|
Nosfereefer posted:diogenes lived an ascetic life. every single goon obsessively collects pop-culture figurines I dunno, the whole plucked chicken bit seems like something the Ur-Goon would do.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
a goon wouldn't know how to pluck a Chicken
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Goons don't pluck chickens, only choke them
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:diogenes lived an ascetic life. every single goon obsessively collects pop-culture figurines plz rephrase your comment in the form of a dank meme big dog little dog and chad virgin are both acceptable formats
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
everyone hearing about diogenes: cool, rad even. would love to smoke a bowl with that king everyone seeing a modern homeless coot jerking off: um where is my nazi party to vote for and policeman to kiss and hug
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
The Discord server that Mr Toler tracked the leaks to belongs to a popular YouTube channel called Wow Mao, which creates “low effort” meme videos with titles like “which Communist would you smoke with?” and “who is the better philosopher? Diogenes versus Jordan Peterson”.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
when u go back to his place and see this is his bed u know youre getting the best dick of ur life:
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/strongblacklead/status/1646166545754730504?t=NVa54qTM3S4gxBCUq0Cp-g&s=19 This is, uh, not true, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/strongblacklead/status/1646166545754730504?t=NVa54qTM3S4gxBCUq0Cp-g&s=19 hahahahahaahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/strongblacklead/status/1646166545754730504?t=NVa54qTM3S4gxBCUq0Cp-g&s=19 why did i scroll through the comments i need to go lie down now
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
She looked black but she was white so it's looking okay so far
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/strongblacklead/status/1646166545754730504?t=NVa54qTM3S4gxBCUq0Cp-g&s=19 i dunno, are macedonians white?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
i dont think it was invented yet
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:She looked black but she was white so it's looking okay so far she was an inbred Greek royal that was part of the occupying colonial government that oppressed the native people of the region. she was white as gently caress even if the term "white" did not mean anything. she certainly was not ethnically African WoodrowSkillson has issued a correction as of 18:56 on Apr 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/strongblacklead/status/1646166545754730504?t=NVa54qTM3S4gxBCUq0Cp-g&s=19 cleopatra, comin “at ya”
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:she was an inbred Greek royal that was part of the occupying colonial government that oppressed the native people of the region. she was white as gently caress even if the term "white" did not mean anything. she certainly was not ethnically African They could have just made a Hatshepsut movie! She was actually african and wasn't just a semi-figurehead of a moribund kingdom who just really liked italians
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Archduke Frantz Fanon posted:They could have just made a Hatshepsut movie! She was actually african and wasn't just a semi-figurehead of a moribund kingdom who just really liked italians
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Archduke Frantz Fanon posted:They could have just made a Hatshepsut movie! She was actually african and wasn't just a semi-figurehead of a moribund kingdom who just really liked italians yeah, thats the thing, by doing this you are skipping an actual African historical figure in favor of some weird ahistorical retelling. for the record, for 90% of poo poo it absolutely does not matter what the ethnicity of an actor playing a role is, but when the thing is touting itself as telling history, yeah it kinda does. it covers for the Ptolemies and makes them look like native rulers, and also denies someone like Queen Amanirenas a time to shine. She actually fought the Romans at the same time as Cleopatra and won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:she was an inbred Greek royal that was part of the occupying colonial government that oppressed the native people of the region. she was white as gently caress even if the term "white" did not mean anything. she certainly was not ethnically African wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUIE6D_IoH0&t=28s
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Assassin's Creed Origins had a pretty fun treatment of Cleopatra and Ptolemaic Egypt. It kinda falls off the rails once Pompey and Lucius Septimius show up but the game is way better than it has any right to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9MxjCyebY
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:yeah, thats the thing, by doing this you are skipping an actual African historical figure in favor of some weird ahistorical retelling. ah yes the accountant's take on movies, totally legit criticism
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:yeah, thats the thing, by doing this you are skipping an actual African historical figure in favor of some weird ahistorical retelling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
macedonia? I barely know 'er!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 10:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/web3muse/status/1646569132249284610
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
given ptolemaic marriage customs i think the chance of cleopatra being mixed race is kinda slim
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
ptolemaics refused to learn Egyptian but immediately started loving their sisters what strange priorities for native customs to adopt
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
FrancisFukyomama posted:ptolemaics refused to learn Egyptian but immediately started loving their sisters tbf the greeks were all huge perverts
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
FrancisFukyomama posted:ptolemaics refused to learn Egyptian but immediately started loving their sisters Greeks already had customs for forcing women to marry blood relatives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Jesus was a real guy but, controversially, he was actually Jewish. the only thing that can be said with certainty of the historical yeshua ben yoseph is that he was annoying
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/strongblacklead/status/1646166545754730504?t=NVa54qTM3S4gxBCUq0Cp-g&s=19 Kara boga posting will be real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 04:53
|
|
|
