Thread replies: 140
Thread images: 32
Thread images: 32
File: myanmar-map.jpg (65KB, 600x450px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 600x450px
ITT: We talk about everything that's happened here from 0 CE to the present.
>>
File: 1434703316953.jpg (42KB, 322x350px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 322x350px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>>2965934
Bulwark of South East Asia against military Islamic expansion.
>>
>>
File: IMG_9616.jpg (56KB, 384x277px) Image search:
[Google]
56KB, 384x277px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>>
File: 1487731931105.jpg (160KB, 936x1000px) Image search:
[Google]
160KB, 936x1000px
>CE
>>
File: 1479078069597.gif (2MB, 330x166px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 330x166px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>Starting at Year 0
>>
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>>2965934
>not starting at it from the year of the birth of our lord and savior Buddha
Buddha!
>>
File: 10101511221.jpg (22KB, 460x276px) Image search:
[Google]
22KB, 460x276px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>>2966204
>Before jesus
>>
>>2965934
>CE
Shame. We could've had a Taungoo thread. But you had to fuck it up, didn't you?
>>
File: 1433076401506.png (93KB, 336x303px) Image search:
[Google]
93KB, 336x303px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>>2965934
All these fucking crossboarder memelords sperging over the use CE because they don't actually read history books, and none of them apparently noticed that 0 CE doesn't exist.
>>
>>2967412
don't be salty OP
>>
>>2967412
Or they noticed but didn't mention it since it's common knowledge and only a simpleton like yourself would assume different?
>>
>>2967396
>BJ
>>
>>2967421
Sure they did.
>>
File: 1399220979655.jpg (77KB, 500x385px) Image search:
[Google]
77KB, 500x385px
>CE
>>
File: digusting.gif (2MB, 400x222px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 400x222px
>CE
>>
File: 1486208390567.jpg (56KB, 353x334px) Image search:
[Google]
56KB, 353x334px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>CE
>>
File: Henry_IV_en_Herculeus_terrassant_l_Hydre_de_Lerne_cad_La_ligue_Catholique_Atelier_Toussaint_Dubreuil_circa_1600.jpg (295KB, 950x1209px) Image search:
[Google]
295KB, 950x1209px
>CE
>>
>>>>CE
>>
>>2966524
likely the worst offense
>>
10/10 thread
>>
Seriously guys? I wanted to talk about Burma history and tried for a NEUTRAL way of wording it. I myself am Christian.
chill
>>
>>2968090
Maybe next time, OP. Maybe next time.
Until then,
>Common Era
>>
>>2968131
this
the thread was nice though
>>
the ancient capital of a thousand temples was the most important city for over a century.
>>
>>
>C
>E
>>
>>2965934
>CE
cuck
>>
File: Burmese Insurgencies.png (275KB, 314x2716px) Image search:
[Google]
275KB, 314x2716px
>>2966377
>Bulwark of South East Asia
>Every ethnic/religious/political minority is fucking rebelling and the government is pretty much spamming insta-autonomy to every new rebel group that shows up.
>>
File: 1466354050.jpg (130KB, 768x1023px) Image search:
[Google]
130KB, 768x1023px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
File: Grandes_Heures_Anne_de_Bretagne_Saint_Marc.jpg (247KB, 800x1214px) Image search:
[Google]
247KB, 800x1214px
>See
>Ee
>>
>>2966204
BCE and CE is perfect for non-Christfag countries.
>>
>>2965934
I like to play as them in EU.
Their classical music is also great, look it up.
>CE
>>
>0
>CE
>>
No one even pointed out that 0 AD isn't even a real year.
>>
>>2968548
Yes they did.
>>
File: almirantebrown.png (18KB, 257x248px) Image search:
[Google]
18KB, 257x248px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>>2965934
>CE
NEOLOGISMS CAN FUCK OFF
>>
File: 1493145730976.png (672KB, 584x553px) Image search:
[Google]
672KB, 584x553px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>>2968984
HEAR HEAR!
>>
>>2968505
IMO it's far worse for non christians.
Using BC and AD is just referring to a specific calendar.
Using BCE and CE is basically admitting that the world turns around Europe and that christianity is the unifying element of human civilizations.
I mean /pol/ talks about jews coming up with it, but if they did they fucked up something fierce.
>>
>>2968994
I suppose our culture does in fact revolve culturally around that
to say anything else is just dishonesty
>>
>>2969015
>I suppose our culture does in fact revolve culturally around that
>to say anything else is just dishonesty
Then why bother with CE? Might as well keep BC and AD, which actually reflect the reason why the calendar starts when it does.
It's pretty much a catch 22 for people favouring the neologism.
