In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 10 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote: Twitter is a shit company and doesn't ban accounts that threaten people. It's weird that this was the thing set them off. Not people calling black twitter users the N-bomb all the time.
Youtube is pretty garbage too. Monetizing Jimmy Kimmel's videos on the Las Vegas shooting when they said they wouldn't. Hollywood elite is real.
Santa Rosa is my hometown, and the fire has been really bad. The city has like 170,000 people, and the northern quarter of the city has likely been destroyed.
The Trump administration will scuttle an Obama-era clean power plan aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, made the announcement in Hazard, Ky., on Monday, saying the rule hurt coal-fired plants.
"The EPA and no federal agency should ever use its authority to say to you we are going to declare war on any sector of our economy," Pruitt said, speaking at an event with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"That rule really was about picking winners and losers," the EPA administrator said, adding that the rule change would be signed on Tuesday.
The announcement had been anticipated. It would eliminate the Clean Power Plan that was put on hold by the U.S. Supreme Court and therefore never implemented.
On October 10 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote: Twitter is a shit company and doesn't ban accounts that threaten people. It's weird that this was the thing set them off. Not people calling black twitter users the N-bomb all the time.
Santa Rosa is my hometown, and the fire has been really bad. The city has like 170,000 people, and the northern quarter of the city has likely been destroyed.
On October 10 2017 09:49 Plansix wrote: I just saw that and it's terrible. I hope none of your family still lives there.
My parents are still there, but the fire hasn't forced them to evacuate yet. However, I know lots of people who probably lost their homes. The death toll is probably going to be pretty bad. The fire was carried into the city in the middle of the night by winds gusting over 60 mph.
Santa Rosa is my hometown, and the fire has been really bad. The city has like 170,000 people, and the northern quarter of the city has likely been destroyed.
This is getting scary! Hurricanes, wildfires and rising sea levels...nature strikes back harder every year. With climate changing at this rate, I guess it's time to go and live in a pineapple under the sea.
Santa Rosa is my hometown, and the fire has been really bad. The city has like 170,000 people, and the northern quarter of the city has likely been destroyed.
This is getting scary! Hurricanes, wildfires and rising sea levels...nature strikes back harder every year. With climate changing at this rate, I guess it's time to go and live in a pineapple under the sea.
Weather is not climate. California gets seasonal wildfires.
Good to hear. This isn't not a good fall season for America and its island citizens.
Edit: come on folks, can we try not to get mad about who eats what is climate change for one page. People's family's could legit have their houses burn down today.
that doesn't really seems like a "these days" kind of thing; given how long sharpton's been in the game.
Sharpton protesting political actions by ESPN/commentators/players is what's changed. I grant you it's sometimes hard to keep up with the shifting sands of the politicization of everything.
that doesn't really seems like a "these days" kind of thing; given how long sharpton's been in the game.
Sharpton protesting political actions by ESPN/commentators/players is what's changed. I grant you it's sometimes hard to keep up with the shifting sands of the politicization of everything.
is that truly a change? sharpton's been protesting all sorts of things for a very very long time, whatever the current topic is. and sharpton isn't exactly someone who's been shy of politicizing anything, so this doesn't really seem like unusual ground for him to tread.
Through a Eurocentric lens it makes sense to say "it wasn't on our maps, so we discovered it" except that's not how it works.
How else would it work? It was hardly on their maps either- just local mapping for seasonal patterns of migration. Sure it's a lens- because the counter is 'well, the indigenous were always here, since time immemorable, they didn't need to discover themselves.' The sort of concern for subject and object in history. So in that sense all peoples are existing on their own and have no need of being discovered, for they already know themselves. Well sure, but who bridged that gap? Which ships set out from which continent to land in the continent of another. There were still those who acted and in acting would end up finding others that they did not know, and those that they discovered also discovered that there were others in the world besides themselves. So in a sense, point of contact is the moment in which both groups discovered each other... but 'X group discovered Y group' is a nice shorthand to describe which group it was that built the ships and went, in contrast to those who stayed and received those same ships. And this would be true if it were the Aztecs sending ships to India and China, or the Nuu Chah Nulth were circumnavigating the globe, or if the Tsleil-Waututh were figuring out how to sail around Cape Horn.
Still watching that video, but I would say some of his framing really depends how cynical of motivations you are ascribing to the elites. (By way of analogy- depending on your framing of the rise of unions, you can get some very different explanations. Were unions formed as a part of cynical plan by the bourgeoise to keep exploiting the proletariat? Or were unions formed when the elites were forced to make concessions from labour uprisings? The uprisings still happen, the elites are still resisting giving up power and the union still rises- but was it a reactive concession dragged from the elites or was it a pro-active plan by the elites for more nefarious purposes.) But because Tim is ascribing motivation, we simply bumped back from one assertion to another's assertions
So we're aware that Columbus noted in his journal that black people had already been to America and been trading, which is confirmed in African history as well?
