|
look at this prancing gently caress. god how i envy him
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
People always say white guys can't dance. Or dress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Western men's fashion died sometime in the 1800s.  Bring back short pants and long socks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 12:58
|
|
Fangz posted:Take it to D&D folks. No. That is a set of statements about a historical thinker. There are three points here and I think the first and third are the most off base. HEY GAIL posted:"Humans actualize their species-being through labor: making objects. When they work on an assembly line they are alienated from their labor because they can't see and feel the finished product; they are also alienated because they are forced to create things they don't want to create. This means they are deprived of the ability to think of themselves as the authors of their own destinies and estranged from their authentic humanity" isn't an economic analysis, it's a spiritual one. First, the claim that that this is a spiritual form of analysis is speaking more to our schematism than Marx's. In actuality, Marx is echoing commonplace claims made about the new nature of labour in industrial capitalism, e.g. Smith posted:"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgement concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it." Noting that the analysis contains a spiritual (if you like) element, though, doesn't disprove it. Moreover, analyses based on the idea that one can be inauthentic to ones own nature and interests are also made influentially elsewhere by less contentious contemporaries: Mill posted:In our times, from the highest class of society down to the lowest, every one lives as under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship. Not only in what concerns others, but in what concerns only themselves, the individual or the family do not ask themselves—what do I prefer? or, what would suit my character and disposition? or, what would allow the best and highest in me to have fair play, and enable it to grow and thrive? They ask themselves, what is suitable to my position? what is usually done by persons of my station and pecuniary circumstances? or (worse still) what is usually done by persons of a station and circumstances superior to mine? I do not mean that they choose what is customary, in preference to what suits their own inclination. It does not occur to them to have any inclination, except for what is customary. Thus the mind itself is bowed to the yoke: even in what people do for pleasure, conformity is the first thing thought of; they like in crowds; they exercise choice only among things commonly done: peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of conduct, are shunned equally with crimes: until by dint of not following their own nature, they have no nature to follow: their human capacities are withered and starved: they become incapable of any strong wishes or native pleasures, and are generally without either opinions or feelings of home growth, or properly their own. Now is this, or is it not, the desirable condition of human nature? Then, 3: HEY GAIL posted:Edit: not to mention that according to his analysis a several-hundred-thousand a year finance analyst is also a proletarian, while a bodega owner is bourgeois. This is just flatly a misreading. I think it stems from investing very heavily in the very bad definition offered by e.g. wikipedia quote:In Marxist theory, the proletariat is the social class that does not have ownership of the means of production and whose only means of subsistence is to sell their labor power. This is very misleading. Marx's analysis here is very complex. For one, he differentiates the petty-bourgeois (e.g. a shopkeeper) from the bourgeois, and he does so on a number of grounds. For one, they don't in fact own the means of production, only exchange, and they often work for a similar wage and in a similar manner to those whose labour they purchase, even though they own property, ergo: quote:[He is]"... is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is a capitalist; as a labourer he is his own wage- labourer" quote:The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population. Which is entirely prescient. This analysis also applies, mutatis mutandis, to the middle-management portion of any large enterprise. And while Marx does admit the possibility of a proletarian who works using purely mental labour - and one could describe a financial analyst making six figures in that way - in actuality, such a 'worker': - Is much likelier to actually own a share in the means of production - Does not live in an entirely dependent state on his wage - Draws a salary rather than a wage - Just makes a shitload more money - Haven't been degraded by capitalist organisation, like shopkeepers, in to proletarians, because despite being non-productive labourers they still share abundantly in surplus value generated by workers and exploited from them by capital (another way of saying makes shitloads of money). What Marx is describing is the general tendency of the working relationships of a society to polarise over time in to more and more extreme relationships, which is born out by what we see today; what Marx didn't count on is how happy people would be to work under exploitative conditions, as long as they were sufficient to maintain the basic conditions of modern life. HEY GAIL posted:And why hasn't capitalist society invariably given way to the dictatorship of the proletariat? Like the second coming, it's been just around the corner for 160 years. This is more or less the biggest theoretical problem Marxists have, and is openly admitted to be so. The seeds to the answer are contained within Marx's own analysis, as well as how this mistake was made. In a way, it's yielded much of the most interesting Marxist work of the last 100 years. The Frankfurt school is a great example. The question is: why do people persist in behaving in a manner contrary to their own interests, and what agencies allow that set of relations to persist? In Marx we have ideas of alienation and false consciousness that suggest answers, but particularly since the dawn of psychoanalysis and cultural criticism entirely new avenues of thought have opened up. It's why Adorno is so interested in Hollywood. But Marx always, first and foremost, acknowledges that capitalism is the most robust and dynamic system of social order ever yet created. So I don't think he'd be entirely surprised to see it still flourishing. And, again, it's not a reason to throw away Marx. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