>>
>>2966377
you do know that the largest islamic populated country on esarth is located in SEA right
>>
>>2967412
>they don't actually read history books
Most historians exclusively use AD, CE is just some shit you will find in politically correct encyclopedias for little kids.
>>
>CE
Come on now OP
>>
File: 1234323432334.jpg (460KB, 1380x1882px) Image search:
[Google]
460KB, 1380x1882px
>CE
>>
File: a63ec7b3d6.jpg (210KB, 1291x970px) Image search:
[Google]
210KB, 1291x970px
>>2965934
>0CE
>>
>>2965934
>CE
What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?
Why does the common era start when it does?
>>
>>2972238
Because conventionally it was supposed to be Jesus birthday, but modern scholarship places him around 7 to 3BC, which obviously breaks the whole system.
>>
File: 1497819663873.png (213KB, 526x493px) Image search:
[Google]
213KB, 526x493px
>CE
>>
>>2968994
>Using BCE and CE is basically admitting that the world turns around Europe and that christianity is the unifying element of human civilizations.
But the world doesn't turn on Europe.
We're using the eurocentric more often now because this is an english website. for countries like china they'd use their own instead of a method that got popular in the past few centuries.
>>
File: 1471668918190.jpg (93KB, 621x672px) Image search:
[Google]
93KB, 621x672px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>mfw all the retards in thread don't realise that all recent historical scholarship in the west uses CE as the go-to term to date
>>
>>2972333
Almost half of this board are obnoxious christians, and the other half of this board is butthurt diaspora, I would say the average age is somewhere around 17. So what did you expect?
I'm a phd canditate in history, in no way I think myself as an expert on my field, nor I expect graduate level conversaion to occur here, but boy the amount of basic ignorance and highschool history revisionism here is astounding. Most do not know basic concepts, what a language family is, what carbon dating is, what estimates mean, and so on.
again not saying that I'm a know it all, but you really should lover your expectations, I think it has to do with the age the average 4chan user is far younger than you think, and it shows
>>
>>2972344
>PhD candidate in history
Lol sure faggot keep bitching
>>
>>2965934
>CE
Way to ruin a potentially interesting thread.
>>
>>2966204
I don't get this meme. It is already known that Jesus was certainly not born on 1 AD so AD is arbitrary anyway.
>>
File: 1443297636788.jpg (23KB, 357x312px) Image search:
[Google]
23KB, 357x312px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
File: 1495778189510.jpg (71KB, 720x602px) Image search:
[Google]
71KB, 720x602px
>>2965934
>0 CE
>>
>>2972744
Because it's only retroactive political correctness. They define the "common era" through the approximate birth of Jesus so why not just all bc and ad anyways.
>>
File: cacaperro.png (105KB, 335x308px) Image search:
[Google]
105KB, 335x308px
>>2965934
>CE
>>
>CE
>>
File: A7F154D8-2059-4851-AE11-FF25364019CF-406-0000005321AC22F6.jpg (48KB, 440x307px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 440x307px
Did the elephant duel really happen?
Or did the Burmese prince get BTFO by a mortar?
>>
>>2972789
but think about it, if it is so arbitrary, doesn't that make your outrage arbitrary by extension of that?
CE is just recognizing that the date is arbitrary and we're not going to change it for practical reasons.
>>
For posteriority
>>
>>2967423
I could go for one right about now.
>>
>>2973016
samfagging?
>>
>>2973000
>Outrage
It's a completely unnecessary change that now makes the claim that Jesus brought about the common era as if there was one. If anything, it's more bigoted while trying to be snobbily politically correct.
>>
>>2973000
It's dumb for two reasons, it's eurocentric (shits all over native calendars. Many muslim countries have their own for example, and Japan uses the traditional reign calendar in some contexts), and obfuscates the cultural origin of our calendar, as if us Western people aren't allowed to appreciate the origin of it.
>>
>>2973049
>hat now makes the claim that Jesus brought about the common era as if there was one. If anything, it's more bigoted while trying to be snobbily politically correct.
I've always seen it as acknowledging the influence that Jesus had on human ethics, that it's not destroying western culture but merely acknowledging the importance of Christianity from a material standpoint, and leave the question of it's literalness open to interpretation, rather than implying it with Anno Domini.
>>
>>2973094
Common era is subjective and only applies to the Western world. Common era could apply to the Renaissance, to the rise of the Roman empire, etc. Keep in mind this is all only considering Europe.
The use of bc and AD on the other hand is objective. It's based on the estimated birth and death of Jesus. It's not claiming Jesus brought some "common era". We just happen to use the Gregorian calenders system and they'd obviously based their system off of the burst of Christ or something else religious.
