few hundred years all in northern Europe. Turned out that most officials of the apartheid government had markers identifying them as both... so the whole program was very carefully covered up.

Sounds unlikely. The part about being covered carefully, I mean, considering the coworker knew about it. The rest seems very likely.

Not sure what would be worse for those officials: the possibility that almost everyone in their country is not pure ... or the possibility that there is some causal relationship between their European ancestry and their position in government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

... I suspect that only reason why the proportion of consentual ones would be higher would be if the women had so bad position in marriage with their own people that having relationship with (relatively) stranger looked like good idea.

There were times when women ruled ... but 500BC was not that.

I am terribly afraid that you are correct. :doom:

1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

I though there are some quite secluded people in south america, but, hmmm, not sure how pure they were when they got there.

Not very, I am afraid. After all, they passed overland through Europe and/or Asia Minor as well.

2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Meanwhile, the rumors that Jesus Christ was Jew and not exactly white are at least as certain as his existence itself.

There is always that little issue of his existence as such. It seems fairly certain that there was once a Jesus of Nazareth, but whether his life bore even a remote resemblance to what is related in the Bible is as far as I know still a subject of heated debate. :(

3 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Don't worry. Universities in USA are working hard on ensuring that noone would need to read anything confusing or offensive. It's something about safe space.

Ah yes, the hyperbolic strawmanning of the actual intent of safe spaces, namely that one should be able to study without fear of bigotry, misogyny or sexual violence. Taking away the privileges of white males to freely engage in these will surely destroy all learning as we know it.

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Yes. Both parties stampede towards the extremes, ensuring that neither would be fit to govern: no matter which side will win the result will be catastrophic.

I am afraid so, yes. :(

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Yeah ... noone is enough of a genius to not need someone to criticize his ideas. I've read that the reason why Star Wars 1-3 are worse than 4-6 is that noone dared to tell Lucas that some of his ideas are bad. Of course, it's much worse when it happens to ruler.

It is a bit more complicated than that when it comes to Lucas, though the gist of it resembles it. I highly recommend to you SF Debris' video series The Hero's Journey, The Shadow's Journey and The Hermit's Journey if you wish a closer look at the story. Please note that all taken together these videos are at least seven hours long, if not more, so it may be more time than you are willing to spend on them.

As to absolute rulers, these have tended not to do well in comparison to democratic systems, at least when it comes to the general contentment of the populace. As Winston Churchill once put it, democracy is an absolutely terrible system whose only defence is being at least eight times better than any other system of government invented by humans.

13 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

.... wait. Were they gray, small with big eyes and from another planet? Or did they had pointed ears?

I do not think so.

...

...should we be worried? :icon_eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Old Hack said:
15 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Meanwhile, the rumors that Jesus Christ was Jew and not exactly white are at least as certain as his existence itself.

There is always that little issue of his existence as such. It seems fairly certain that there was once a Jesus of Nazareth, but whether his life bore even a remote resemblance to what is related in the Bible is as far as I know still a subject of heated debate. :(

At least the flames are more metaphorical nowadays. Few centuries ago the debate was so heated some people were burned at stake during it.

4 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
18 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Don't worry. Universities in USA are working hard on ensuring that noone would need to read anything confusing or offensive. It's something about safe space.

Ah yes, the hyperbolic strawmanning of the actual intent of safe spaces, namely that one should be able to study without fear of bigotry, misogyny or sexual violence. Taking away the privileges of white males to freely engage in these will surely destroy all learning as we know it.

I'm willing to believe you are right with the intent. Unfortunately, limiting freedom of expression is always problematic, no matter the intent. There might be also problem with some universities going too far ...

But ok ... my knowledge about the situation is second-hand ... might not be reliable.

13 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Please note that all taken together these videos are at least seven hours long, if not more, so it may be more time than you are willing to spend on them.

It definitely is.

14 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

As to absolute rulers, these have tended not to do well in comparison to democratic systems, at least when it comes to the general contentment of the populace. As Winston Churchill once put it, democracy is an absolutely terrible system whose only defence is being at least eight times better than any other system of government invented by humans.

... did he really said specifically eight times? I always heard it with just "better", no other quantification.

One important note about this is that democracy is less effective than many alternatives. Turns out that when it comes to the general contentment of the populace, effectiveness can have negative value ...

16 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
30 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

.... wait. Were they gray, small with big eyes and from another planet? Or did they had pointed ears?

I do not think so.

...

...should we be worried? :icon_eek:

Should we be more worried if they ARE, or if they are NOT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

Unfortunately, limiting freedom of expression is always problematic, no matter the intent.