I'm sold. I'm throwing away Marx.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
So how about them battleships, eh? Big guns go boom boom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Merely a passing fad. The way of the future is in the sky with those Wright boys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
In the vein of mixing politics and battleships: It seems like one of those common knowledge things that the UK and Imperial Germany were bankrupting themselves building battleships prior to WWI, but how much were they actually spending on the best weapons ever devised? I'm not sure I've ever seen a real thorough analysis of this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:50
|
|
bewbies posted:In the vein of mixing politics and battleships: I think there's at least one contextual problem, which is what was regarded as disastrous spending in 1910 compared to what is regarded as disastrous spending now. I think in the context of the time it seemed insanely expensive, but debt to GDP ratios were still declining (and below 50%) in the UK all the way up until the advent of WW1, and then there's a gigantic expansion of public debt to Napoleonic War levels. Pre-WW1 Britain is almost the least leveraged Britain has ever been as a nation. Context:     Whatever people say about 'bankrupting' the nation is pure lunacy in this context. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
I think we have an era expert somewhere around but I can't remember who it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
It's not even "mixing battleships and politics", the whole reason battleships were a thing was to satisfy a political need. Contemporary and modern Politics are inextricable from any history, and the Marxist critique of the late 19th century is a huge part of the prevailing political climate that led to the battleship arms race. Battleships and politics are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In the vein of mixing politics and battleships: Less than you'd think, It took Britain until 1910 to get the budget that the navy wanted to be passed because the House of Lords werent keen on the tax increases neccesary to pass it. Britain was more concerned about funding its social policies like the OAP act and the National Insurance act than military spending, the Liberal government in power had tried to significantly cut defence spending after the Boer war. Interestingly the total quantity of money being spent on defence between UK and Germany leading up to 1914 was pretty comparable at £60-70 million a year with Germany towards the top of that bound and Britain towards the bottom, but Britain was spending far more proportionally on its navy out of that figure. I pulled this chart and tables out of The Grand Fleet.   Total UK government spending was around £120 million a year at this start of this stage, rising to around 175 million in 1913, so defence in total was around 50% of that figure and shipbuilding specifically was about a sixth, all of these numbers would go up as 1914 approached, but proportionally defence would remain at about the same level until the outbreak of war. The UK didnt really need to expand its spending on its navy all that much to stay ahead of Germany for three reasons, the first being that Britain was much richer than Germany in terms of its exploitable wealth, their GDP was similar but Britain had access to income tax, which Germany did not and so had to borrow more heavily to build. Secondly British shipbuilding was comparatively so excellent compared to everyone else in the world, they built ships quicker and cheaper. The third was that over three-quarters of German military spending went on the Army. Between 1902 and 1913 British spending on the navy went up by 38%,. German spending increased by around 130%. This was with the government's commitment to being able to defeat both the US and Germany at once in their naval construction numbers. Essentially any bankrupting was a deliberate choice of the government, both nations were capable of raising new taxes and had enough money to pay for it if they wanted to. You can see on the chart that Disinterested linked the moment where the UK decided to really open up the borrowing taps in 1915. The moment where naval spending would have bankrupted the UK was really post WW1, hence the naval treaties, because they were busy repaying the loans to the US and didnt want to engage in a new naval race at that stage. British public debt had been pretty low before WW1, but afterwards, it was cripplingly high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:People always say white guys can't dance. Or dress. They also say white men cant jump, but 9/11 sure shut them the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:So how about them battleships, eh? Big guns go boom boom. No match for a stout tank destroyer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Merely a passing fad. The way of the future is in the sky with those Wright boys. the sound of a million monacles popping out at once
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:No match for a stout tank destroyer. What if we combined them  
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:No match for a stout tank destroyer. Not true. Not true. And furthermore, 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
The dismounts would have their insides turned into tomato soup from those big ol' guns firing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Deep down, every military enthusiast is an Ork.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Literally how does this even work though. It just looks so preposterous.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Not true. Not true. new archival research shows that anime may have been invented decades earlier than was previously believed
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka "(the recoil was too strong for many components: it damaged drive sprockets, tore the gear-box away from its mountings, etc.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A3_Kondensator_2P