>>
>>2973049
the point is to recognize that it is arbitrary while not changing anything for practical reasons
>>2973070
1) again, for practicality, the 'eurocentricness' is addressed by making it arbitrary
2)that's stupid and just causes confusion, 'yes the date is meaningless but it's cultural now' really? If you make it cultural you put it on the same level of all the other cultural calendars rather than it being standard which is something we do NOT want because the Gregorian calendar is so universally used and thus practical(European name, this is like that penny thing in the US, it is useless but some people want to keep it because lincoln is on it even though lincoln is on the five dollar bill too)
fuck off with this shit, none of these reasons are good/important enough to justify spamming this entire thread
>>
>>2973128
>Common era is subjective and only applies to the Western world.
Well considering that the western world is the dominant world economic hegemony, I would imagine asking people to use it is like asking people to speak English when dealing with international trade. There's nothing stopping you from using your native tongue when dealing with locals, but when it comes to a rigorous, internationalist environment, some political correctness seems to be a necessary evil for the sake of standardization
> Common era could apply to the Renaissance, to the rise of the Roman empire, etc.
But none of those marked such a profound shift in western consciousness the way that the rise of the Christian religion completely turned millenia-old traditions firmly on their head, and things like vengeance slaying and homicide were simply no longer lauded as commendable behavior.
>The use of bc and AD on the other hand is objective.
What should westerners who don't believe that use? What should a western Jewish person use when using the Hebrew calendar would only cause confusion?
>>
>>2973180
>What should westerners who don't believe that use
Non westerner here, I just use them as they are, like what do you expect? what's next? changing months names to non Roman gods? its really unnecessary
>>
>>2973133
>the point is to recognize that it is arbitrary while not changing anything for practical reasons
Changing it to CE doesn't make it more practical. It just makes politically correct morons feel better about themselves while ironically being more bigoted.
>>2973180
>Well considering that the western world is the dominant world economic hegemony, I would imagine asking people to use it is like asking people to speak English when dealing with international trade. There's nothing stopping you from using your native tongue when dealing with locals, but when it comes to a rigorous, internationalist environment, some political correctness seems to be a necessary evil for the sake of standardization
This is not at all relatable. Your argument would only relate if English was being changed to "Common" or something stupid. Keeping it bc and AD makes a clear line that anybody even not Christian can recognize.
>But none of those marked such a profound shift in western consciousness the way that the rise of the Christian religion completely turned millenia-old traditions firmly on their head, and things like vengeance slaying and homicide were simply no longer lauded as commendable behavior.
You think Christianity brought some era of peace, wew. Homicide and vengeance slayings weren't accepted in many cultures before then. Laws existed before Jesus. Don't let monk propaganda fool you.
>What should westerners who don't believe that use? What should a western Jewish person use when using the Hebrew calendar would only cause confusion?
You don't need to believe Jesus is some Messiah bullshit to use a calenders that is based on his estimated birth. They can use whatever calenders they want, flipping ad to CE is just retarded. It changes absolutely nothing. It's based off of his birth but tries to not acknowledge that.
>>
>>2973219
changing it to CE formally puts it above the other (cultural)calendars like it should be. That's the point.
>>
>>2973198
>its really unnecessary
The argument is that BCE/CE is a commentary on the material circumstances of society which was fundamentally altered by the introduction of Christianity, and that BC/AD directly implies the divinity of Christ. Switching to the politically correct model gives people the choice to decide if Jesus was divine or not. Literally nobody is forcing you chose one or the other, so why can't you just accept that some people value detached professionalism over ideological tribalism?
>This is not at all relatable. Your argument would only relate if English was being changed to "Common" or something stupid. Keeping it bc and AD makes a clear line that anybody even not Christian can recognize.
But we use Latin for binomial nomenclature because when you make everything standardized you reduce the risk of confusion, while most people still just use the local name for a creature and don't mind what the rigorous academics are calling their favorite animals.
>You think Christianity brought some era of peace
Of course not. But what it did do was fundamentally change the way that humans think about ethics
> It's based off of his birth but tries to not acknowledge that.
That's not at all what it is doing, see above: it's commenting on the material circumstances changed by the introduction of the Christian religion. It's a stated commitment to analytics instead of a belief which is fundamentally unproveable.
>>
>>2973235
No it doesn't. All you are doing is telling another culture that the common era (for whom?) started at that time. It's comparing some abstract concept to an objective event that the calenders is literally based off of. The only people "offended" are smug liberals. Nobody outside of the west except maybe butthurt Muslims care anyways.
>>
File: Mrauk-U-Myanmar.jpg (292KB, 1500x1000px) Image search:
[Google]
292KB, 1500x1000px
I'd be totally down for greentexting ITT if this weren't a topic I'm actually interested in talking about.
