Does eternalism imply eternal recurrence for humans?
It isn't. Just named somewhat the same.
>>1396942
If the block time theory is true, though, that means our entire lives are already laid out, and will remain so forever. Humans experience time linearly; this seems to imply eternal recurrence. Once our consciousness ends, we'll simply loop back around to the beginning and do it all again.
Essentially, if our lives exist eternally, why would we only experience them once? I've always wondered about this - if I'm nonexistent in the future, why/how am I conscious now? I think I've found the answer.
>>1396962
This worries the fuck out of me. My life sucks balls, I can't imagine having to experience it all over again for eternity
What are examples of major tactical victories that were a disaster strategically?
Take the Battle of Coronel for example
>WW1
>British and German squadrons running around South America, don't expect to actually meet each other
>They meet each other
>British squadron outmatched but ordered to fight
>absolutely decimated
>German commander awarded with flowers
>"These will do nicely for my grave"
>British are shocked by the loss and send a proportionately massive force
>Germans wiped out while trying to escape the theater
>>1396840
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_n8FRILoYE
Brumpang
>>1396840
>major tactical victories that were a disaster strategically?
The 2nd Iraq war.
Are "azeris" just shia turks?
>all Turkic peoples are the same
You're one of those dumbasses who thinks panslavism is a possibility, aren't you.
>>1396858
So... Which Turk are you?
>>1396881
>Which Turk are you?
Turks are the only Turkish people, you dumbfuck
Literally the only serious secular grievance against King Charles was that he was fighting enclosure. Everything else was religious idiocy over petty shit like rails on the alters.
Dat extraparliamentary revenue tho. If he could gain the majority of his revenue without parliament, he would in effect be an absolute monarch.
>>1396897
He couldn't, that's why he called them.
>>1396897
Also, it wasn't the majority of his revenue, it was the entirety of it as long as parliament wasn't being held.
Since we had a Goering-Tito conspiracy theory thread, what does /his/ think about the various Stalin conspiracy theories? Specifically these two:
>He was an Okhrana agent who infiltrated the Bolsheviks and eventually double-crossed everyone to take power for himself
>He didn't die of natural causes, but was poisoned to death by Tito as a retaliation for various attempts on Tito's life.
I'm sold on the second. The first one is interesting and matches his personality, but there seems to be a lot less physical and documentary evidence supporting it. Of course, Stalin could have just erased it all.
>>1396760
"Stop sending agents to kill me or I will send one man to Moscow and it will not be necessary to send another one"
I believe it
> poisoned to death by Tito
I find the theory about betrayal of other party main figures to be more plausible.
>>1396760
is there anything that supports those claims?
>Empress of India
What did she mean by this?
>>1396739
All those who ruled in India honorarilly submitted to her.
>>1396739
Wanted to be more than just "queen", also wanted to cuck numerous existing Indian kingdoms at the same time
>>1396739
Because her daughter would become Empress of Germany and the Brits couldn't stand having her get a higher title than her mother.
Apart from places like Ethiopia, Africa was probably always doomed to succumbing to european colonization due to the insurmountable technology gap. But what could India and China have done differently that could have prevented them from suffering the same fate?
>>1396727
United so that foreign powers didn't play them off against each other.
Europe's ascent just happened to coincide with the major empires in both India and China (Mughals and Qing respectively) entering periods of decline. In previous eras they might have bounced back stronger after an initial period of unrest, but this time there was a strong, hungry and most importantly, maritime culture (western europe) there to take advantage of their moment of weakness
>>1396727
It's hard which ever countries industrialized first have such an unbelievable advantage over other countries. It really isn't even close, so unless they could industrialize first which is unlikely (maybe China could). Now they couldn't surpasse the Europeans but United and strong China and India would be able to make any European occupation too much cost to be worth it even in our timeline.
Isn't "maturity" essentially just a form of slave morality?
Why is slave morality bad, are you like a moralist or sum' m?
Not necessarily. There are plenty of qualities related to maturity that are useful for an independent and self reliant man, like the ability to control emotions and the capacity to chose delayed gratification. Even general acceptance of things that can't be changed.
>>1396703
no. But I just don't take it to heart when I am called immature. I think there is a certain authenticity in immaturity which is lost in the self-imposed spooky idealization and self-delusion of adulthood. Am I supposed to be really impressed by your attempt t tell yourself your not a cockroach by spending your precious time building a shack in Africa that you would deign to live inside of for a month? Adults are basically ugly chldren that can dissimulate.
>someone uses the nazis as an example of how many people christianity has killed
>someone uses USSR/Mao as an example of how many people atheism has killed
anyone else think WW2 has made people so fucking stupid? plebs find a way to turn anything into a stupid morality sermon if they can just say 'omg just like the nazis!'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
use WW2 as an argument is shit too
>>1396678
>nazis as an example of how many people christianity has killed
Nobody does this.