Because with that in mind I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from.
that doesn't really seems like a "these days" kind of thing; given how long sharpton's been in the game.
Sharpton protesting political actions by ESPN/commentators/players is what's changed. I grant you it's sometimes hard to keep up with the shifting sands of the politicization of everything.
is that truly a change? sharpton's been protesting all sorts of things for a very very long time, whatever the current topic is. and sharpton isn't exactly someone who's been shy of politicizing anything, so this doesn't really seem like unusual ground for him to tread.
I'm not going to scrap with you about how Sharpton just gets out his bullhorn and fires at whatever's hot that day. Frankly I'm glad that you recognize the trend.
The rest of it. Well, I'm still waiting on an answer from you.
that doesn't really seems like a "these days" kind of thing; given how long sharpton's been in the game.
Sharpton protesting political actions by ESPN/commentators/players is what's changed. I grant you it's sometimes hard to keep up with the shifting sands of the politicization of everything.
is that truly a change? sharpton's been protesting all sorts of things for a very very long time, whatever the current topic is. and sharpton isn't exactly someone who's been shy of politicizing anything, so this doesn't really seem like unusual ground for him to tread.
I'm not going to scrap with you about how Sharpton just gets out his bullhorn and fires at whatever's hot that day. Frankly I'm glad that you recognize the trend.
The rest of it. Well, I'm still waiting on an answer from you.
there is no rest of it that you asked; I was disputing it being a "these days" kind of thing for sharpton. Sharpton showing up and joining in whatever the protest du jour is is typical, and he's been protesting all sorts of wacky stuff since forever. There's no question you asked, so there's nothing to answer.
that doesn't really seems like a "these days" kind of thing; given how long sharpton's been in the game.
Sharpton protesting political actions by ESPN/commentators/players is what's changed. I grant you it's sometimes hard to keep up with the shifting sands of the politicization of everything.
is that truly a change? sharpton's been protesting all sorts of things for a very very long time, whatever the current topic is. and sharpton isn't exactly someone who's been shy of politicizing anything, so this doesn't really seem like unusual ground for him to tread.
I'm not going to scrap with you about how Sharpton just gets out his bullhorn and fires at whatever's hot that day. Frankly I'm glad that you recognize the trend.
The rest of it. Well, I'm still waiting on an answer from you.
Jemele should be given an ESPY, don't really care what Sharpton is doing, nor does anyone except old black people and conservatives.
Jerry Jones is a scumbag and the athletes are doing the right thing.
Through a Eurocentric lens it makes sense to say "it wasn't on our maps, so we discovered it" except that's not how it works.
How else would it work? It was hardly on their maps either- just local mapping for seasonal patterns of migration. Sure it's a lens- because the counter is 'well, the indigenous were always here, since time immemorable, they didn't need to discover themselves.' The sort of concern for subject and object in history. So in that sense all peoples are existing on their own and have no need of being discovered, for they already know themselves. Well sure, but who bridged that gap? Which ships set out from which continent to land in the continent of another. There were still those who acted and in acting would end up finding others that they did not know, and those that they discovered also discovered that there were others in the world besides themselves. So in a sense, point of contact is the moment in which both groups discovered each other... but 'X group discovered Y group' is a nice shorthand to describe which group it was that built the ships and went, in contrast to those who stayed and received those same ships. And this would be true if it were the Aztecs sending ships to India and China, or the Nuu Chah Nulth were circumnavigating the globe, or if the Tsleil-Waututh were figuring out how to sail around Cape Horn.
Still watching that video, but I would say some of his framing really depends how cynical of motivations you are ascribing to the elites. (By way of analogy- depending on your framing of the rise of unions, you can get some very different explanations. Were unions formed as a part of cynical plan by the bourgeoise to keep exploiting the proletariat? Or were unions formed when the elites were forced to make concessions from labour uprisings? The uprisings still happen, the elites are still resisting giving up power and the union still rises- but was it a reactive concession dragged from the elites or was it a pro-active plan by the elites for more nefarious purposes.) But because Tim is ascribing motivation, we simply bumped back from one assertion to another's assertions
So we're aware that Columbus noted in his journal that black people had already been to America and been trading, which is confirmed in African history as well?
Because with that in mind I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from.
The more the merrier. I'm very convinced that people have been travelling across the oceans at much earlier times than the modern man tends to give credit. I, for instance, strongly suspect the Chinese were sailing up and down the west coast as there are west coast stories talking about the maggot eaters that came on ships. (Imagine you had never seen rice before.) However, it's still tentative because I'm not aware of conclusive evidence that this was so. But I'm biased to believe it.