As an atheist I think it's dumb to try and disprove a historical Jesus. Just the existence of the be religion itself is enough evidence that some dude was going around causing trouble in 33CE Judea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:As an atheist I think it's dumb to try and disprove a historical Jesus. Just the existence of the be religion itself is enough evidence that some dude was going around causing trouble in 33CE Judea. Now if you wanted to disprove the existence of Yeshua, annoyance to Romans, that's another thing entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:As an atheist I think it's dumb to try and disprove a historical Jesus. Just the existence of the be religion itself is enough evidence that some dude was going around causing trouble in 33CE Judea. It's the sort of thing where the stakes are not really 1 to 1. If you are a certain type of literalist Christian, then proof of a historical Jesus is incredibly important. If somebody can definitively disprove historical Jesus that's terrifying, and puts you in a position of possibly disavowing history. And in the process of convincing people of the rightness of your position, its direly important that Jesus be a definitive historical person who literally lived and died. If you're already an atheist who just doesn't think that its a virtue to worship a supernatural power, the whole question feels silly. There's basically no stakes. "There was a Jewish guy who made a cult about trying to be nice to poor people." Sure, why the gently caress not. It doesn't mean that he revived the dead or fed thousands with just one basket of fish or whatever. It's not like the Korean-Finnish Hyperwar or something where if its true or not implies other things about history. Any economic system that has an urban underclass will be a breeding ground for these kind of cults, and Jesus was just one of many. He stands out because his cult "won" (for a very weird notion of "winning"). So there's a very small group of people for whom its very high stakes in part of their fight against atheism (and Christians who are just less literalist), and the people they're fighting against don't actually care. It's not a symmetric war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
It's a pretty rare Christian who would be unbothered if it were to be proven that Jesus didn't exist. Fortunately it's pretty much impossible to prove that someone didn't exist, and with the Bible and a handful of other sources, Jesus is about as well documented as any non-monarch of his era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
pidan posted:It's a pretty rare Christian who would be unbothered if it were to be proven that Jesus didn't exist. Fortunately it's pretty much impossible to prove that someone didn't exist, and with the Bible and a handful of other sources, Jesus is about as well documented as any non-monarch of his era. This is how I've encountered most Christians I know (Catholics, some mainline protestants). Its incredibly hard to disprove that a person lived thousands of years ago, and that's good enough. There's a few people who need much stronger proof than that and its out of what I'd consider an obsessive literalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I feel like the core issue is the conflation of historical Jesus with Biblical Jesus. Like, philosophically, does it even make sense to talk about a "historical Jesus", when the whole idea of Jesus is centered around a supernatural entity? It is worth pointing out that the phrase "Historical Jesus" is specifically used, at least within scholarship, as a differentiator with Jesus as presented in the biblical text and within the proto-Christian texts that didn't make it into the New Testament canon. The phrase comes from a foundational text of that section of biblical scholarship, The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, written in 1906. It carries with it the implication that when one is discussing the "Historical Jesus" that one is specifically not taking the biblical text at face value and is instead trying to get at what the human Jesus actually believed and preached, not just looking at what was recorded in the Gospels, as none of them were written by someone who had actually met Jesus. As for whether it makes sense philosophically to talk about, trying to more accurately understand Jesus' message is a huge issue within modern theology, though depending on the individual scholar's views on biblical inerrancy, the need to look outside the Bible or read the Bible through a historical-critical lens may or may not be necessary. And that's all it is, really, an extension of using the historical critical method to examine the life of Jesus but because getting at what, exactly, Jesus taught is so critical theologically, it has its own devoted area within theological scholarship. I'll again plug Bart D. Ehrman for this. He's one of the most well known scholars writing on the topic and is very publicly agnostic / atheist (he claims both descriptors for very wordy academic reasons). If anyone wants a good primer, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by him is an excellent starting place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:It is worth pointing out that the phrase "Historical Jesus" is specifically used, at least within scholarship, as a differentiator with Jesus as presented in the biblical text and within the proto-Christian texts that didn't make it into the New Testament canon. The phrase comes from a foundational text of that section of biblical scholarship, The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, written in 1906. It carries with it the implication that when one is discussing the "Historical Jesus" that one is specifically not taking the biblical text at face value and is instead trying to get at what the human Jesus actually believed and preached, not just looking at what was recorded in the Gospels, as none of them were written by someone who had actually met Jesus. Azathoth posted:I'll again plug Bart D. Ehrman for this. He's one of the most well known scholars writing on the topic and is very publicly agnostic / atheist (he claims both descriptors for very wordy academic reasons). If anyone wants a good primer, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by him is an excellent starting place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
really concerned about someone who may or may not have existed and who died 2000 years ago and left nothing by their own hand
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I mean, I get this, I just think it's a philosophically suspect position to take. When you talk about Historical Jesus you're not actually just talking about him, because the name Jesus has belonged to a fictionalized version for like two millennia. Which seems to be supported by the fact that apparently a lot of the people who care about Historical Jesus do so from a theological position. Yeah, he is by common definition an atheist in that he believes in no higher power or being. He claims agnostic because while he does not himself believe in a higher power, he accepts that he cannot know with any certainty that a higher power does not exist. That is, there is no mathematical or philosophical logically rigorous proof that conclusively proves there is no higher power and thus refers to himself as agnostic as well because of that lack of uncertainty. Please don't try to debate this with me, by the way, I'm just relaying what I remember reading and I'm sure I'm not giving all the nuance you'd get if you asked him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 20:19
|
|