Oh well.
>CE
>>
>>2973248
>politically correct model
You know I still don't get how 'common era' is politically correct. It literally implies that the dawn of christianity meant the cultural unification of all human civilizations. It's so much more culturally imperialistic than AD it's not even funny. If you were really that butthurt about the year of our lord, you'd go with BC/AC (After Christ), which is actually the literal equivalent of BC/AD in many countries.
>>
>>2973257
pedantry, shouldn't have expected more. All I fucking want is you to stop spamming threads with it. Any objection to it is a pet peeve and seeing AD and BC go shouldn't be a bother you.
Anyway
>>No it doesn't
>doesn't provide reasoning why not and skips to other point
what it does is recognize it as an universal calendar rather than a cultural one, it's literally in the name(Common). Because of the arbitrary nature of the date it was pretty much zero loss with a little gain(formally standing out from the cultural calendars).
That it isn't an attack on culture is deduced from the Gregorian Calendar not being forced to change name, it literally is just recognizing the date as arbitrary, and the actual date isn't changed for practicality.
>>
>>2973248
>The argument is that BCE/CE is a commentary on the material circumstances of society which was fundamentally altered
This is garble
>by the introduction of Christianity, and that BC/AD directly implies the divinity of Christ. Switching to the politically correct model gives people the choice to decide if Jesus was divine or not. Literally nobody is forcing you chose one or the other, so why can't you just accept that some people value deta
You can decide if Jesus was divine or not using bc or ad. Fuck, it's questionable if he even existed. However, changing it to Common era is utterly retarded because that is claiming Jesus brought a common era.
>Literally nobody is forcing you chose one or the other, so why can't you just accept that some people value detached professionalism over ideological tribalism?
O hey, some smug asshat supporting the use of CE, go figure.
>But we use Latin for binomial nomenclature because when you make everything standardized you reduce the risk of confusion, while most people still just use the local name for a creature and don't mind what the rigorous academics are calling their favorite animals
This has literally nothing to do with the argument. Greek is also used in fields. It's not like they are using English then just claiming it to be "Common". This is just agreeing on the use of languages for standardization. The Gregorian calendar is already the standard calender, changing the names of periods is just useless.
>Of course not. But what it did do was fundamentally change the way that humans think about ethics
Lol, fuck no. Christianity just hopped on the neoplatonism/hellenistic philosophy train and took over. Read some ethics by the Greeks some time.
Fucking character limit
>>
>>2973293
>pedantry,
Smug, asshole?
And I did provide reasoning. There is no such thing as some "common era". Imposing a common era on the world and basing it on the birth of Jesus is worse than just not changing a calender based on the birth of Jesus.
>what it does is recognize it as an universal calendar rather than a cultural one, it's literally in the name(Common). Because of the arbitrary nature of the date it was pretty much zero loss with a little gain(formally standing out from the cultural calendars).
The date isn't arbitrary, the Gregorian calender is based off an event. Saying that event brought the common era of the world is the retarded part.
>>
>>2973248
>value detached professionalism over ideological tribalism
You do realize that people complaining about CE do it specifically because they see political correctness as the triumph of ideological tribalism over detached professionalism right?
>>
>>2973310
No you didn't, you didn't state why it does explicitly not distinguish itself from cultural calendars by being arbitrary.
'Common era' is meaningless and that's the point.
The Gregorian calendar is based on a date on which they thought an event happened. It didn't. Therefore it is arbitrary. For practicality we won't change the date, but we will change the name to signify how arbitrary it is and to formally make it more of common calendar for all.
>>
>>2973297
>This is garble
no, it's just a shift in priorities.
>You can decide if Jesus was divine or not using bc or ad. Fuck, it's questionable if he even existed. However, changing it to Common era is utterly retarded because that is claiming Jesus brought a common era.
No, "Anno Domini" is clearly a statement of submission, meaning "the year of our lord". And his historicity is irrelevant, the story of Christ existed and exerted influence on society and that's what we're talking about. And we call it the common era because as this anon >>2973293 points out: it marks the beginning of standardized ethical structures. Before Christianity every temple had its own local flavor and oral tradition and it was a convoluted shitshow of bickering interests. After Christianity every church was using the same book to teach the same canon, inspiring people to organize in ways that they never even conceived of before hand.
>O hey, some smug asshat supporting the use of CE, go figure.
Oh hey, another snowflake who needs his safespace from those mean old professionals and their "logic"
>This has literally nothing to do with the argument.
It has everything to do with it: standardization makes life easier for people of far-flung cultural traditions who don't want to be forced to utter statements of submission to somebody else's god to just use a term which is totally neutral, and leave the religious questions for the proper channels. If you don't like it don't use it, it's that simple.
