>Write a six paragraph answer full of fluff and smart-sounding

redditors are the white people of the internet. lame and boring and bland.

>>2761711

You guys seem to be obsessed with that site.

>>2761711
t. asked a PhD historian why the holohoax never happened

>>2761723
Ironically enough this joke was pretty Reddit.

/r/AskHistorians is way better for serious questions than /his/, I've seen a lot of questions relating to my speciality (Late Antiquity) but very few correct answers

Of course I like 4chan much better than Reddit and think /his/ is a lot more fun but /r/AskHistorians is better for serious thinngs

>>2761729
It is a better site really, for the amount of content it has. It's true this place is a little freer in what you post, but it's not exploited in a good way really. It just ends up as shitposting. Nothing wrong with shitposting, but an excess of it is cancerous. /his/ is better if youre looking to have a good time, but for serious discourse reddit is better.

>>2761711
Fuck off reddit

>>2763526
Its just too bad it uses reddit.

How the heck can a site with such a fucking awful UI be so popular.

>>2761776
>I've seen a lot of questions relating to my speciality... but very few correct answers
This so much. Most people here have no idea what they're talking about. The amount of misinformation can actually be kind of staggering; usually, if I post something good in a thread relating to my specialty, it either gets ignored, or random austists tell me I'm wrong because /pol/ told them otherwise. Whenever I see a thread go well here, it surprises the shit out of me.

>>2761711
People who actually understand and research history enough to elaborate on an interesting subject for more than a /his/ meme tier response call out my /pol/ understanding of history as having no basis in reality and it makes me mad: the post

File: IMG_9820.jpg (45KB, 727x474px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 727x474px

>>2763699
This. I could literally have a book in front of me and be told I'm wrong.

>>2763528
hes right tho

You go to AskHistorian if you want a historian's answer in an academic fashion. Its limited but its atleast sourced so you can't go wrong with it.

You go to his or other non-formal historical boards for more general understanding of the history. Most are not sourced but could very well be valid.

ITT reddit newfags

Good job. You worked out what 95% of people who have been on reddit a couple of times worked out

>Argueing with someone
>He writes a full critical essay about the flaws of my statement
>Call him a cuck
>Tfw won the debate

>>2763526
For serious discourse the fucking real world is better.

The entire problem with reddit is it takes itself to seriously and actually thinks it's an intellectual platform. 4chan is for talking shit to anonymous strangers; it's also worse than having real world interactions, but at least is has a level of self-awareness.

>>2765833
It's not that he's wrong, it's that he's beating a dead horse. It's like saying "Does anyone else think Empire Strikes Back was a better movie than Phantom Menace?", or "I think the Beatles had a bigger impact on music than Nickleback did."

Everyone here knows reddit is shit, that's why we're not on reddit

>>2761711
It's the same with the answers. If the answer isn't autistic or "correct" enough they'll delete it. It's annoying searching for something, seeing the number of comments and then seeing half of them deleted with some asshole mod's post stuck at the top chastizing everyone.

I really only use it to get ideas from the book list as a starting point but even that is worthless after a point i.e. absolutely nothing on southeast Asia or barely any ancient history but I sure as shit can find examples of books about gender roles and sexuality in medieval France or whatever.

>>2763792
spotted reddit

>>2761711
>im mad that my nord theories got BTFO waaah

>>2763672
It should use the stackoverflow model

>>2761774
Seriously, white people = lame is super reddit/normie.

>muh white people can't dance
>muh white people don't have culture
>muh white people are racist
>muh white people are boring

>>2761711
>Why can't I say that Ancient Greeks has blue eyes and blonde hair

>>2767350
>why can't I say ancient Greeks and ancient Romans were both made and led by Africans without being made fun of

>>2766930

yeah they have some decent book list posts

but then so does quora and other places so

>>2766930
>I really only use it to get ideas from the book list as a starting point

That actually makes that site 10x more better then /his/

>>2765259
the best part is when in the multiple, ultra spergy "what-if" threads people double down on their fantasy scenario that is totally divorced from any semblance of what happened in history

>you don't understand, if the japanese ignored their own interests entirely and invaded the middle of bumfuck nowhere in soviet siberia and the soviet army in the far east didn't exist at all, the germans could have totally defeated the soviet union

>>2761711
I KNEW IT
/his/ is a reddit colony

>>2761711
The problem with reddit is that it's community cares more about autistic trivia than actually having an understanding of history. It's for bored women to look at lunch, sustained conversation is near-impossible due to the nested comment system and the upvoting system.

>>2763699
Sometimes the misinformation is purposeful in the case of trolling.

