Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3166. page

Eh I'm Muslim and usually have decent debates with what seem to be /pol/acks on this board.

My only problem is that the Islam threads are more or less carbon copies of one another ("muh religion of peace," ">islamic >golden >age," "so-and-so was x y and z," etc)

But, to be fair, they have diminished incredibly and the quality of the arguments on both sides has increased alongside the board's lifespan

I think the /pol/ shit posting will end once the election is over and Donald trump loses. God, if he wins they're gonna be so fucking insufferable. More than they are now I mean

>>1455967
Given that they are irredeemable contrarians they'll probably shit on Trump endlessly once he wins, even/especially if he does a good job ruling pragmatically.

>>1455928
Not overly. The two biggest changes are the creation of civilisation/cities and the internet encouraging restricted face to face interaction.

Personally, I believe that technology is primarily just an accelerant. The fundamental experience is and will remain the same. Only the scale of societies and the speed at which processes happen changes.

>>1455928
Yes but only very recently and in particular parts of the world.

And even then it's mostly about physical access to resources and amenities. But in order to attain this we've sacrificed social and spiritual aspects of our societies.

It's not an enormous change and people are still fundamentally the same but we live different lives for sure.

>>1455787


Resentment over Versailles treaty & German surrender

>>1455787
>the struggles that Hitler faced after WW1 were?
well for the first couple of years it was the fact that no one cared about him and his buddies

File: 156186465.jpg (2MB, 2808x2182px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2808x2182px

>>1455787

> significant capacity for violence
What do you mean by that? Even normal humans without any disorders could do fucked up shit in a right situation. It probably helps if you have a right disorder, but it clearly aren't necessary or need to be exactly sociopathic one.

>>1455719
I suppose I mean that without the right disorder, they will be plagued to be held back by their consciousness. While normal people can do rather violent things, it does seem as though sociopathic nature is a bit more glorified in the modern day especially.

>>1455727
My guess here is that, modern society deals with a relatively faceless communities where empathy isn't that useful. The same reason why it is hard to be a serial killer in medieval times where everyone in the village would know everyone else.

>>1455537

I would suggest just getting the best job you can with the highest salary and then giving money to charity.

>>1455541
Well 8000 hours said I could do either that and then go into finance, or pursue a phd in economics. The latter being far more preferred.
https://80000hours.org/

>>1455537
you've got some effective autism

>>1455477
How so?
The Iron Curtain speech kinda annoyed Stalin sure, but it more seems like the United State's policy of Containment is more at fault.

The Soviet Union was a belligerent totalitarian dictatorship, even if their leaders were admirable as individuals, the system they were in meant they had to expand their power wherever they could by default.

>>1455405
Egoism

Epicureanism

>>1455405
Egoism

I don't think knights in full plate armour really ever used shields. But in 13th century they probably did use shields.

>>1455349

>13th century
>Battle of Hastings

File: Bayeux-Tapestry-009.jpg (182KB, 940x513px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 940x513px

>>1455349
Shields were a big thing in the middle ages. Just check out the Beyeux Tapestry.

See all the dead guys on the bottom? Most of them aren't carrying shield and have arrows sticking out of their bodies. See the live guys? They all have arrows stuck to their shields. Meaning that the armor of the time couldn't stop an arrow, but the shields could.

Basically, until armor got good enough to resist arrows (that is, plate armor) shields had a major role to play in battle.

Romans were the Evil Empire that won.

File: ROHM_D201_The_conquistadors_enter_tenochtitlan_to_the_sounds_of_martial_music.jpg (952KB, 1748x2435px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 1748x2435px

>>1455337
Spanish Empire perhaps? Laid waste to the civilisations it encountered and was pioneered by some of the most violent (if impressive) men in history, in pursuit of ever more gold.

>>1455350
>believing anglo propaganda

>>1455312
Armies used to steal supplies from the local peasants

>the exact nature of the food soldiers would eat
anything they could steal or forage
>and how it was transported.
it wasn't

>>1455517
>it wasn't
You sure? The Romans for example took entire herds of livestock with them as a steady source of food.

>universally
dumb phonefrogposter

>>1455196
Where exactly is sex villainized?

Sex is universally glamorized.

>>1455148
>tnis

>>>>>>>>1455148

>>1455148
When people stop feeling the need to be envious of the accomplishments others

>>1455129
Red pill me on the chinese provinces

is there any difference or are they all the same?

>>1455521
Don't know that much but there's definitely differences but everywhere aside from Xinjiang and SARs are all nationalistic as fuck generally. Heilongjiang loves beer, sausages, pickled cabbage, being drunkenly loud as fuck and Russian women but they're also nationalistic as fuck. They also have the best accents. Every upper-middle class person in Shanghai gives gay vibes and they think they're honorary whites, food in Shanghai is the image of 'clean' and elegant Chinese food. The more inland you get the more regressive it generally is

>>1455521
depends where the government focused efforts after destroying every historical building in the 60s

it was the beginning of Hallmark-esque sentimentality, cheap aesthetic just for the sake of being enjoyed and being popular. Like cheap homogenous radio pop songs, it takes lots of skill and brilliance to create, and the end product doesn't further the art at all and is ultimately forgettable. It's superficial.

File: PabloPicasso-Weeping-Woman-with-Handkerchief-1937.jpg (61KB, 601x734px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 601x734px

>>1455066
How is modern art better?

>>1455076
Well, at least it's challenging.

>>1455011
>Are there any good quotes against people who only like neo classical and realistic art?
The quotes given by the appraisers, worth millions.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with only liking those styles. You can argue that it's bad or limited taste but it's taste, and therefore pretty arbitrary.

The trouble comes when these same people insist that it's the only REAL form of art because it's the only art they've been exposed to or made any effort to understand, demonstrated with their favorite pieces being things like 'Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog' or 'Ivan the Terrible Killing His Son'. These pop up a lot on /his/ art threads which is full of the modern art hating sentiment and the aforementioned pieces absolutely smack you in the face with the meaning, being almost gaudy in their delivery. It's obvious not only due to cultural exposure to that form of art, it's also just fucking obvious. It would be great if these people at least attempted to branch out but the arguments in defense of their view are usually pretty puerile, and out them as having never made that attempt.

>>1455052
I am not trying to say those paintings are not good i simply want quotes to annoy and troll the artistic conservoshits on /pol/.