Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be
5,009 replies, posted
I wish I believed in a religion, it looks like it would be such a nice thing to be a part of.
[QUOTE=ejonkou;50283064]I wish I believed in a religion, it looks like it would be such a nice thing to be a part of.[/QUOTE]
you can believe in the morals/sense of community that a religion instills without believing in the theological side of it
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50282051]This is the only plus for me. Sky's always grey, friends and myself get seasonal depression and when you live in a small town, there ain't shit to do.[/QUOTE]
Spring seasonal depression is also a thing. I feel incredibly lethargic in springtime, and get tons of headaches. "Spring fatigue"
I get seasonal depression in the summer. Something about blue, cloudless skies is really unsettling to me.
[QUOTE=ejonkou;50283064]I wish I believed in a religion, it looks like it would be such a nice thing to be a part of.[/QUOTE]
You can be a part of the communities typical of churches without being in a church or being religious
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50283030]Pretty much anyone who is avidly against religion fails to realize that, had they been born into the right conditions, they would be religious too. It's not a matter of intelligence, oftentimes its upbringing, combined with a bunch of random genetic factors that determine your personality. It's not like they choose to believe in God, just like most atheists don't actively "choose" to not believe in religion. It's different for everyone, and as long as those people aren't hurting anyone as a direct result of their beliefs, then I say live and let live.[/QUOTE]
If people are being brought up with beliefs so deeply ingrained that they never ever genuinely reconsider them critically I think it's a bit of a problem.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;50283290]If people are being brought up with beliefs so deeply ingrained that they never ever genuinely reconsider them critically I think it's a bit of a problem.[/QUOTE]
I never said they didn't ever reconsider their faith, just that they stick to it.
Christianity was a driving force that helped to unify european culture, which in turn helped ideas and progress propagate into nearby areas. It kept europe just different enough for new ideas to spawn but just the same enough for everyone to look at the inventions of their neighbours with intrigue rather than horror and shock. The same happened much later with the spread of Islam. Do you have any idea how much easier it to spread ideas when everyone speaks the same language than it is to spread idea when every village for the next thousand miles had it's own.
Yeah, religion is a little outdated now, but you'd be ignorant to say that it didn't have a huge cultural impact which helped science and the like to flourish.
The term "Dark Ages" is wayyy outdated and pointless
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50283548]Why, though? I'm kinda indifferent, but what's the reasoning?[/QUOTE]
What we refer to the "Dark Ages", we tend to include the period immediately after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the interim leading up to the creation of the realm of Charlemagne.
It isn't "Dark" in any way, however. What made it "Dark" was the lack of a large, centralized force like the Romans or the Franks for a long time, and many areas were under control of uneducated despots. However, the progress made by the Romans was kept in mind by many as the church used Roman philosophy and engineering in their daily lives
That period lasted less than 300 years, and a majority of the world OUTSIDE of Europe was cranking along just fine. In Arabia, Islam managed to unite a peninsula that was made up of otherwise warring pagan tribes, in China a new dynasty was rising, etcetra.
the world outside of Europe can call the Dark Ages whatever they want
if you're learning your history in English it makes sense for it to have a Western-centric perspective
But it makes no sense
We jump from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Where are the Early Middle Ages? Where is the transition?
And sidenote, people use "Dark Ages" as some bizarre, ass-backwards pseudo-argument against religion that falls flat on its face.
[QUOTE=ejonkou;50283064]I wish I believed in a religion, it looks like it would be such a nice thing to be a part of.[/QUOTE]
Religious practice specifically? Or just the belief?
Because if you're interested in only the latter look into deism and see if that fits.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50284126]But it makes no sense [/QUOTE]
how does it not make sense? it follows the total collapse of the biggest civilization the world had ever seen.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50284202]how does it not make sense? it follows the total collapse of the biggest civilization the world had ever seen.[/QUOTE]
The western half, which had more or less collapsed 60+ years before it was officially removed from the map.
Another unpopular opinion: The Roman Empire sucked dick, the Chinese were better
[editline]8th May 2016[/editline]
In fact, the introduction of feudalism was largely better for Europe than the slave-holding landowners of the Roman period
The Chinese empire sucked. They had the resources and tech to expand and take over all of Eurasia in the 16th and 17th centuries, but instead they bottled themselves up and didn't do anything. They squandered everything they had because they were content. At least the Romans had aspiration.
History is always a bit of a joke lesson in schools.
It's either
A: Have some nationalism
or
B: Here's something real sick/cool/gross. This hook you see here? We put it in the anuses of criminals.
Unless you get some stuff done in your spare time or go into some post-highschool course you ain't getting shit.
I'm pretty sure we use history to make people ignorant fuckwits. Just look at the british national trust, They celebrate
- The nice houses of the aristocracy, and act like the high bits of english culture was english culture, so that people can yammer on about the good old days without understanding what the fuck the good old days were.
- Militarism. Look at these things we used to beat the spanish, This is our impressive fort. The british empire was so great.
Like, yeah, Unlike the Americans they don't teach us outright falsities all the time, but it's so fucking deliberately misleading. When we learn about Henry VIII, we learn about how he had these wives, not about the monumentally excellent work he did in reforming the faith, or the political bullshitery he pulled which was very excellent. Nah man, Wives. That's what our most famous king was good for- Wives.