Imposing consequences on use of the N-word? On hate speech in general? On inciting violence against vulnerable groups? Yes, perhaps it is problematic, but simply ignoring these will allow the bigots, the white supremacists and the hatemongers to freely flourish with little to fear.

The same will not go for their victims.

2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

... did he really said specifically eight times? I always heard it with just "better", no other quantification.

*scratches head* Actually I don't think he did. I just conflated it with a very similar Heinlein quote. Heinlein and Churchill were two cranky old dinosaurs with a lot in common so maybe that is not surprising.

5 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

One important note about this is that democracy is less effective than many alternatives. Turns out that when it comes to the general contentment of the populace, effectiveness can have negative value ...

There is also the problem that sometimes absolutism can be VERY effective in running a nation into the ground.

As an entirely irrelevant aside, Denmark finally got its own constitutional monarchy based on democratic rule right after King Christian the Seventh had flirted with absolutism. The population at large got very tired of that very fast.

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Should we be more worried if they ARE, or if they are NOT?

I dunno! I think I am just, like, you know, generically worried. :icon_eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
30 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Unfortunately, limiting freedom of expression is always problematic, no matter the intent.

Imposing consequences on use of the N-word? On hate speech in general? On inciting violence against vulnerable groups? Yes, perhaps it is problematic, but simply ignoring these will allow the bigots, the white supremacists and the hatemongers to freely flourish with little to fear.

The same will not go for their victims.

Yes, even that is problematic. Considering the consequence, ignoring is not good idea either ; however, I would feel safe to say that anyone who is not aware of the problem is very likely to overdo it.

Note that just because some argument is used by white supremacists and hatemongers doesn't automatically make it false. Also, even broken watches show correct time twice per day.

23 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
30 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

One important note about this is that democracy is less effective than many alternatives. Turns out that when it comes to the general contentment of the populace, effectiveness can have negative value ...

There is also the problem that sometimes absolutism can be VERY effective in running a nation into the ground.

It reminds the prophecy about destroying a mighty empire. Capacity to effectively run a nation into the ground is very welcomed when you are in war and it's not YOUR nation who will be run into the ground. However, in peace ...

23 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
30 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Should we be more worried if they ARE, or if they are NOT?

I dunno! I think I am just, like, you know, generically worried. :icon_eek:

In that case, hmmm, .... continue?

But, like, maybe don't be TOO worried. After all, it was long time ago, it's unlikely there will be some sudden consequences now ... unless, like, something else happens to activate those genes, and we can always blame that something else then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Hmmmm ... I don't know enough about history to know if I should take offense ...

Note that the words "rape" and "consent" were not invented yet so we can't be more specific. In any case, they definitely weren't married in Catholic sense, given the lack of Catholic priests in that area of world ... and time ... :)

The racial purity is not in danger as long as all involved are the same race. Considering the idea of race didn't appeared until 16th century, obviously everyone was racially pure before that :)

I wonder if there are any racially pure white supremacists. Sounds unlikely. Most of the secluded people who can most likely claim racial purity are unlikely to be able to claim to be white with straight face.

A pretty good article on why "race" is passe.

Re: "I wonder if there are any racially pure white supremacists."

Actually, the secluded ones may have the best claim; it goes with the long term inbreeding. (Although, to be entirely fair, I've never heard the term, "blue supremacists".)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note that just because some argument is used by white supremacists and hatemongers doesn't automatically make it false. Also, even broken watches show correct time twice per day.

No, but it does make it greatly suspect because they cannot be trusted to argue in good faith. In fact, they may be counted to argue in bad faith whenever possible because they know that presenting the opposition with some of their own concerns will often throw them off. When it comes to hate groups, arguments about tolerance quite simply do not apply, because the rules for civilized debate hold no meaning for those whose entire objective is causing civilization to fail.

As to the broken clock argument, it has the inherent problem that if one does not have access to a functional clock, one cannot tell which two times in the day the broken clock shows the correct time. Also it does not fit, for the broken clock is not malign and will not deliberately attempt to mislead you by showing the correct time sometimes and giving you misleading information the rest of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

.... wait. Were they gray, small with big eyes and from another planet? Or did they had pointed ears?

Hard to say; the researchers didn't have any Uryuom or Immortal DNA to compare it to.

15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

One important note about this is that democracy is less effective than many alternatives. Turns out that when it comes to the general contentment of the populace, effectiveness can have negative value ...

Effective how? I mean, all governments I am aware of exist for the purposes of promoting the well being of the leaders and/or the general populace. Contentment and well being are not one and the same, but they usually go together, so I would think content populace would suggest a fairly effective government...

14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, even broken watches show correct time twice per day

That depends on whether they have an electronic or physical display, and just how badly broken they are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this