>>1396678
>someone uses death tolls to determine an ideology is "correct"/"incorrect" or "works"/"doesn't work"
How accurate is it to describe Portugal as an African Kingdom?
Epic meme XD
WE
Portugal is neither African, nor a kingdom, nor "the"
Did the majority of the "proletariat" actually enjoy living under communism or were they just terrorized into submitting to their bleak existence under their new masters? Obviously I'm talking about the average working class member of these societies, not the intellectual elites and nomenklatura. Correspondingly, did the elites themselves actually care about the welfare of their proletarian subjects or were they just interested in their own status and wealth?
bump pls
>>1396531
In Eastern Bloc countries that enjoyed some degree of independence from the Soviets like Hungary, communism provided a decent standard of living. Stasi aside, East Germany was also well of compared to the average Soviet aligned republic.
I've taught immigrants from China who told me that back home they couldn't even read a newspaper because every word is a lie and their blood would boil, so they just stopped following the news. I'd imagine it was something like that in the USSR.
Who are some people on the wrong side of history? Ill start with the obvious.... I cant even try to justify this mans actions. What an insensitive barbarian.
Woah dude u just really wound me up and I am now angry and giving you a reply!
>>1396446
HOW DARE YOU CALL MIGHT HULIUS KAISAR A BARBARIAN YOU FUCKING CELTIC POTATO NIGGER YOU HAVE BAITED ME AND NOW IM MAD NO IM NOT MAD IM FUCKING ANGRY MY JIMMIES ARE RUSTLED REEEEEE LE ANGRY MEME FROG YOU REALLY BAITED ME 10/10 HOOK LINE AND SINKER BUD YOU ARE TRULY THE GREATEST TROLL TO EVER GRACE THIS GERMAN FRUIT ROLLUP FORUM WELL MEME'D
"We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."
Is Shi'ism just a heavily Zoroastrian-ized version of Islam?
No. At least, not originally and not intentionally.
People in heavily shi'a areas tend to celebrate zoroastrian-derived stuff like norouz just due to pre-existing persian influence in those areas. I can see some people mistaking this for shi'ism itself having that influence.
Its a political divide you orientalist christian retard
>>1396364
No.
Is there a difference between freedom and liberty?
>>1396356
You shouldn't include the satire picture from the Onion's Today Now segment in that picture. It's misleading as it leads people to believe that it's real like the other images.
>>1396980
which one is from the onion?
>>1398346
the child safety tips
Why did labor unions (and the working class in general) lose so much support among the general public after the 1960s? Why did both the left and the right start demonizing unions and their members? Was it effective propaganda against them or were unions themselves also at fault for the change in perception?
>>1396327
The left didn't. The center-right and far-right liberals demonized unions because they're a problem for business and, in that respect, government. Unions lost power because the government and capitalists with the blessing of government actively sabotaged them and murdered their leaders, forcing them to fold or to recapitulate to reformist models.
Over time, the leadership of the unions sold out and got in bed with the capitalists they were supposed to be struggling against. This led to unions becoming impotent, as important decisions usually get made by the leadership, and when the leadership has that conflict of interest, it led to strikes not getting approved, bargaining for better wages and conditions stagnated, etc. Then after decades of that, people started realizing "hey, what the fuck is this union shit, where I pay dues but I get nothing out of it?" and that's how both the left and right, and the working class, started attacking unions, thus weaking the worker's movement, conditions became worse, wages stagnated, and it's all basically a clusterfuck today because people are wary of unions. It's a bunch of horseshit.
>>1396546
Agree with this, and add that big American unionized industries like automotive had issues competing with foreign manufacturing imports from places like Japan and Germany. The Republicans had always been fairly antagonistic towards unions, but they ramped it up during the 1970s and 1980s. It was easy for the Republicans to say, "look, we are getting killed by foreign competitors and our lazy unions are holding us back!"
Democrats failed to mount a defense of unions in the face of Republican attack, beginning their shift to issues like abortion, civil rights for minorities, the environment (and they're still really weak here and only seem to care about global warming), and certain civil liberties. The two parties were basically indistinguishable during the Carter-Reagan-Bush years, the Republicans were just more bellicose when it came to foreign policy and hostility towards labor. The Democrats triangulated themselves as Republican-lite during the Clinton years, supporating free trade agreements that were just as appealing to the Republicans.
Now, the best defense the Democrats can mount for labor is measures like minimum wage laws and limited maternity leave, and even that is half-hearted. The Democrats consult big business and the wealthy about as much as the Republicans, and rely on them to bankroll their social causes, like gun control, as much as the Republicans.