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Ah, 'it didn't'.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Western men's fashion died sometime in the 1800s. I had a German economics professor named Dufwenberg who wore men's capri pants with dress socks and loafers every day. That guy was a highlight of my education. So what I'm saying is, some people still got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Ah, 'it didn't'. It did, but only a limited amount of times
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Speaking of the Ratte: I figured the Ratte's power/weight ratio is 8.5 hp/ ton, assuming a net hp figure of 17,000, and a weight of 2000 tons. That's what the Tiger II's power to weight ratio, so assuming it's all really simple, I'd say the Ratte would have been able to manage 20 km/h off road (lol it has no 'on-road'.) If somebody wanted to figure the ground pressure and the mileage of the thing, I'd be grateful Also, what the Ratte really needs is some sort of Ratte-transporter. Like maybe you could build a big landing craft, and have the Ratte's diesel-electric drivetrain plug into it so the Ratte could move via water? Also maybe make it nuclear powered, much better energy density fuel Also also is it me or is the Ratte too valuable to be risked in combat, thus rendering its whole armor aspect pointless? (Christ, we just shoulda made railway guns for those C/K 34s...the Ratte burns so much fuel we need to keep it in visual sight of railways anyway)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that if they actually built and deployed a Ratte its crew would just get concussed to death by bomb explosions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
I still hope that some rich dude builds a Ratte at some point. Make it out of wood and foam if necessary, but it'd be amazing to look at. Someone start the Kickstarter already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
I learned the other day that there is a Danish Victoria Cross recipient, which I gather is rather special in as much as anyone not from Britain getting one is rare. He seemed pretty damned hardcore, as befits a VC soldier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Lassen quote:He was a first cousin of Axel von dem Bussche, a German Resistance member who unsuccessfully tried to kill Adolf Hitler in 1943. While serving in the Danish Merchant Navy, he came to the United Kingdom shortly after the start of the Second World War where he joined the British Commandos in 1940, serving with No. 62 Commando (also known as the Small Scale Raiding Force) as a private. He was commissioned in the field on the General List and awarded an immediate Military Cross for his part in Operation Postmaster the capture of three Italian and German ships from the neutral Spanish colonial island of Fernando Po now known as Bioko, in the Gulf of Guinea. Lassen, who was 24 years old, was serving as a temporary Major in the British Special Boat Section when he was awarded the Victoria Cross. The citation published in the London Gazette on 4 September 1945 gave the following details: quote:
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
MrBling posted:I learned the other day that there is a Danish Victoria Cross recipient, which I gather is rather special in as much as anyone not from Britain getting one is rare. More like 'not from the Empire', there have been Canadian, Aussie etc holders often enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:More like 'not from the Empire', there have been Canadian, Aussie etc holders often enough. The Gurkha ones read like superhero comic books, with the immortal soldier slaying 15 of the enemy with just a rifle, bayonet, two bullets, one grenade, and a tin of sardines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:The Gurkha ones read like superhero comic books, with the immortal soldier slaying 15 of the enemy with just a rifle, bayonet, two bullets, one grenade, and a tin of sardines. Agansing Rai was a 24-year-old Naik in the 2nd Battalion, 5th Royal Gurkha Rifles, in the Indian Army during World War II, when he led his section in an attack on one of two posts which had been taken by the enemy and were threatening the British forces' communications on 26 June 1944 near the town of Bishenpur in the state of Manipur, India. Under withering fire Agansing Rai and his party charged a machine-gun. Agansing Rai himself killed three of the crew. When the first position had been taken, he then led a dash on a machine-gun firing from the jungle, where he killed three of the crew, his men accounting for the rest. He subsequently tackled an isolated bunker single-handed, killing all four occupants. The enemy were now so demoralised that they fled and the second post was recaptured. e: HOLY poo poo this dude is loving badass http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/military-obituaries/gurkha-obituaries/8199764/Havildar-Lachhiman-Gurung-VC.html Plutonis fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
gurkhas OP, plz nerf
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Why are Gurkhas so prominent in crazy heroic war stories? Are they really overrepresented, or is it like an orientalist thing that they get fixated on more than other folks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I don't know what percent of VCs are gurkha, but they have a melee weapon culture and so have a lot more "flip out with kukri" citations than other recipients. poo poo, there's even a rather recent one who killed a bunch of people with a mine and an MG tripod, among other things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
They are just really dedicated professional soldiers.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
WW2 Data We start a 3-parter for the US 5-inch projectiles. Today sees a few common type rounds, as well as some special variants and a couple of high-capacity shells. Which round is used in an almost obsolete gun? Which one comes in bag and case variant? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Nepal's main exports are rugs, nuts and Gurkhas. I'm not joking, remittance payments back home from Gurkhas serving in India and Britain make up a surprisingly large part of the GDP of their home regions, though I dont know exactly how many because I can only find statistics for general remittances. I was checking online to confirm that, and I found out the depressing fact that their pensions were much lower than a normal British Army soldier's pension until 2007.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Don Gato posted:nuts and Gurkhas. But you repeat yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:02
|
|