Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Priory_of_Sion last won the day on July 3 2019

Priory_of_Sion had the most liked content!

About Priory_of_Sion

  • Rank
    [cries alone]
  • Birthday 09/10/1996

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    In Sturgeon's Guest Bedroom

Recent Profile Visitors

1,389 profile views
  1. TIL about the "death spears" of Australia. These spears have their relatively simple wooden tips covered in adhesive yellow gum sap with multiple embedded stone, wood, and shell chips with later post-European contact spears sometimes including glass shards as an advancement over the stone chips. Unlike most spears used by hunter-gatherers these seem to have been more specialized for use in warfare instead of a more utilitarian design that can be used for hunting game. Sure, you could kill someone with a regular spear or a wooden club, but the death spears went further and the microliths in the spear tip would imbed in flesh and cause more damage, especially if an attempt to remove the spear was tried, along with a higher probability for infection. These death spears and similar bone-barbed "war spears" in Australia were usually ~10 feet in length and apparently noticeably bulkier than the ~8 ft spears used for hunting. Aborginal Australians also had their own form of the atlatl called the woomera which helped them fling spears ~70 yards. There has been a couple British accounts of early settlers & convicts being killed with these spears; sometimes even after the spear was removed. The archeological record suggests that these spears have been in Australia for a while, as recently a skeleton which has been found with microliths found within their bodies matching the description of a death via the death spear has been dated to 4000 years before present. Microliths have been found as late as 15000 years ago, yet it is kinda hard to establish whether these microlith chips were used for death spears. I got most of this info from Allen & Jones' "Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers" and Davidson (1934)
  2. Model Korean KAI KF-X was shown at a recent airshow
  3. Robert Mugabe now bathes in the waters of the Phlegethon
  4. More like: "All of these things can be racist. Taken in mass, it is a pretty safe bet to say: yep, probably racist"
  5. Is that not a strawman argument? Sorry, I thought you were able to understand which part I was dismissing out of hand as a strawman and what part I wanted to engage with. Yeah, it is almost like dictionary definitions of terms in social sciences are often pretty useless!
  6. It is a strawman to suppose that anyone on the left is just using "racism" as a scapegoat for their policy failures. Defining racism as a feeling and as a clear-cut inferiority thing basically states that "separate, but equal" policies were not racist. Either that is true, or your criteria for racism is flawed in someway. I just don't know who Tim Pool is, so I don't understand the inside joke.
  7. Cool strawman! Though, I want some comments on these critiques of this definition of racism. What if someone believes that a race is inferior, but not genetically (was racism impossible before Mendel?). Rather, for example, "they are just culturally backwards." What if you see your own race as inferior to others in some hierarchy of races Does "race" include ethnicities? Are Arabs and Hispanics a race or are they just Indo-Europeans and thus it is not possible to actually be racist against them? What if you think a large subset of a race is largely inferior to you in someway, but not the entire race. "There's some good ones." What if someone has policy goals that effectively punish (inadvertently or not) large portions of certain races out of proportion towards others? Did the Hutus massacred the Tutsis because they felt they were genetically superior?
  8. Lol Well, how do you think how you can "prove" racism? Unless Donald just says "yes I am a racist" there's going to be people who believe that he's not racist. Yeah, that's almost my point. You're so close to understanding it. Birtherism is not intrinsically racist. Calling for the death penalty for falsely accused black and hispanic people isn't intrinsically racist. Neither is tighter immigration measures even with stereotyping said immigrants. Calling them "invaders" isn't either. Nor is using the bully pulpit to call out individual black people out as a son of a bitch. I wouldn't say that trying to protect confederate monuments isn't intrinsically racist. Etc. It is a pattern of behavior. This pattern may explain why many people think that Trump is somewhat racist or why many racists just happen to say or believe very similar things. You have to understand that I delineate between "serious" and people on the TV screen. Though, I don't recall many people saying that Trump is literally Hitler unless you are just building strawmen. Well, if you're ignoring lines of evidence because each individual thing isn't intrinsically racist, that's pretty stupid if you ask me. What is your criteria? Cool?
  9. Well, the Russian-Trump thing is a conspiracy theory, so that seems to fit the recent trend of this thread. The racism thing is more nuanced and there is a burden on those who call Trump (and others) a racist to describe what that means. I don't have access to the thoughts of our president, but there's a series of things that he's said or done (1970s housing suit, CP5 death penalty advocate, & Obama birtherism as examples from the pre-2016 Trump) that can reasonably lead one to think that he's racist in some degree (I don't think any serious person is saying that Trump is Jefferson Davis or Hitler). To just ignore that because people overuse the word "racist" is pretty juvenile and unnuanced. This isn't anything new either. Strom Thurmond, who I would describe as racist, didn't see himself as racist (and neither did most his supporters at the time).
  10. Yeah, I saw that a few pages back. I wouldn't describe what discourse that was happening in that way though. Might as well just keep talking about conspiracy theories.
  11. Love the complex and nuanced political discourse going on in here!
  12. Thinking optimistically, if the UAE-backed Southerners win out in Aden, they might not have any motive to keep fighting the Houthis in the north. Aden and Sanaa could come to terms and split again into two seperate states (which has been the de facto status for a while and the norm for most of history). I don't know if the Saudis might still try to hang on to slivers of the Red Sea coast and Marib, but with Aden gone, they gotta see the writing on the wall and withdrawal (and hopefully stop aiding AQAP elements). Then the focus could turn towards the more noble goal of turning jihadists into inanimate meat.
  • Create New...