there is a significant difference between tankies from the ex-USSR countries and from outside of them.

    the first group are often-but-not-always what we commonly refer to as kraskons, red conservatives. Westerners tend to get somewhat befuddled when hearing about the likes of Zyuganov (the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation who also defends traditional orthodox values) but it makes perfect sense to me: it's a classic impulse of wanting things to go back how they were before, with the caveat that in this case some of the "before" was when the country was at least nominally communist.

    another thing about these people is that they tend to be boorish louts, irrespective of their level of formal education. they don't understand what science is, what knowledge is, what books are for. their rich internal lives are not very affected by when and why Osip Mandelstam died. their only discipline of interest is history, which for them is just a series of periods divided into groups: "the times when we were the strongest" and "the times we got stabbed in the back by devious traitors that we failed to root out".

    and that's not what stands out to me in the history of the XX century. i see another story repeating itself: it starts with brilliant poets, engineers, artists, commanders, revolutionaries, and then it ends abruptly.

    executed executed died in prison died in prison wife killed for good measure murdered to pin the murder on someone died in prison work camp wrecked health, died in a year executed without trial beaten to death in jail before trial

    you read a biography and it starts with "18XX-1938" and you know how it ends. or 1937. or 1953. or 1924. or 1927. and those are just the people historians decided we need to know about! my great-grandfather is not one of them.

    and the fate of those who ran away is better in the sense that they lived longer, but

    "I'm all for war and its dementia, I'm for the Tsar, if even dead, The Russian intelligentsia I hate to very bitter end"

    (Georgy Ivanov, 1949, translation mine)

    did they die happy? I do not think so.

    and you know what's fucked? The gaps. The people that aren't in there. Lev Kassil died in 1970. He got through it fine, right? Not so. Josef Kassil, his brother, died in 1938 and you can guess why. What would you do in this situation, to avoid the same fate? Yeah, Lev became a rat. We will never know for sure if he was an informant, but he was in the chorus of accusers. You cannot help but assume that this is just what happened to anyone who lived through 20s and 30s and 40s, had his voice heard, and didn't even go to prison.

    anyway, it hurts every time. i want to say it gets easier, but it doesn't. it is always exactly the same. You see that "— 1938" and it's like being stabbed with a knife, right through the brain. the more it happens, the higher the risk that the stabbing turns into a constant throbbing headache that you cannot ignore.

    the western tankies though, they don't feel that pain. they don't need to. Vavilov, Kharms and Radek are not even real words for them, I don't think they can even pronounce them right. no special significance for sure. they just see the regime and go "holy shit they just KILLED THE ANNOYING AND WEIRD PEOPLE? we should do that. wouldn't that be fucking based?!" you could say it should be of no concern to you since it's not like these people got any hold over society as a whole, but… the world still sucks, okay? I'm sorry you like it, but 18 million people die of structural poverty every year. and you ask "is there no alternative to this?" and these people are like "YES! YES! HELLO, THANK YOU ASKED. THE ALTERNATIVE IS RAPE RAPE MURDER MURDER TORTURE EXECUTION BLOODSHED. WE ARE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. ANYONE WHO PRETENDS THERE'S ALSO ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS JUST LIKE US, EXCEPT WEAKER. YOU SHOULD ALSO DIE FOR JUST ASKING THIS QUESTION AS IF THE ANSWER ISN'T OBVIOUS."

    by the way the answer is no it wouldn't. it would not be fucking based.

    they don't understand why.

    they never felt the pain.

    that's why they dream of being the ones holding the knife.

    katelyn-danger

    Unironically, vegans need to be advocating for more and better sheep, llama, and alpaca farms. Wool is one of the best fabrics we have in terms of versatility, longevity and most importantly, insulation. Even wet, it retains 80% of it’s insulation potential.