> Christianity just hopped on the
All human knowledge is a tapestry that builds off of itself. And neoplatonism/hellenistic philosophy was for cloistered academics and did not influence the lives of the common Greek or Roman, while Christianity has broad appeal and DID have that effect on people.
>>
>>2973311
>t CE do it specifically because they see political correctness as the triumph of ideological tribalism over detached professionalism right?
Detached professionalism means if someone wants to use CE or AD, don't make an issue of it because you knew what they meant
>>
>>2973331
Because you are just taking a cultural calender and calling it the common era for everybody. This isn't rocket god damn science.
Lol, so it makes sense to just hijack a calender based off an event, then claim that said event didn't happen, then declare that the turning point towards a world common era?.
Sounds completely sane and not just idiots trying to changes things for PC reasons.
>>
>>2973337
>you knew what they meant
>don't make an issue of it
People expecting detached professionalism do make an issue because they do know what it likely means when someone uses a politically charged term when not called for.
Your definition of detached professionalism would mean accepting a feminist paper about filthy pigs because you know she's talking about white men.
>>
>>2973339
It shouldn't be rocket science that we keep the date for practical reasons either, this should really not be hard to get.
And no the event certainly didn't happen on that year, there is universal consensus on that.
Nor should it be hard to get that it formalizes the Gregorian calendar as the common calendar more rather than it being a cultural calendar and thus on the same level as the muslim calendar.
There is no loss, and a little gain. And most importantly, it does not justify fucking over a thread for it.
>>
>>2973000
>but think about it, if it is so arbitrary, doesn't that make your outrage arbitrary by extension of that?
Just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean you should just keep making arbitrary shit.
>>
>>2973000
>if it is so arbitrary
But it's not arbitrary at all? Just because the dating is almost certainly wrong, it doesn't make the date arbitrary.
>>
>>
>>2973372
>How does it not?
Because it has a definite meaning.
Wrong and arbitrary aren't fucking synonyms anon.
>>
>>2973380
It clearly doesn't
something being a misnomer makes using it, especially in what is supposed to be a science, arbitrary and it is also misleading.
>>
>>2973336
>No, "Anno Domini" is clearly a statement of submission, meaning "the year of our lord".
Ok, and hippopotamus means water horse, a names a name.
> it marks the beginning of standardized ethical structures.
Only through Europe
>Before Christianity every temple had its own local flavor and oral tradition and it was a convoluted shitshow of bickering interests.
So we are just going to ignore all the different sects of Christianity? It was a shit show then, and there are still local flavors. Religious bickering happens to this day. If anything, there was less interreligious bickering before semetic religions took over because people honestly didn't give much of a shit until there were claims of one True God.
>After Christianity every church was using the same book to teach the same canon, inspiring people to organize in ways that they never even conceived of before hand.
The canonization didn't occur until the fourth century. It still wasn't unified after that either. The Roman empire had much better organization than what Christianity provided.
>Oh hey, another snowflake who needs his safespace from those mean old professionals and their "logic"
Sorry the "logic" so far provided is easily refutable?
>It has everything to do with it: standardization makes life easier...
This isn't an argument against standardization. This an argument about using the Gregorian calender and changing the period names. Once again this is more comparable to using English as the lingua Franca then renaming in the Common Language
>All human knowledge is a tapestry that builds off of itself. And neoplatonism/hellenistic philosophy was for cloistered academics and did not influence the lives of the common Greek or Roman, while Christianity has broad appeal and DID have that effect on people.
Greek philosophy heavily influence Greek and Roman mainstream society. This is just another case of somebody never researching ancient history and spouting nonsense.
>>
>>2973362
I like fucking over threads though.
>Let's use the Christian calender and just call in the common calender because Christianity brought the common era for everybody!!
This is the retardation.
>>
This is quite possibly the lamest topic about which I've been in an argument yet.
>>2973409
the retardation is caring about it. The date is only CE because it is used by the calendar used by the 'common' calendar of most of the world and thus too in many historical books and other academic material.
>>
>>2973422
Sorry I care about changes that aren't brought about for practical changes but just so people can feel good about being PC.
>>
>>2973432
oh fuck me for wasting my time with you laying out the reasons after which you just yap the default 'muh PC' again
kys
>>
>>2973444
I've already posted long ass posts hear saying why this reasons are bs. PC idiots just want to avoid accepting the most accepted calender is based on the estimated birth of Jesus. The birth of Jesus didn't bring about some common era.
And yes, I will kys because somebody on 4chan told me too.
