4 ms·

Here's a concrete example - if you have a cursory knowledge of history you'll inevitably encounter various little facts that contradict the main "theme" that we

Here's a concrete example - if you have a cursory knowledge of history you'll inevitably encounter various little facts that contradict the main "theme" that we as a society share. I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc. You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.

jl6 4y ago
I guess it depends how you bring it up. If you go in all guns blazing, abrasive and say ackchyually, yeah, people are going to hate it. But at the other end of the spectrum, the quiz show QI does misconception-busting counter-narratives all the time, and polite society loves it.
- coldtea 4y ago
  They only love it because it's a safe, constrained, space, where they go for laughs (it's entertainment) and because it doesn't challenge any of their major beliefs.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Does QI do it about anything British people hold near and dear to their hearts? Trying to picture it now.. Klaxons sound "Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    If that's the way you're sharing those claims, it's no wonder you're getting pushback. You're taking a nuanced and complicated subject and reducing it to a single misleading assertion. First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures. So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted. As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines. Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important. I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion. Chapter 1, Article 1: "A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0] Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1]. The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote: "2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2] [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=78B780093633B347C12563CD005177B6 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-330024?OpenDocument https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33... [2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...
      - _djo_ 4y ago
        Sorry, yes. I was recalling it from memory and mixed the two up. My apologies. I meant the London Declaration. You are selectively and misleadingly quoting it, and confusing the concepts of contraband, which can be pursued on the high seas, with blockades which much be in a defined area and apply equally to neutral vessels. This is stated very clearly in the opening articles, so I don't know how you missed it. Chapter 1, Article 5 of the London Declaration: [0] "A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations." Chapter 1, Article 7: [1] "In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there." Chapter 1, Article 14: [2] "The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade." Chapter 1, Article 15: [3] "Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time." Chapter 1, Article 17: [4] "Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective." I could go on. The only limitation on blockades with regard to neutral states is that they may not apply to neutral ports or coasts. [5] Contraband, by contrast, is something that may be seized on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents, outside of a specific blockade zone: Chapter II, Article 37: [6] "A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination." So, as I said, you've taken a complex and nuanced topic, completely misunderstood it, and are loudly proclaiming that your take on it which advances a specific political point is the correct one. That pushback you're getting isn't people unwilling to accept reality, it's people trying to help you understand what the circumstances really were. [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D695BAC1D577ED8BC12563CD005177DF https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=37EA554F024A017CC12563CD005177F3 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E3D87FA8922B7E10C12563CD00517850 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E924A31ED6CA8F82C12563CD0051785A https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [4] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=026FB79F288CB246C12563CD00517876 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [5] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=433D5EDDE7B7403AC12563CD00517881 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [6] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=3E25C4815065C78AC12563CD005179A7 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
executesorder66 4y ago
What are your favourite examples of this?
- rospaya 4y ago
  In my case it was a discussion on this site about the existance of Jesus as a historical person. Historians are fairly certain about this but people have a hard time believing it, as if it would confirm the religious aspect of it all. In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    FYI, those """historians""" who are doing "biblical history" are often (but not always) theologians in their respective religions. The bible only has like 2 actual stories that can be dragged into reality, and the other sources of those stories don't mention "Jesus", they make a vague reference, often using a completely different name, and could very well be different people. We just don't have strong historical, non-biblical evidence of THE jesus described in the bible. We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      > We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative. We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity. You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far. My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too. That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?

jl6 4y ago

I guess it depends how you bring it up. If you go in all guns blazing, abrasive and say ackchyually, yeah, people are going to hate it. But at the other end of the spectrum, the quiz show QI does misconception-busting counter-narratives all the time, and polite society loves it.

coldtea 4y ago
They only love it because it's a safe, constrained, space, where they go for laughs (it's entertainment) and because it doesn't challenge any of their major beliefs.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Does QI do it about anything British people hold near and dear to their hearts? Trying to picture it now.. Klaxons sound "Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
- _djo_ 4y ago
  If that's the way you're sharing those claims, it's no wonder you're getting pushback. You're taking a nuanced and complicated subject and reducing it to a single misleading assertion. First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures. So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted. As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines. Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important. I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion. Chapter 1, Article 1: "A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0] Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1]. The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote: "2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2] [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=78B780093633B347C12563CD005177B6 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-330024?OpenDocument https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33... [2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      Sorry, yes. I was recalling it from memory and mixed the two up. My apologies. I meant the London Declaration. You are selectively and misleadingly quoting it, and confusing the concepts of contraband, which can be pursued on the high seas, with blockades which much be in a defined area and apply equally to neutral vessels. This is stated very clearly in the opening articles, so I don't know how you missed it. Chapter 1, Article 5 of the London Declaration: [0] "A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations." Chapter 1, Article 7: [1] "In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there." Chapter 1, Article 14: [2] "The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade." Chapter 1, Article 15: [3] "Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time." Chapter 1, Article 17: [4] "Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective." I could go on. The only limitation on blockades with regard to neutral states is that they may not apply to neutral ports or coasts. [5] Contraband, by contrast, is something that may be seized on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents, outside of a specific blockade zone: Chapter II, Article 37: [6] "A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination." So, as I said, you've taken a complex and nuanced topic, completely misunderstood it, and are loudly proclaiming that your take on it which advances a specific political point is the correct one. That pushback you're getting isn't people unwilling to accept reality, it's people trying to help you understand what the circumstances really were. [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D695BAC1D577ED8BC12563CD005177DF https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=37EA554F024A017CC12563CD005177F3 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E3D87FA8922B7E10C12563CD00517850 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E924A31ED6CA8F82C12563CD0051785A https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [4] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=026FB79F288CB246C12563CD00517876 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [5] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=433D5EDDE7B7403AC12563CD00517881 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [6] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=3E25C4815065C78AC12563CD005179A7 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

executesorder66 4y ago

What are your favourite examples of this?

rospaya 4y ago
In my case it was a discussion on this site about the existance of Jesus as a historical person. Historians are fairly certain about this but people have a hard time believing it, as if it would confirm the religious aspect of it all. In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  FYI, those """historians""" who are doing "biblical history" are often (but not always) theologians in their respective religions. The bible only has like 2 actual stories that can be dragged into reality, and the other sources of those stories don't mention "Jesus", they make a vague reference, often using a completely different name, and could very well be different people. We just don't have strong historical, non-biblical evidence of THE jesus described in the bible. We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    > We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative. We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity. You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far. My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too. That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?