    AND IT DOESN’T SHED MICROPLASTICS

    katelyn-danger

    Like, there’s literally nothing you can do to a sheep that’s as morally reprehensible as dumping plastic down the gullet of literally every other living thing. You wanna talk about animal welfare? Talk about reducing the amount of microplastics produced by rayon, polyester, and spandex.

    guinea-big-deactivated20221004

    Bruh plant-based sources of clothing exist and are better for the environment and don’t involve slicing an animal’s throat open please shut the fuck up you cunt

    katelyn-danger

    THE WOOL GROWS BACK

    scoutandcowpany

    I know when I shear my animals I always make sure to slice their throat 😌

    is-the-fox-video-cute

    In the UK many farmers are resorting to throwing away or burning the wool from their sheep because the fleeces have so little value now that it’s not worth trying to sell them. Other farmers are switching to using sheep breeds that moult naturally as it costs more to sheer an individual sheep than it’s fleece is worth. 

    Meanwhile fast fashion brands keep pumping out clothing made of plastics that will permanently pollute the environment and shed microplastics everywhere. 

    is-the-owl-video-cute

    The impact PETA has had on completely misinforming the public on where wool comes from is astounding.

    This is all shearing a sheep involves. That’s it. It may be a bit confusing or uncomfortable, but it’s no more inhumane than giving a dog a bath. Most wool-bearing animals do not shed their wool naturally anymore and must be sheared to avoid suffering an incredibly slow death.

    Nothing about wool production is cruel to the animals. No part of wool goes against veganism. Benefits the animal and benefits the people.

    brunhiddensmusings

    ive gotten a depressing amount of use out of th is image

    redpandarascal

    If you want a quick summary: wool is made by sheep haircuts, and you have to give sheep haircuts anyway. Everyone in this post is using the term “sheering”, which might sound scary to you, because it’s a technical term you’re unfamiliar with that references a blade. It’s a haircut. It’s a less exploitative haircut than when a principal lets the students shave their head if the students raise enough charity money. Haircut haircut haircut.

    politiho

    how are there so many vegans that think you have to kill an animal to cut it’s wool

    ask-giantessgnostic

    I am going to publicly say this. I feel that PETA are ecofash in disguise. Everything they’ve done seems to align with that trend.

    cookingwithroxy

    The thing is, it would kinda be easier to deal with them if they were. There are fringe elements of them who adhere to eco-fascism, at least in the overpopulation elements. But PETA is a strange and… let me say ‘unique’ kind of evil. And explaining it is very simple, because all you need is one of their actual stated principles.

    They feel that domestication of animals is an unacceptable evil, inherently abusive to the animal. And because of that, they believe that all domesticated animals should be killed.

    They want to kill your pets, they’ve actually been caught abducting and killing pets, because they feel it is better for animals that all pets are eliminated. That’s what they consider 'animal liberation’ for domesticated animals.

    And they ONLY care about the 'abuse’ of animals. Which is why by and by some do come off very overtly as eco-fascists, because they will take their existing beliefs about animals and apply them to humans as well. And of course, some are just dupes, ignorant idiots who buy into the 'humanitarian’ principles the group claims to hold to. But for the most part their absence of direct care about human actions or global environmental issues makes PETA more adjunct to eco-fascism than actually a fascist-aligned group itself.

    throwitonthepile

    ...how does PETA stay afloat, anyways?

    katelyn-danger

    Unironically, vegans need to be advocating for more and better sheep, llama, and alpaca farms. Wool is one of the best fabrics we have in terms of versatility, longevity and most importantly, insulation. Even wet, it retains 80% of it’s insulation potential.