>>2767654
4chan is a reddit colony at this point, no need to single out /his/

>>2767795
Reconquista when

>>2767415
we have better book lists at this point desu

>>2767349
In my experience as a nonwhite in the US all of that is true. Not all of them of course but generally I find that. Maybe they're different in europe I've never been.

>>2761711
4chan certainly generates more interesting discussion than reddit and is a lot more entertaining, but if you think the actual quality of knowledge isn't better on AskHistorians than on /his/, you're retarded. Most people on /his/ don't show shit and get their history from wikipedia articles, stormfront posts, and /pol/.

>muh long comments
Ironically short and serious generalizations are the essence of why a lot of people here hate lot of redditors. Long ones are often necessary for fully explaining their answer. Pretty much any answer written by a academic historian whose answering one big central question is going to be longly written to fully justify their position and not create any confusion, and is going to be all 'flowerly' written so that people can bear reading it.

>liberal critical theory

I've only answers like this with questions regarding events in the modern era, or with topics like 'sex', 'race', and 'historic nationalism' with them focusing on a narrative that's politically motivated rather than being non-partisan. For the rest of the answers (which is probably 95% of them) they're helpful and very useful for the laymen or for people who don't have the time to survey various academic papers on a particular question that they're just casually curious to find answers to.

>Anything else will be deleted.

I haven't seen this. Even with political sensitive questions a poster can at-least go against the liberal zeitgeist of the other most likely replies to the topic by simply using neutral language, give criticisms to both sides, and cite a lot of sources to justify your view. 4chan-esqe replies don't fall under that, and aren't tolerated anywhere with serious historical discussion. The purpose of this board is mostly just recreational discussion of history.

>>2767807
Fuck you racist trash.

File: assburger.png (520KB, 488x516px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 488x516px

>>2767807
>87 different etnicities in Europe
>Each with their own language, customs, morals, norms, values, cuisine, dresses, folklore and dances
>Maybe they do have culture in Europe hurrhurr

>>2767802
/His/ does not even have a a book list.

>>2763672
The ui really isn't that bad unless the subreddit itself is badly made or you have cognitive issues.

>>2767799
First we get rid of the t_d cucks.

>>2768535
we have a pastebin full of bibliographies on all conceivable history subjects. someone has already made a dozen or so chart pics on book recommendations which put together is rivaling the amount of books on the reddit list. it's not that hard

>>2767349
White people can't dance for shit. They are way too fucking self-conscious to have a good time.

File: reddit.png (339KB, 1308x892px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1308x892px

>>2761776
>>2763526
>>2763699
>>2763792
>>2765259
>>2765855
>>2767350
>>2767415
>>2768535
>>2767812
>>2767895
>>2768556
You have to go fucking back.

>>2768578
i should also mention the library of alexandria project and now this
>>2768352

And it's not like their bullshit cited shit amounts to an actual answer.

>>2768861
https://pastebin.com/WGqYYVGS

>>2763526
>discussion
>on askhistorians

Discussion is specifically against the rules.

>>2767895
>>Anything else will be deleted.
>I haven't seen this.

I posted answer to questions on Askhistorians that related to my period of interest when nobody else was answering them (a period of military history that isn't very popular). Somebody asked a pretty obscure question and I responded, citing a famous military historian from about 70 years ago. OP thanked me, lots of upboats (who cares), and then a mod comes in and deletes my post because the source is too old. Lots of posters replied that that's bullshit, and even an actual military historian called them out on it, and all of those posts were deleted as well. Of course, none of the mods bothered to answer the OP's question.

Askhistorian mods are up their own ass with their little bit of power, but what can you expect from somebody who was stupid enough to get a degree in history?

>>2769762
wrong thread

>>2768611
>White people can't dance for shit
You realize this was literally first said in 1980s to 1990s United States, right? As in, no one had ever said "white people can't 'dance" before like 20 or 30 years ago, which is nothing in historical terms. Even in the fucking 1970s John Travolta was killing it and if you go back to real European civilization and not post WW2 Americanized bullshit the million dances of European civilizations are all "white people" dances.

>>2768638
>muh reddit is bad
>i only get my information from pol

>>2767807
And as a White in the US I find it the opposite and I'm extremely dumbfounded that White people like your awful music and dancing so much. The good music is all composed by Ashkenazi Jews desu.

>>2771713
You can't deny that Reddit is just liberal echo chamber at this point, full of fake news and promoting dubious academic research.