Nonetheless, there is a direct link between Columbus, Cabot, et al voyages and the development of the modern countries in the Americas. So on one hand it makes sense to mark this event as rather unique. On the other hand, the same time could be great to bring to light older histories of older voyages, such as from Africa. To some extent, Columbus has better press- both being more recent and its easier to grasp a named individual- Leif Erikson has this advantage as well. Whereas, notes that anonymous African traders were there earlier makes it more difficult for compelling narratives... but perhaps scholarship can dig up some of the names and personalities of these African traders or explorers. Wonderful. I love it. And then Columbus certainly had such good press that it was fraudulent- the whole nonsense that he was proving that the world was spherical. Ghastly modern lies.
Does that help you figure out where I'm coming from?
On October 10 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote: Twitter is a shit company and doesn't ban accounts that threaten people. It's weird that this was the thing set them off. Not people calling black twitter users the N-bomb all the time.
I read a bit more about this and apparently Jimmy Kimmels ads don't go through youtube them self and are contracted through a completely different advertising agreement. A loop hole, sure, but it's not really any 'conspiracy' or youtube picking and choosing who to monetize in this instance.
Through a Eurocentric lens it makes sense to say "it wasn't on our maps, so we discovered it" except that's not how it works.
How else would it work? It was hardly on their maps either- just local mapping for seasonal patterns of migration. Sure it's a lens- because the counter is 'well, the indigenous were always here, since time immemorable, they didn't need to discover themselves.' The sort of concern for subject and object in history. So in that sense all peoples are existing on their own and have no need of being discovered, for they already know themselves. Well sure, but who bridged that gap? Which ships set out from which continent to land in the continent of another. There were still those who acted and in acting would end up finding others that they did not know, and those that they discovered also discovered that there were others in the world besides themselves. So in a sense, point of contact is the moment in which both groups discovered each other... but 'X group discovered Y group' is a nice shorthand to describe which group it was that built the ships and went, in contrast to those who stayed and received those same ships. And this would be true if it were the Aztecs sending ships to India and China, or the Nuu Chah Nulth were circumnavigating the globe, or if the Tsleil-Waututh were figuring out how to sail around Cape Horn.
Still watching that video, but I would say some of his framing really depends how cynical of motivations you are ascribing to the elites. (By way of analogy- depending on your framing of the rise of unions, you can get some very different explanations. Were unions formed as a part of cynical plan by the bourgeoise to keep exploiting the proletariat? Or were unions formed when the elites were forced to make concessions from labour uprisings? The uprisings still happen, the elites are still resisting giving up power and the union still rises- but was it a reactive concession dragged from the elites or was it a pro-active plan by the elites for more nefarious purposes.) But because Tim is ascribing motivation, we simply bumped back from one assertion to another's assertions
So we're aware that Columbus noted in his journal that black people had already been to America and been trading, which is confirmed in African history as well?
Because with that in mind I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from.
The more the merrier. I'm very convinced that people have been travelling across the oceans at much earlier times than the modern man tends to give credit. I, for instance, strongly suspect the Chinese were sailing up and down the west coast as there are west coast stories talking about the maggot eaters that came on ships. (Imagine you had never seen rice before.) However, it's still tentative because I'm not aware of conclusive evidence that this was so. But I'm biased to believe it.
Nonetheless, there is a direct link between Columbus, Cabot, et al voyages and the development of the modern countries in the Americas. So on one hand it makes sense to mark this event as rather unique. On the other hand, the same time could be great to bring to light older histories of older voyages, such as from Africa. To some extent, Columbus has better press- both being more recent and its easier to grasp a named individual- Leif Erikson has this advantage as well. Whereas, notes that anonymous African traders were there earlier makes it more difficult for compelling narratives... but perhaps scholarship can dig up some of the names and personalities of these African traders or explorers. Wonderful. I love it. And then Columbus certainly had such good press that it was fraudulent- the whole nonsense that he was proving that the world was spherical. Ghastly modern lies.
Does that help you figure out where I'm coming from?
Yes, it seems to be suffering from the same type of understanding that leads people to credit Greeks for things Egyptians knew long before them.
There's a lot to unpack there, but the short version is that a lot of "discoveries" are actually just when it was introduced to the region of Europe, and there is an important difference that is lost in titles like "The father of" or "He discovered".
It becomes more clear if you think about the Egyptians trying to accomplish the things they did without things Greeks claim to have discovered or invented.
It's literally got people to the point of suggesting that it's actually aliens that built the pyramids because we constructed a mythical history where Egyptians didn't use maps, complex mathematics, or complex social structures, so they couldn't have possibly created a country, or more specifically, monuments arguably unmatched in human history since.
Truth is that the Egyptians (among other African groups) and Chinese are frequently and consistently erased and replaced with some white guy who usually took some knowledge from them, and claimed credit. Hell, Columbus knew about Abubakari, it's not a coincidence very few other people do.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLuvUzSVAAAJvKL.jpg:large)