    AND IT DOESN’T SHED MICROPLASTICS

    katelyn-danger

    Like, there’s literally nothing you can do to a sheep that’s as morally reprehensible as dumping plastic down the gullet of literally every other living thing. You wanna talk about animal welfare? Talk about reducing the amount of microplastics produced by rayon, polyester, and spandex.

    guinea-big-deactivated20221004

    Bruh plant-based sources of clothing exist and are better for the environment and don’t involve slicing an animal’s throat open please shut the fuck up you cunt

    katelyn-danger

    THE WOOL GROWS BACK

    scoutandcowpany

    I know when I shear my animals I always make sure to slice their throat 😌

    is-the-fox-video-cute

    In the UK many farmers are resorting to throwing away or burning the wool from their sheep because the fleeces have so little value now that it’s not worth trying to sell them. Other farmers are switching to using sheep breeds that moult naturally as it costs more to sheer an individual sheep than it’s fleece is worth. 

    Meanwhile fast fashion brands keep pumping out clothing made of plastics that will permanently pollute the environment and shed microplastics everywhere. 

    is-the-owl-video-cute

    The impact PETA has had on completely misinforming the public on where wool comes from is astounding.

    This is all shearing a sheep involves. That’s it. It may be a bit confusing or uncomfortable, but it’s no more inhumane than giving a dog a bath. Most wool-bearing animals do not shed their wool naturally anymore and must be sheared to avoid suffering an incredibly slow death.

    Nothing about wool production is cruel to the animals. No part of wool goes against veganism. Benefits the animal and benefits the people.

    brunhiddensmusings

    ive gotten a depressing amount of use out of th is image

    redpandarascal

    If you want a quick summary: wool is made by sheep haircuts, and you have to give sheep haircuts anyway. Everyone in this post is using the term “sheering”, which might sound scary to you, because it’s a technical term you’re unfamiliar with that references a blade. It’s a haircut. It’s a less exploitative haircut than when a principal lets the students shave their head if the students raise enough charity money. Haircut haircut haircut.

    politiho

    how are there so many vegans that think you have to kill an animal to cut it’s wool

    “ ‘Truth is stranger than fiction’, as the old saying goes. When I watch a documentary I can’t help crying and then think to myself ‘Fiction can’t compete with this.’ But when I mentioned this to a veteran Manga artist friend of mine, he said ‘Fiction brings salvation to characters in stories that would otherwise have no salvation at all.’ His words strengthened the conviction of my manga spirit.”

    – Arakawa Hiromu, 2005 (Fullmetal Alchemist, Vol. 12)

    “ ‘Truth is stranger than fiction’, as the old saying goes. When I watch a documentary I can’t help crying and then think to myself ‘Fiction can’t compete with this.’ But when I mentioned this to a veteran Manga artist friend of mine, he said ‘Fiction brings salvation to characters in stories that would otherwise have no salvation at all.’ His words strengthened the conviction of my manga spirit.”

    – Arakawa Hiromu, 2005 (Fullmetal Alchemist, Vol. 12)

    The new macrofinancial economics, with its relentless focus on the 'interlocking matrix' of corporate balance sheets, strips away all the comforting euphemisms. National economics aggregates are replaced with a focus on corporate balance sheets, where the real action in the financial system is. This is hugely illuminating. It gives economic policy a far greater grip. But it exposes something that is deeply politically indigestible. The financial system does not, in fact, consist of 'national monetary flows.' Nor is it made up of a mass of tiny, anonymous, microscopic firms - the ideal of 'perfect competition' and the economic analogue to the individual citizen. The overwhelming majority of private credit creation is done by a tight-knit corporate oligarchy...At a global level twenty to thirty banks matter. Allowing for nationally significant banks, the worldwide is perhaps a hundred big financial firms.