Can't help but think that those in power keep us all ignorant on purpose.
[QUOTE=The Jack;50284302]History is always a bit of a joke lesson in schools.[/QUOTE]
:unimpressed:
[editline]8th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50284296]The Chinese empire sucked. They had the resources and tech to expand and take over all of Eurasia in the 16th and 17th centuries, but instead they bottled themselves up and didn't do anything. They squandered everything they had because they were content. At least the Romans had aspiration.[/QUOTE]
China could not expand like Rome did for they were largely isolated by geography, not much by choice. Many times in China's early history, warring generals expanded the nation's borders significantly.
Rome could go to Africa, the Levant, Britain, Gaul, Iberia, etc. because they all had easy access through land or sea.
For China, their borders were:
- A massive steppe unable to support substantial farming communities
- A gigantic desert that's, well, a desert
- The tallest mountains in the world
- A series of dangerous, fast-moving rivers surrounded by thick, nearly impenetrable jungle
- The Pacific ocean which includes one of the most dangerous straights on earth (Kamikaze, anyone?)
As a note, I liked history lessons, and did very well in them... I just don't think their content was helpful or relevant to the general population.
And my god, Wealth+Taste, An empire doesn't "suck" because it wasn't military-expansionist.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50283356]I never said they didn't ever reconsider their faith, just that they stick to it.[/QUOTE]
But if you do reconsider it then it's not just a matter of upbringing and genetics. If the conclusion of your reconsideration is entirely predetermined by your upbringing and genetics I don't think it's a genuine reconsideration.
Essentially it comes down to whether free will exists at all.
the roman empire was a shithole that began to decline from the get go. pretty much everything from about the late 1st century until the mid 5th century just got shittier and worse.
trade declined, scientific and technological innovation more or less stopped, few great cultural or philosophical developments were made, art and religion went into decline, there was social breakdown, the political system rotted away, etc
the roman empire existing actually worsened these developments due to the fact it existed, and it collapsing was ultimately a good thing. the empire ought to have never formed in the first place, because the legacy of rome is largely built upon the fact that they stole and consolidated everything that was produced by classical civilization. other than that, the roman empire was just a kind of really sophisticated leech that nobody really ended up fixing (i.e conquer more to get resources economic model), so once they ran out of things to conquer they were doomed (and by extension, so was the whole of classical civilization)
it really does tell you something that when the empire finally died, that people were happy to accept primitive tribes from arabia or germania to rule over them - because they were better rulers than the romans
Apart from the race-ideology, I agree with almost every part of the national socialist ideology.
Hitler did nothing wrong.
I'm sad that the USSR failed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50285856]it really does tell you something that when the empire finally died, that people were happy to accept primitive tribes from arabia or germania to rule over them - because they were better rulers than the romans[/QUOTE]
seriously, this. a lot of enlightenment authors like gibbon gush about rome, but i think they only offer us a whitewashed version of the truth.
late rome was unstable as fuck. military coups and revolts were common, citizens entered a kind of proto-serfdom, and the coinage, debased to pay for these endless coups, was worthless. this was not the same rome as the republic. in light of a repressive, violent and ineffective regime, it makes sense that romans abroad would accept new germanic and arabic rulers
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50285856]the roman empire was a shithole that began to decline from the get go. pretty much everything from about the late 1st century until the mid 5th century just got shittier and worse.
trade declined, scientific and technological innovation more or less stopped, few great cultural or philosophical developments were made, art and religion went into decline, there was social breakdown, the political system rotted away, etc
the roman empire existing actually worsened these developments due to the fact it existed, and it collapsing was ultimately a good thing. the empire ought to have never formed in the first place, because the legacy of rome is largely built upon the fact that they stole and consolidated everything that was produced by classical civilization. other than that, the roman empire was just a kind of really sophisticated leech that nobody really ended up fixing (i.e conquer more to get resources economic model), so once they ran out of things to conquer they were doomed (and by extension, so was the whole of classical civilization)
it really does tell you something that when the empire finally died, that people were happy to accept primitive tribes from arabia or germania to rule over them - because they were better rulers than the romans[/QUOTE]
You shut your mouth, you British barbarian
wasn't the late republic all corrupt though? that's why they changed to an empire. Palpatine did good.
[QUOTE=The golden;50286423]Kinda wish I could talk to people/go places without hearing about Overwatch all the time. :v:
Definitely will be glad when the initial hype train calms down.[/QUOTE]
Overwatch isn't bad at all, but it's definitely only popular because of Blizzard's marketing.
It's so.. average. Yeah the cast is diverse and it's been open beta on and off but it's just.. there's nothing special about it over other MOBAs like Battleborn, Paladins, etc.
[QUOTE=Catscratch;50286838]Overwatch isn't bad at all, but it's definitely only popular because of Blizzard's marketing.
It's so.. average. Yeah the cast is diverse and it's been open beta on and off but it's just.. there's nothing special about it over other MOBAs like Battleborn, Paladins, etc.[/QUOTE]
What
[QUOTE=Catscratch;50286838]over other MOBAs like Battleborn, Paladins, etc.[/quote]
WHAT
Did you just call Overwatch a moba
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;50286862]Did you just call Overwatch a moba[/QUOTE]
I think he did
He also called Paladins a MOBA
Cat scratch can you please learn what games you're talking about before saying the dumbest shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.