>>2771722
>full of fake news and promoting dubious academic research.
that also describes /pol/ very well

File: Eutropius_5th C AD.jpg (454KB, 1259x1823px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1259x1823px

To reflect how bad /his/ is I'm going to post a response I got on /r/AskHistorians when I asked why Late Roman sculptures usually have massive eyes:

Late Roman Emperors, especially those of the Tetrarchy and the following Constantinian dynasty, are indeed very often depicted with very large and intensely staring eyes, with this larger than life portrait of Constantine the Great at the Capitoline Museum in Rome just as one very famous example. While this emphasize on the eyes certainly is part larger stylistic trends of the age it most probably also has some kind of symbolic meaning. It is also not necessarily limited to imperial portraits but also shows itself on other depictions like those of provincial grandees or local administrators. For example this marble head from Ephesos probably shows a man called Eutropius who was honored around the middle of the 5th century AD for providing the funds for the marble pavement of one of the city’s streets. It is quite stylized and an emphasize on the eyes is again noticeable.

Previous generations of scholars have tended to explain this feature as a sign that the depicted emperor is supposed to be especially in tune with the spiritual world that lies beyond the material. This fits with a larger pattern to explain stylistic changes in Late Roman art with a heightened spirituality of the age that also manifested itself in the rise of Christianity and the new influence of Holy Men and Women on society.

>>2771722
>/r/the_donald
You need to go back

File: PIOKDHD.jpg (508KB, 1200x1926px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1200x1926px

>>2771748
A famous exhibition from the years 1977/78 at the Metropolitan Museum in New York that showcased some of the most important pieces of Late Antique art was even called “The Age of Spirituality”. According to the great Ernst Kitzinger our portrait from Ephesos “conveys with great power the consuming intensity of one man’s awareness of the supernatural world” (E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making (1977) p. 80). The equally influential André Grabar ascribes to it “a spiritual grandeur of quite exceptional order” (A Grabar, Byzantium (1967) p. 226). And viewpoints like this are indeed corroborated by ancient sources. For example Eusebius of Caesarea explains Constantine the Great’s uplifted gaze on his coin portraits like this:

>How deeply his soul was impressed by the power of divine faith may be understood from the circumstance that he directed his likeness to be stamped on the golden coin of the empire with the eyes uplifted as in the posture of prayer to God. (Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4,15)

However modern scholarship is a lot more careful with such sweeping statements that are able to explain all kinds of stylistic trends with an all encompassing zeitgeist. For example in 1999 R. R. R. Smith wrote about these older methods of explanation the following:

>A wide range of late antique portraits and other images have intense expressions and large staring eyes for which the traditional view seeks an all-embracing interpretation in the period's changed relationship with the divine. Thus enlarged eyes come to mean the same thing for emperors, philosophers, generals, governors, and anybody else. But visual expression of this kind did not have absolute meaning - the same images, signs, and styles could and often did mean different things according to the time, place, and context of their use. (R. R. R. Smith, Late Antique Portraits in a Public Context: Honorific Statuary at Aphrodisias in Caria, A.D.300-600, Journal of Roman Studies 89

File: 60-ConstantiusII337-361-crop1.jpg (162KB, 1535x2047px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1535x2047px

>>2771751
To gain insight into the context in which the great imperial portraits of the fourth century AD were commissioned it helps to look at some literary sources which describe how Late Roman emperors wanted to be seen by their subjects. The following is an excerpt from an oration that was probably held in 289 AD at the court in Trier before emperor Maximian

>But far greater are those services which you have rendered in place of thanks when the imperium was bestowed upon you: […] to stand on such a lofty summit of human affairs as to gaze down, as it were, on every land and sea, and to survey in turn with eyes and mind where calm weather is assured, where storms threaten, to observe which governors emulate your justice, which commanders maintain the glory of your courage […] (Panegyrici Latini 10,3)

A later oration held around the year 310 AD also at Trier in front of Constantine the Great includes this passage:

>For it is a wonderful thing, beneficent gods, a heavenly miracle, to have as emperor a youth whose courage, which is even now very great, nonetheless is still increasing, and whose eyes flash and whose awe inspiring yet agreeable majesty dazzles us at the same time as it invites our gaze. (Panegyrici Latini 6,17)

And the entrance of Constantius II into the city of Rome from the year 357 AD is described by Ammianus Marcellinus like this:

>Accordingly, being saluted as Augustus with favoring shouts, while hills and shores thundered out the roar, he never stirred, but showed himself as calm and imperturbable as he was commonly seen in his provinces. For he both stooped when passing through lofty gates (although he was very short), and as if his neck were in a vice, he kept the gaze of his eyes straight ahead, and turned his face neither to right nor to left, but (as if he were a lay figure) neither did he nod when the wheel jolted nor was he ever seen to spit, or to wipe or rub his face or nose, or move his hands about. (Ammianus Marcellinus)

File: bust-of-emperor-constantius-ii-317-361-son-and-successor-of-constantine-DK7W41.jpg (86KB, 893x1390px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 893x1390px

>>2771753
From the end of the third century AD onwards it had become increasingly important for emperors to portray themselves as larger than life, remote figures that towered above their subjects. Their unflinching and all seeing gaze is an integral part of this picture which is repeated several times in the sources. It is very likely that this was also intended to be reflected in the official portraits of the rulers.