    Crashed; How a Decade of Financial Crises Change the World, by Adam Tooze

    shadytail

    We also figured out—the hard way—that the ancients probably cut each layer of linen to the proper shape before gluing them together. For our first linothorax, we glued together 15 layers of linen to form a one centimeter-thick slab, and then tried to cut out the required shape. Large shears were defeated; bolt cutters failed. The only way we were ultimately able to cut the laminated linen slab was with an electric saw equipped with a blade for cutting metal. At least this confirmed our suspicion that linen armor would have been extremely tough. We also found out that linen stiffened with rabbit glue strikes dogs as in irresistibly tasty rabbit-flavored chew toy, and that our Labrador retriever should not be left alone with our research project.

    krakenartificer

    I love this in every way possible. What is it from? Where can I read more?

    blackcatphysics

    The pitfalls of experimental archaeology and puppies.

    shrewreadings

    link to source:

    “Unraveling the Linothorax Mystery, or how Linen Armor Came to Dominate our Lives.”

    https://jhupress.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/unraveling-the-linothorax-mystery-or-how-linen-armor-came-to-dominate-our-lives/

    biggest-gaudiest-patronuses

    holy shit read the article. it’s short but wild

    morlock-holmes

    What exactly are we trying to solve?

    The incuriosity and fuzziness with which people look at the west coast homelessness crisis drives me fucking batty.

    Now look, I admit up front that I am also both incurious and wool-headed about this issue, but I work in a fucking restaurant for minimum wage. If you write a book about the fucking homeless crisis or run the city government I expect you to think a little bit harder than the average schmoe on the street, and I think that's reasonable.

    One thing that pisses me off about the way people talk about homelessness is that they don't seem to know why it's bad, or what it would look like to solve it. Which I know sounds crazy but hear me out.

    Scott Alexander helpfully reviews San Fransicko for me so I don't have to punch any holes in my drywall, but I want... Well, actually I was composing this as I finish Alexander's review, and I got to his utilitarian discussion at the end that cuts to the heart of the matter:

    Along with all the problems and preaching, San Fransicko offers solutions. These won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s read this far: they’re basically the Amsterdam plan presented earlier. Break up open-air drug markets. Force addicts into rehab by threatening prison sentences for noncompliance. Ban camping on streets and force the homeless into shelters. Offer permanent housing when appropriate, but make it contingent on good behavior. Have a strong psychiatric system with ability to commit people who need it, and enforced outpatient treatment when appropriate.

    Would these work?

    I’m pretty sure they would work well for housed people and the city as a whole. Homeless people would no longer block the streets and assault passers-by; they would be safely out of sight in shelters or in mental institutions. A new generation of tough DAs would crack down on crime. Stores could reopen, and citizens could walk the streets without fear. It’s hard for me to imagine this not working.

    ...

    I have to admit - I talk a good utilitarian talk on this, but I don’t know if I live up to my ideals. An addictionologist interviewed in San Fransicko heaps contempt on well-off liberals who get the benefits of virtue-signaling while externalizing the costs onto poor people in bad areas:

    [You] sit in the suburbs and feel smug about the fact that you oppose the war on drugs and have a Black Lives Matter sign in your yard. But you don’t have homeless people taking a crap on your front stoop every day or [have] all your packages stolen every single day

    So I imagine - what if I lived in the worst parts of SF, had people crap on my front steps every day, had all my packages stolen, and (by the bounds of this hypothetical) wasn’t allowed to move to the suburbs, ever? I think I would last two weeks before I sacrificed all of my principles on the altar of “less human feces, please”.

    Maybe, as a lefty, I'm supposed to read that and gasp and say, "How can you be so heartless?" or maybe I'm supposed to say, "Gosh, when you get right down to it, doesn't the poor guy have a point?"

    But instead I'm going to ask:

    Do you have any studies showing how effective those policies are at getting rid of human feces?

    I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm genuinely wondering how Alexander didn't notice that so much of the criticism he himself quotes in Shellenberger's book has nothing to do with any of that stuff.

    This is the particular quote from Shellenberger that caught me up short:

    "An experiment with 249 homeless people in San Francisco between 1999 and 2002 found those enrolled in the city’s Housing First program, Direct Access to Housing, used medical services at the same rate as those who were not given housing through the program, suggesting that the Housing First program likely had minimal impact on the participants’ health."