>>
>>2973463
you actually didn't, you did not ever rebuke how adopting CE separates the calendar from cultural calendars and thus avoid the problem of it formally not having more legitimacy than them.
>>
>>2973483
thus avoids*
>>
>>2972333
>all recent historical scholarship in the west uses CE as the go-to term to date
no they don't. most still use the AD/BC system because most historians aren't hat-tipping trogs
>>
>>2973483
It's cultural because it is the Gregorian calender which is a cultural calender. I have addressed this. All this change does is declare the birth of Jesus is the common era, which is bogus.
>>
>>2965934
I'm sorry your thread turned into a calendar argument anon.
>>
>>2973506
yes and I already adressed that too, in fact I invoked it, it shouldn't bother you as 'Gregorian' is still around. Rather, the adoption of CE is better as AD is arbitrary, so the date has cultural connotations for arbitrary reasons, which delegitimizing it as a common calendar as the name is there for culture's sake rather than an objective non-culturally biased reason.
Gregorian refers to the person who commissioned the calendar so it has an objective not solely cultural reason. Like how elements are named after scientists.
>>
>>2973546
>yes and I already adressed that too, in fact I invoked it, it shouldn't bother you as 'Gregorian' is still around. Rather, the adoption of CE is better as AD is arbitrary, so the date has cultural connotations for arbitrary reasons, which delegitimizing it as a common calendar as the name is there for culture's sake rather than an objective non-culturally biased reason.
Declaring the birth of Jesus as the start of the common era is factually wrong and disregarding that birth nobody would choose that date as the beginning of the common era.
This change doesn't make the calender non-cultural. It imposes it's culture by saying this event brings the common era.
>Gregorian refers to the person who commissioned the calendar so it has an objective not solely cultural reason. Like how elements are named after scientists.
It's the Christian calender. That's why it's cultural, not because of a name. Btw, the person who commissioned it was a Pope, so that's rather cultural.
>>
>>2973574
>
it is factually wrong but again, practical reasons, we want to not cause too much disruption and we want to keep using old documents.
>
It is cultural AND has an objective reason: that's the name of the guy who actually commissioned the calendar, it doesn't matter if he is the pope, it doesn't make it any less objective.
>>
>>2973593
>it is factually wrong but again, practical reasons, we want to not cause too much disruption and we want to keep using old documents.
Making a change based on incorrect facts is worse then making no changes when they aren't necessary.
>It is cultural AND has an objective reason: that's the name of the guy who actually commissioned the calendar, it doesn't matter if he is the pope, it doesn't make it any less objective.
Ok you are going to have to explain this to me. Because we were arguing the cultural qualities of the name. Something like the Hijra calender has a cultural and objective reason for the name but that doesn't mean is should be declared a common era. It is still a cultural calender.
>>
>>2973621
>
the change is there because of >>2973483
Gregorian stays because it has an objective reason that is not just for culture's sake that it is called that.
>
The Hijra isn't in use in all but 4 countries and isn't the only official calendar in the vast majority of nations like the Gregorian calendar so it is irrelevant.
>>
>>2973648
This just argues that the Gregorian calender should still be used. I don't see how this successfully argues for changing the names of the periods within the calender. The birth of Jesus didn't bring a common era.
>>
>>2973685
playing dumb is not an argument. CE is there for formally legitimizing the calendar as the common calendar in the face of the cultural calendars.
>>
>>2973701
>playing dumb is not an argument.
Disagreeing = playing dumb? Ok
>CE is there for formally legitimizing the calendar as the common calendar in the face of the cultural calendars.
Except declaring it a common era makes the claim that the birth of Jesus brought about some universal common era. Keeping it bc and ad at least keeps it honest
Once again this would be like calling English "Common" instead. It's unnecessary and if anything more culturally offensive because it is declaring the common era is based off of a Christian event.
>>
>>2973714
I just think that you must be dense, that is all
It doesn't at all, because jesus's birth was NOT on 1 CE/AD so it is
completely.and.utterly. arbitrary. with 'common' is meant that it is the starting point of the common calendar of the world.
English is called english because it is the language that originated in England where it was first spoken by english people, like how Gregorian has footing. AD has none of that objective footing, because Jesus was not actually born then.
>>
>>2973728
>I just think that you must be dense, that is all
Alright.
>It doesn't at all, because jesus's birth was NOT on 1 CE/AD so it is completely.and.utterly. arbitrary. with 'common' is meant that it is the starting point of the common calendar of the world.
The date is an estimation of his birth. It's not arbitrary, just off by a few years. CE means common era, meaning it proposes the beginning of the common era is the approximate birth of Christ.
>English is called english because it is the language that originated in England
And that's the point. It wouldn't make sense to call it Common would it?