Now the local grandees that were honored with their own statues couldn’t adopt this style of imperial self representation wholesale as showing themselves on equal footing with the emperor would have become dangerous for them very soon. However, like the oration in honor of Maximian describes it, they were supposed to “emulate the emperor’s justice”. Working tirelessly for the common good is a virtue that Late Roman honorary inscriptions ascribe to local governors all the time. For example the inscription which accompanied the portrait of Eutropius from Ephesos praised his “sleepless labors”. The emphasize on his large open eyes on his portrait was probably supposed to reflect this very quality.

File: leo-i.jpg (2MB, 2736x3648px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2736x3648px

>>2771748
>>2771751
>>2771753
>>2771757
For reference, when I asked the same question on /his/ I got two responses

One was a joke about anime, and another was, and I quote, "Christianity meant that sculptors were less willing to spend time practicing their art since they were waiting for heaven so it got less realistic"

>>2771764
What is your point?

File: NietzscheonJohnGreen.jpg (337KB, 816x798px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 816x798px

>>2771748
>>2771751
>>2771753
>>2771757

That's a lot of words to not say anything

>guys they had big eyes cuz they looked forward
>guys they had big eyes cuz they looked into the supernatural
>guys they had big eyes cuz they didn't sleep much

So they have no fucking clue why they have big eyes

File: 1492103161856.jpg (28KB, 403x349px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 403x349px

>>2771767
I guess that /his/ is terrible in terms of historical knowledge. It's alright for jokes but nobody has any idea what they're talking about.

>>2771781
>So they have no fucking clue why they have big eyes
How can you read all that and reach this conclusion? Are you slow?

>>2771781
sort of this desu. he explained how the eyes were interpreted but he didn't sufficiently explain why this stylistic change occured, unless his point was that styles are simply a matter of ephemeral tastes and have no meaning

>>2771783
> It's alright for jokes
sub-par at best, actually

>>2771786
They just cherry picked quotes and used those random quotes to project whatever meaning they wanted into the sculpture, they have not explained anything.

>>2771793
/His managed to ruin every meme within days.

That only happens on the fast/trouble boards.

>>2771792
>>2771781
Well the question I asked specifically was
>In Late Roman sculpture, Emperors are depicted with almost grotesquely huge eyes. Was there a symbolic reason for this or was it a purely stylistic choice?
I guess he didn't say why it occured because I didn't really ask in my question.

I remember hearing somewhere that it was because the style was innovated by Constantine and since he was regarded as the greatest emperor of recent times his successors tried to emulate him.

>>2771810
I mean it's the historical consensus. You can go read guys like Grabar and Kitzinger if you want the full explanation, obviously a 6000 character reddit posts isn't going to be able to encapsulate all the hows and whys of Late Roman art.

File: 1443292688106.jpg (69KB, 577x599px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 577x599px

>>2771764
>One was a joke about anime
This is 4chan in a sentence. Christ. Thank you for this.

>>2761711

It's another "my Holocaust Denial post that was well sourced with /pol/ infographics got deleted" episode.

>>2771722
like r/the_donald?

>>2771738
And that makes it okay for Reddit to be retarded because some board on the cesspool of the internet is also retarded?

>>2771927
> last bastion of free speech
> retarded
never change leftypol, out autistic brother

>>2767807
Whites are "boring" because they've been pacified through decades of brainwashing, they're too scared to even fat thinking the fart might sound racist. They consciously avoid conflict, thinking if they back down and discuss things instead they'll be spared.

Seriously though Jamal you should be happy it's this way, you don't want the sort of whites from 100+ years ago to return, because that would be your end.

>>2771938

So what's your excuse for not being able to dance?

>>2761711
>>2761776
>historians
>a person with one opinion
>will be upvoted if it sticks to the narrative
>anyone else with a different scholarly opinion who's a historian must be downvoted
>anyone who tries to give a rebuttal to an opposing opinion is upvoted.

r/askhistorians may be more informative, but it's literally a circlejerk of people with smug opinion, rigged in their favour. The whole upvoting system is pure cancer, recognition should be by quality and assessment if serious not mob rules.

>>2772033
>anyone else with a different scholarly opinion who's a historian must be downvoted
when does this happen

>>2771902
yes

>>2763699
>it gets ignored
this
i always wonder if my grammar is shit, because im not native english speaker, so the others do not understand what i write.
or i just make a fucking good point to which they cant casually make a shitpost, so they dont bother replying

>>2771810
>citing sources is misinformation
>he says in the defense of the historical integrity of /his/

Anon you just made his argument for him