    Did it have an impact on how often they took a shit on a public sidewalk? Did it have an impact on the amount of litter they dumped on streets? Did it have an impact on time spent chasing people around and screaming obscenities? Did it have an impact on how often they injected heroine in the subway? Did it have an impact on how many sidewalks they blocked with tents?

    All that fucking soul-searching, all that "Gosh, perhaps to solve the problem we simply must be cruel" and this reluctant commitment to reducing the effect of homelessness on tourists and housed locals, and realizing that, gosh, we might have to sacrifice the well-being of homeless people if that's what it takes, an utter commitment to ignoring anything but the reduction of social harm from mass camping...

    And the criticism of DAH is that it doesn't improve the health outcomes of the people enrolled in it?!

    ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

    This kind of goalpost shifting is RIFE within the discussion of west coast homelessness, where opponents of current policies or even speculative ones waffle back and forth about whether or not they give a shit about the health of the homeless or not.

    Before all that soul-searching I quoted this is Scott's assessment of Housing First policy:

    Conclusion: Housing First seems to work in getting people housing. It probably also helps people use fewer medical services, and it might or might not save money compared to not doing it (probably more likely when treating very severe cases, less likely in areas with high housing costs). It probably doesn’t affect people’s overall health or drug use status very much.

    So... Housing first policies probably actually do a pretty damn good job at making the Homeless less obnoxious to tourists and housed people in a number of concrete ways related to litter, camping, public defecation, etc.?

    There's good reason to think, pending further research, that they might actually do a pretty good job at reducing some of the problems that, after all that soul-searching, we decided were the only priorities we have?

    I'm furious and unhappy at the way Portland is being covered by tent cities, mounds of trash, and grafitti. But I have this utterly baffling conversation with people where they go,

    "This camping is shameful, the city should crack down on it!"

    "So, get people into stable housing"

    "Well, if you get people into stable housing it only puts a band-aid on the problem, they still can have health and behavioral problems that are really important."

    And I always go, "Right, but I thought we were trying to reduce camping."

    There's this kind of baffling goal-post moving. Alexander has a lot of paragraphs of hand-wringing over whether or not we should accept that sometimes we have to be TOUGH and HARD to really solve these problems, and accept that we may just have to care less about what Homeless people do or want, but he somehow hasn't noticed that he actually has very little data on whether or not Shellenberger's preferred policies work better than what he calls "Housing First" in terms of these metrics.

    This is a wild guess and armchair psychologizing, but what seems to be happening is that in cities like San Francisco or Portland, as the problem gets worse, you, as a relatively better-off housed person, start thinking of Homelessness less and less in purely charitable terms with worries about how it effects the homeless, and more and more things like, "I don't like crossing the street because the sidewalk I was going to use is blocked by tents and piles of garbage" and "I don't like how often people chase after me screaming obscenities" and that feels somehow hard and uncompassionate, so you sort of start to assume that the only way to solve these problems is through policies that also feel hard and uncompassionate.

    But I'm going to be honest, the case for that strikes me as extremely flimsy and I don't think I've ever seen anybody make it in a very convincing way.

    ghostpalmtechnique

    The homelessness rate is higher in San Franscisco than it is in Detroit (by a lot), which tells you all you need to know about whether poverty or mental health, rather than housing supply, is the underlying problem.

    morlock-holmes

    Yeah that definitely seems much more plausible to me.

    The Homelessness Problem in Portland didn't really have the capital letters until roughly ten years ago. My mother's neighborhood has been a dump ever since she moved there, it's a weird mix of malls and chain restaurants with incredibly sketchy looking auto mechanics, cheap motels, and dilapidated apartment buildings with low rent and nobody doing maintenance.

    When she first moved there about a decade ago, you basically never saw any homeless people in the neighborhood. Then, you started to see a few. Then a few more. Five years ago it started becoming common to run into panhandlers at any hour night or day. Today, Every other block has a tent complex surrounded by heaps of garbage.

