Is he reliable?

>>2081983
He isn't John Green, but yes.

>>2081988
>He isn't John Green
That's a huge plus.

>>2081988
John Green has everything written for him by his high school history teacher

Indy is /ourguy/.

>>2082247
Well the guy in OP isnt a historian himself either, guy just talks from a script written by actual historians.

>>2082857
He does have a degree in history if I recall correctly.

>>2082871
so do I and I work at a grocery store

>>2082871
>>2082946
That's a good summary of /his/.

File: 1465163060348.jpg (24KB, 317x284px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 317x284px

>>2082085
agreed. John green is insufferable.

"And now an open letter to historical people. You owned slaves! Therefore you're iredeemably evil! you chose to not give up your livelihood and abandon progress of civilization in favor of a social ideal from millennia later, so we should all think you're total douchebags and completely disregard everything you thought! Also Pizza!"

pic related it's his smug fucking face when he passes judgement on historical figures who have accomplished more than he ever could.

also >this machine kills fascists

fuck off you smug liberal fuck

>>2082969
No, most of us have no qualifications and work in grocery stores.

>>2081983
Decent enough. His sources are great and he remains relatively unbiased with the only bad guy being the war itself. I do think he tries too hard to make his show seem popular and badass

>>2082991
Holy shit I did not know it was that bad.

>>2083007
He's exaggerating. But it is pretty bad.

File: free ride.jpg (9KB, 261x194px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 261x194px

>>2081988
>John Green

>>2082991
only stormfags unironically support fascism

enjoy losing all privacy in an actual fascist state

>>2084999
>privacy
bitch the government already knows exactly what kind of cartoons you flap your dick to

>>2082871
History, specialising in Baseball and WWI

>>2084999
>implying John means ACTUAL Fascists
Everyone who isn't a bumbling idiot or a bumbling idiotic redneck is opposed to Fascism.
What he means by Fascist is anyone one the right-wing.

>>2085004
You misunderstand why people want privacy.

>>2085107
that's an assumption

it's a sticker on his laptop

>>2084999
Copping Woody Gulthre on a shitty bumper sticker you slapped onto the laptop produced by an AUTHORITARIAN COUNTRY is disgusting.

If you doubt his reliability (the dude goes through a fuck load of sources) then go read shit yourself...

>>2081983
Aside from when he talks about Versailles harshness and who is responsible for starting the war, yes

>>2085124
Why do people want privacy then?

>>2082946
you dont need to be top of your field to regurgitate something

>>2082994
It's arguably if we even work at a grocery store.

File: IMhTeIi.png (352KB, 591x515px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 591x515px

>>2085165

File: 1481285464977.gif (1MB, 1035x1037px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1035x1037px

>>2084999
His MacBook pro does not kill fascists, if anything it breeds them.

The Internet has brought Nazibooism to new heights

>>2085147
it's about principle and not giving the government the POWER to control everything

Obviously the government don't care what i'm jacking off to, but they have all of that info of everyone.

It's the same principle as a dictator. He COULD be nice, but you don't want to give him that much power anyway.

If i could 100% trust my government, i'd be okay with not having privacy, but I don't. The founding fathers themselves stated you shouldn't trust your government entirely. In a state with no privacy, you can't rebel against it.

>>2085193
Maybe it's because all the smug left leaning individuals are doing things like putting "This machine kills fascists" stickers on their shitbooks from China?

PROTIP: Reverse psychology is real you fucking retards

>>2085227
But how does "losing privacy" = "giving the government the power to control everything?" Those are two different things. The government literally will never have the power to control everything because it's just a collection of guys. Even in the most repressive regimes, the government can't account for all contingencies and random events.

>>2085260
Just because reddit banned memes you right wing friendless dweebs have to ruin every board on 4chan?

>>2085283
>But how does "losing privacy" = "giving the government the power to control everything?"

Because if the governemnt can track more of what you say and do, the more they'll have the power to shut down thoughts they don't like.

>The government literally will never have the power to control everything because it's just a collection of guys

They have the police. look in countries like Germany where people can be arrested over a tweet. look at countries like china where wrong google searches can get a knock on your door.

Giving the government the ability to look through your history is basically stating 'I'm giving you my full trust you won't use this to create a police state'

Only history shows you can't trust your government. The days of gulags and soviet secret police are in living memory, and these s0ocieties STILL exist in the developing world.

Saudi arabia, Egypt, Burma and China are all good examples.

You're probably thinking 'But we live in the west, we're above that'

We're not though. Free Speech and freedom of expression are being eroded away in the US and europe everyday.

I'm not even that right wing, i consider myself centre, but this really is happening.

>>2085286
>us vs them tribalism

You're feeding it too, retard. Wake up and realize you are a person and not a mouthpiece.

>>2085313
>this is really happening
I know dude, that's why my first post said that the government in the United States can and does all of that shit in your horror scenario here. They CAN look through all your history. They CAN come knock on your door for your google searches. That doesn't make them omnipotent. You're privacy is already compromised.

>>2085319
It's not entirely 100% in effect, though

you still have some privacy. the government can't read everything you post, there are still limits

Great channel. I recommend it whenever possible. The format is great.

>>2085325
No.

>>2085325
>there are still limits
Yeah that's exactly my point, god damn dude why are you even arguing with me? I said they're not omnipotent. But they literally can track you everywhere you go by catching your phone signal. That's at least EQUALLY as severe an invasion of privacy as the Stasi in East Germany or whatever

>>2085325
>the government can't read everything you post

lol check out this goy

>>2085345
I was under the impression your original piunt was in a fascist state, the government wouldn't care about what porn you're looking at, so I'm arguing that they shouldn't have that right based on us losing our ability to rebel against corrupt governments.

>>2085371
No, you said "enjoy losing all your privacy in an actual fascist state." My point is, how much more privacy could we lose?? We're already there man.

>>2085384
Ah, i misinterpreted what you were trying to say

my apologies

He draws from pretty renowned sources, and is good at popularizing history, making it more accessible to your average History enthusiast.

I don't learn much by watching it, but their content is not intended for me anyway. The fact that they have almost half a million subscribers makes me happy, I would have never that many people would be interested in a week by week breakdown of WW1.

Just started watching his channel yesterday after /his/ recommendation. It's really great so far, as some one who doesn't know much about ww1 or never had any interests in it, I can't stop watching these videos. I'm definitly gonna pick up a book on ww1 this week, anyone know a good place to start?

>>2086296
I recommend reading The Price of Glory, by Alistair Horne. Which follows the battle of Verdun, and the Guns of August which focused on the first months of the war

>>2086296
The Great War by Peter Hart is a pretty solid combat overview. Entertaining to read too

>>2085133
> (the dude goes through a fuck load of sources)

He doesnt though, he himself admitted in a recent video that he relies mostly on secondary sources (meaning he just regurgitates what other people have said about the first world war) because he doesnt have time to analize primary sources. By his own admission he used a single book for the entire gallipoli campaign.