> AD has none of that objective footing, because Jesus was not actually born then.
It does, this is the approximation of his birth. It's off by a few years, but better than declaring it the start of a common era.
>>
>>2973766
>
yes
>
a pre modern not scientific estimation of his birth that is certain to be wrong
>
No because it has objective reasons to be called english, AD does not.
also it's not in the same ballpark for fuck's sake, english isn't even the most spoken language.
>
again it's a pre modern not scientific estimation of his birth that is certain to be wrong, and it is the starting point of the dominant calendar. The latter is far more significant than the first, and we want the common nature to be formalized so CE, Common Era.
>>
>>2973797
>yes
Maybe?
>No because it has objective reasons to be called english, AD does not.
AD does, since it's a Christian calender listing the approximate birth of their Messiah.
>also it's not in the same ballpark for fuck's sake, english isn't even the most spoken language.
English is the lingua Franca because of how widespread and universally accepted it is, not because how many people speak it. The latter has been rather irrelevant in determining the most "common" language.
>again it's a pre modern not scientific estimation of his birth that is certain to be wrong, and it is the starting point of the dominant calendar. The latter is far more significant than the first, and we want the common nature to be formalized so CE, Common Era.
The fact it's an estimation isn't a important. It's the approximate date given to an event.
Anyways the logic is let's use the off approximation date of the Christian calender, change the name, and declare that date as important because that calender starts at that date? And use the term common era which it is not. Can you at least see the why there is resistance to this? Keep the terms that explain why it starts at that date, it keeps it honest.
>>
>>2973857
>
possibly
>
and it has lost it, 4 years off the current estimation which itself could be slightly off is in no way of any meaning, or has lost its meaning that the cultural significance vastly outweighs any objective merit it has
>
that was not my point but just a comment, and the comment still stands, just look at a map of where the gregorian calendar is the standard vs english fluency.
>
again it is not approximate, as it is four years off the approximate, THAT date should be AD. so this leaves you with two options
shift the date and cause disruption across the globe(again far more significance as the common start date than as a birthdate) and explicitly make it a cultural calendar formally on the level of the Hijra or
change AD to CE to signify its arbitrariness and its larger significance as a starting date.
otherwise AD remains meaningless.
look I'm OK with anyone not liking it for whatever reasons they have if they recognize that it is not just 'muh PC' and I'm not ok with ruining a thread because of it(the 0 CE as a whole was worth mocking though)
>>
>>2973897
It's not some random/arbitrary date though. It's a wrong estimation. Obviously we can't just change all calenders. However, just changing it to the common era makes no since either. Defining the start of the common era by "o that's when this calender starts" leads naturally to why does that calender start there. It's a pointless attempt to make the Gregorian calender not tied to what it was based on, while then asserting that something happened that brought forth a common era.
The start date should be recognized as what it is, something significant in European/Christian culture rather than imposed as a start of a world common era, it's straightforward in stating what this system is based on. Declaring it a common era just reeks of eurocentrism in comparison.
>>
>>2973968
it is a wrong estimation and it thus isn't actually Anno Domine, it shouldn't be called anno domine, 4 BC is the Anno Domine.
It should be called CE because a.g.a.i.n. >>2973496
and it is the start date of the common calendar of the globe.
it should be recognized as it is as an arbitrary date that is the start date of the common calendar which is a vastly vastly more important fact than it once erroneously being assumed as the Anno Domine(which is also misleading)
and again the penny, 5 dollar bill thing, this isn't culture war shite because the Gregorian calendar is still called just that, just like if pennies were gone then Lincoln would still be represented on the five dollar bill
I can agree to disagree(as this has been going on for 6 hours for me) as long as you recognize that it is not just 'muh PC'.
>>
>>2974022
The use of CE doesn't make it a non-cultural calender. It's still a calender based on the APPROXIMATE date of the birth of jesus named after a Pope.
Even 4 bc is an estimate. It's better to have that be clear than declare it a common era. That's for more offensive than writing AD.
It's main reason of change is because of sensitivity to using AD. Largely by the Jewish community. The purpose is political correctness because it is "offensive" to the secular committee. Really had to resist doing (((secular))).
>The use of CE in Jewish scholarship was historically motivated by the desire to avoid the implicit "Our Lord" in the abbreviationAD. Although other aspects of dating systems are based in Christian origins, AD is a direct reference to Jesus as Lord.
>Proponents of the Common Era notation assert that the use of BCE/CE shows sensitivity to those who use the same year numbering system as the one that originated with and is currently used byChristians, but who are not themselves Christian.
>>
>>2974096
what does the jewish community have to do with this
>((secular))
oh you're one of [[them]], that explains it, well then let's wrap this up.