    There has, recently, been an explosion in the population of homeless people, it is a very temporally limited phenomenon and a lot of people seem bafflingly unable to treat it that way.

    In that review Scott Alexander makes a strong moral argument against involuntary institutionalization, and another argument that I think should be made is that the timeline of de-institutionalization doesn't seem to coincide with the timeline of the homelessness spike in any way.

    I'm very unfamiliar with the history of de-institutionalization in the USA, but the one quote Scott gives from Shellenberger with a timeframe is this:

    The tragic irony is that many of the people who had drawn attention to the poor conditions in mental hospitals had hoped to mobilize the public to increase funding for better care in them, not shut them down entirely […] Idealism and ideology had triumphed over pragmatism and reason. Between 1948 and 1962, the mental health center that reformers had pointed to as the model had not prevented a single case of mental illness or even treated a single individual with schizophrenia or other major psychiatric disorders. As a result, notes a historian, “The majority of lives were little different than they had had while hospitalized . . . and a significant number were considerably worse off.” Some mental health reformers regretted what they had done.

    So... I can't help but notice that Homelessness in my mom's neighborhood really started becoming a major nuisance to the housed people around, you know, literally half a century later.

    And the thing is, the narrative Shellenberger wants to press is that deinstitutionalization is part of this sort of general attitude of permissiveness and apathy towards mental illness, which allows the mentally ill to run around on the streets and bother people without consequence or hope of help.

    But if that's the case, shouldn't the spike in homelessness coincide very closely with deinstitutionalization? Wikipedia has a fairly vague article on the whole process but even if we're quite generous and push the date of deinstitutionalization all the way to 1980 that still leaves a more than 30 year gap between deinstitutionalization and Portland's spike in homelessness.

    I really don't know what, in Shellenberger's narrative about what institutionalization does or is for, could possibly result in this kind of delayed effect; if the narrative is 'we just let all the mentally ill people out to live on the streets' you should see a massive increase in problem homelessness pretty much immediately on the closure of the institutions, not decades later in populations that hadn't even been born yet.

    If nothing else, putting aside for the moment all the moral arguments against institutionalization, Portland, at the least, was for quite a while able to adequately control the homeless population without needing to use this practice.

    Given that the practice is morally disastrous, and if we don't care about that it's also expensive, wouldn't it make more sense to try to figure out how to reduce the impact of homelessness without this tool, given that we provably did so for many decades?

    The homeless problem as a serious drain on livability for the housed in Portland is less than a decade old, but over the last few years there's been a massive increase in the homeless population, and if we aren't asking why this happened then to me any argument about solutions is sort of like trying to decide if a bandaid will work on that cut or if you need gauze while Jason Vorhees is currently in the process of hitting you with a machete.

    rabbits-of-negative-euphoria

    “In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. ‘How are we to live in an atomic age?’ I am tempted to reply: ‘Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.’

    In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.

    This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.”

    - C.S. Lewis, On Living In An Atomic Age, 1948

    throwitonthepile

    “same shit, different day.”

    freebroccoli

    Just as humanizing the Nazis is a two-way street, so pointing out the bizarre lack of dissent in Nazi Germany is both distressing and encouraging. Distressing because – how could ordinary humans tolerate that? But encouraging because – well, it seems almost possible to imagine a world where something goes wrong and America ends up overtly fascist. Yet even in my worst nightmares I can’t imagine a world where America ends up overtly fascist and nobody is annoying and obstructionist about it. Arendt’s picture of Germany, where the ruling party has 90% approval and dissent is unthinkable – you can’t get there from here. We’re never unanimous about anything.

    I thank G-d for the annoying obstructionists, for the nitpickers, for the devil’s advocates, for the people who hear something that’s obviously true and strain to come up with an absurd thought experiment where it might not be, for the reflexive contrarians, for the people who always vote third party, for the people who urge you to sign petitions on whitehouse.gov because “then the President has to respond”, for the people who have two hundred guns in their basement “just in case”, for the people who say “well, actually…” all the time, for the mayors of sanctuary cities and the clerks who refuse to perform gay weddings, for the people who think being banned on Twitter is a violation of their human rights, and for the people who swear eternal hostility to other people on the same side who agree with them on 99% of everything. On the spectrum from “totally ungovernable” to “vulnerable to Nazism”, I think that we’ve erred in the right direction.

    - Scott Alexander

    rametarin

    You’d be amazed at how much braver people are to stan and play devils advocate and argue hypotheticals and just be obstinate contradictive shits on the matter of values when they know some absolutely crazy asshole will go ham if their contrarian ass is ever disappeared.

    The Germans had an entire government wing designed purely to efficiently exterminate human beings en masse the same as a company might have a machine to turn avocado into guacamole. I can absolutely understand being forced to swallow your personal qualms, because they were disarmed, they were disheartened, they were surrounded by guerilla communists that wanted so bad to take over every aspect of their industry and government and economy whether the German people wanted it or not (like they did to POLAND. And most other places that went Soviet by infiltration) So they had to choose between the shitty genocidal nationalistic home brew, or.. communism.

    The United States will likely never have to deal with this, because as much as people may hate the republicans, the voting record of the republican party proves their values are consistent, even beneath the racism of much of the people that vote for it. The record will show every time there’s an opportunity to endow civil rights upon a people, whether racial or not, they come through. Any force or party that ran on a platform with secret, genocidal aspirations would be met with a hail of lead at the impact sight and a rain of brass casings where the shooters stand. And so long as it remains legal to wield long range long barreled weapons nationally, so long as the only thing that stands between a dead tyrant holding a rally in the open air is a dissenter with a weapon, it’ll stay that way.

    Remember, the only thing holding back political murder in the US is that the people inclined to do so, despite absolutely nothing holding them back from actually going through with the deed, are actively choosing not to do so.

    shadytail

    We also figured out—the hard way—that the ancients probably cut each layer of linen to the proper shape before gluing them together. For our first linothorax, we glued together 15 layers of linen to form a one centimeter-thick slab, and then tried to cut out the required shape. Large shears were defeated; bolt cutters failed. The only way we were ultimately able to cut the laminated linen slab was with an electric saw equipped with a blade for cutting metal. At least this confirmed our suspicion that linen armor would have been extremely tough. We also found out that linen stiffened with rabbit glue strikes dogs as in irresistibly tasty rabbit-flavored chew toy, and that our Labrador retriever should not be left alone with our research project.

    krakenartificer

    I love this in every way possible. What is it from? Where can I read more?

    blackcatphysics

    The pitfalls of experimental archaeology and puppies.

    shrewreadings

    link to source:

    “Unraveling the Linothorax Mystery, or how Linen Armor Came to Dominate our Lives.”

    https://jhupress.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/unraveling-the-linothorax-mystery-or-how-linen-armor-came-to-dominate-our-lives/

    sindri42

    science!

    Medieval YouTubers

    Who to watch, and who to avoid

    There are a plethora of YouTubers out there who make content relevant to medieval history. It can be difficult for one to sift through them and figure out who is good and who isn't worth their time. With this list I hope to address the more noteworthy examples, though as a result many smaller channels will likely be ignored.

    The first category of channels are those that I Recommend. These channels largely present good information with a degree of academic integrity. They include:

  • Knyght Errant
  • Popula Urbanum
  • Pursuing the Knightly Arts
  • Scholagladiatoria
  • Tod's Workshop
  • Modern History TV
  • Faye Sterling
  • Roland Warzecha
  • I include Roland Warzecha with my usual caveat: Roland is an experimental archaeologist. The tests that he performs and the conclusions which he draws are subject to the advantages and issues inherent with that discipline. As such, they must be understood in that context, however I still find Roland to run a good channel and be worth noting here.