-it's not an approximate(alread established and consensus on this) AD is misleading
-common refers to how widely used the calendar is and not to some era Jesus started which would be loaded( not like [[you]]'d care anyway)
-the fact that it is the start of the common calendar is a vastly more important fact than it being the erroneous birthdate of jesus
-and again >>2973483
-and sensitivity is just the flip side of >>2973483, this is the main issue, that it has some sensitivity is a consequence of it not being distinct enough from the cultural calendars, and the change to CE doesn't hurt because it didn't actually replace AD as AD is on 4 BCE.
-[[you]] can say sensitivity was the 'main' issue, but it wouldn't ever be able to stand on its own. And it disregards the myriad reasons why CE happened, >>2973483 is the reason. and 1 AD was easy to throw away because again, misleading, erroneous and not even approximate, not based on objective fact and called AD just for culture's sake.
But I've only explained this 14 times, why not another time.
>>
>>2974189
First off, stop citing >>2973483 over and over again, I've addressed it over and over again. The transition of bce to CE isn't just some randomly chosen year in existence. Trying to hide the reason is pointless.
>oh you're one of [[them]], that explains it, well then let's wrap this up.
I stated the ((())) jokingly, I made that rather clear. Is the [[]] actually a thing? That's rather cute.
>-it's not an approximate(alread established and consensus on this) AD is misleading
It was an approximation at the time.
>-common refers to how widely used the calendar is and not to some era Jesus started which would be loaded
Common era refers to a common era. Profound right?
>-the fact that it is the start of the common calendar is a vastly more important fact than it being the erroneous birthdate of jesus
And that start is dictated by something. It's important to acknowledge that rather the declare/lie that the calender is non-cultural.
>-and sensitivity is just the flip side of this is the main issue, that it has some sensitivity is a consequence of it not being distinct enough from the cultural calendars.
We don't have a date on AD, just a majority consensus. Anywhere between 7 BC - 3 AD has been argued.
>-[[you]] can say sensitivity was the 'main' issue, but it wouldn't ever be able to stand on its own. And it disregards the myriad reasons why CE happened
"Adena K. Berkowitz, when arguing at the Supreme Court opted to use BCE and CE because Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations – B.C.E. and C.E. – cast a wider net of inclusion"
Inclusion, not "offending" blah blah. Rather PC focused, they don't want to write AD.
>1 AD was easy to throw away because again, misleading, erroneous and not even approximate, not based on objective fact and called AD just for culture's sake.
Do you know the definition of approximate? It's still in the approximate range (7bc-3Ad)
>14 times
27 to be safe
>>
>>2974298
>
and I've addressed your addressing, after which you loop to saying calling it the common era is culturally biased, which I then addressed by stating that it refers to how commonly used the calendar is rather than something else
then you said "Making a change based on incorrect facts is worse then making no changes when they aren't necessary."
and then we're back to square one, as this is an assertion rather than an argument(since CE isn't based on incorrect facts it is based on the common usage it isn't defined by arbitrariness or a claim of the birthdate of jesus it is based on practicality and it is irrefutable that it is more practical to not change the start date of the calendar.
>
yes an pre modern incorrect approximate, no reason to take it seriously anymore, if anything AD should be shifted but you oppose that which exposes that it being supposedly an approximate of Jesus's birth is not actually of much significance, that it is the start date of our calendar is of more significance.
>
quite.
>
It's just there to accentuate that it being the start date is far more important than it being AD, which can not 'not' be true as it isn't even the AD
>
as it was informally already the common calendar, and no one was going to change that you can only ask for it to move from formally cultural to formally common status as it is more proper to its use, as it is used by all.
>
>>most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 BC and 4 BC.
>
12 more to go.
you need a calendar to be rooted in stone, setting it on an approximate is not acceptable so AD can't be moved, but that also makes the name erroneous and arbitrary. So CE(among all the other mentioned reasons)
wonder if there's literally anyone else than us itt anymore
>>
>>2974401
I've fallen dangerously behind at work. Let's just agree that the Iranian calender based on Cyrus the great is by far the most important calender. It was nice conquering the thread with you, friend.
>>
>>2974432
I'm ok with agreeing to disagree, but I have a lot of free time now so I can understand how my own autism can be very taxing to another.
>Let's just agree that the Iranian calender based on Cyrus the great is by far the most important calender.
all cultural calendars are equally important because all cultures are equal :^^)
>>
>>2965934
>CE
Say AD or BC, not even christian and I still think CE and BCE is pandering nonsense.
>>
I still want to talk about burmese history...
Anyone have book recommendations?
>>2972985
And really, I want to believe
Thread posts: 140
Thread images: 32
Thread images: 32