    The second category are those who... well, Should I Watch Them? These channels post content which doesn't tend to be wrong, or even misleading, but which may not be held up the the greatest standard. These include:

  • Skallagrim
  • Metatron
  • The final category are Those to Avoid. These channels are those that regularly post videos with misleading information or poorly executed research as it pertains to medieval history. They include:

  • Shadiversity
  • Lindybeige
  • This list is intended to help those new to the discipline, to steer them in the right direction towards easily accessible material which is trustworthy and not misleading, not to put down these creators for the content they make.

    I hope you find this useful. Cheers!

    The instinct to abuse critics is justified by the idea that it is “punching up” at elitist gatekeepers. But unlike Siskel and Ebert, modern critics are neither famous nor wealthy nor powerful. They may have influence en masse, via review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (there is safety in numbers), but the days when one critic could make or break a movie, album or anything else are long gone. Yet fans still see them as dream-crushing monsters from which million-selling musicians and billion-dollar movies must be defended at all costs.

    Dorian Lynskey, The Dying Art of the Hatchet Job
    (via st-just)

    big-block-of-cheese-day

    “Someone once wrote that the basic strategy of progressives, in the 21st century, is to work the refs – that is, to make an appeal to authority about the fundamental fairness or unfairness of a given situation and expect authority to correct the problem. You can see this clearly in the constant focus on identifying inequalities or disparities. Progressives endlessly point out how things are unequal along racial or gender lines, usually correctly. But they often have nowhere to go after that; they seem to think that just identifying disparity is somehow a way to change it. They work the refs; they appeal to some nameless authority who, they seem to believe, will establish justice just for having been asked.

    The progressive takeover of (ostensibly) neutral institutions is bound up with this broad strategy. The undeniable evolution of the New York Times from an officially politically neutral institution to one that is frankly and unapologetically a progressive advocacy organization clearly reflects this manner of thinking. The Times is precisely the kind of organization a naïve liberal might see as an authority that should be appealed to for justice. And so too with Penguin employees seeing their employer as the kind of benevolent authority that might fight their battles for them. So much of what left-leaning people ask for today is, at heart, a nurturing mother who might congeal out of the morning dew and take their problems away from them.”

    Freddie DeBoer

    Hopefully losing the Supreme Court as a backup to popular will so thoroughly will help cure the left of this. It’s anti-majoritarian and this doomed to top out in terms of wielding power.

    The military was not called a militia... ever. Actually in 1791 we didn't really have a military. We had what were called "Regulars" who were independent Militias by state, made up of men who were ordinary civilians from as young as age 12 to as old as fuck. It was largely free-form with no punishments regarding desertion. Regulars could come and go, really. It was not a standing army. Militia never meant military and still doesn't

    To be "well regulated" meant to be trained and equipped for eventual combat. The word had nothing to do with authoritative limitation, that's a modern usage.

    So the second amendment (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) can and should be read as:

    "Because thoroughly trained and equipped civilians are necessary to defend their individual freedom, the irrevocable right of those people to own and use weapons is not to be suspended."

    official-mugi

    Taiwan exists

    Reblog to annoy Chinese nationalists

    theweststilllives

    These post is so dumb on so many levels. Of course an island exists.

    The Republic of China is the name of the country whose capital city is Taibei 臺北.The People’s Republic of China is the name of the country whose capital city is Beijing 北京. “Chinese Nationalist” historically means the Nationalist Part of China (Wade-Giles: Kuomintang, Pinyin: Guomindang) 國民黨.”China” 中國 has mostly been a non-unified group of many different ethnic regions with their own languages and sub-cultures throughout the centuries. I don’t know what the OP is trying to say nor whom he is trying to annoy.

    official-mugi

    That's cool man but check this out

    动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门