• Notre Dame Cathedral on fire in Paris
    354 replies, posted
How the fuck can you look at Europe's most visited tourist location, in the city's third most visited city, and come to the conclusion that it cannot possibly make enough money to maintain itself, in spite of being in the middle of active renovations ?
Prove it
Hey guys I'm sorry that I put my point across kind of needlessly provocative earlier in the thread but all I meant was this: I really don't empathise with the emotional reaction to the fire. Yes it's sad, but: No one died. No ones livelihoods were destroyed. It wasn't a deliberate attack. And the only parts of the cathedral that are beyond saving were built in the mid 1800s. I find the talk of global grief and mourning nauseating, with public figures like Obama disingenuously talking about solidarity and other buzzwords. 700 million euros were nearly instantly raised by private donators towards reconstruction. Meanwhile Paris itself is particularly rife with homelessness, poverty, and other actual human issues. All I'm saying is a little perspective was needed.
To be fair, afaik engineers haven't finished examining the building's integrity and it still has a small risk of total collapse.
So they chose a national treasure with worldwide renown, set fire to it and caused the most publicized event of the year (along with a very predictable investigation)... in order to hide this transfer. Please don't fucking tell me this is the part where you go "but that's what they want you to think! No one would suspect it, they're hiding in plain sight!"
It appears that the organ may have been almost entirely undamaged by the fire or water. And UNESCO's thoughts on reconstruction seem to conflict with France's ministers intentions of rebuilding the spire "with a modern design" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znfzApozMi0
Trust me, it's worse in France. French media's been going at it non-stop since the fire. Like, yeah, we know? No need to discuss it ad-nauseam... Some actual domestic terrorist attacks have gotten less coverage than this. The worst culprit is the president himself. He was supposed to give an important speech about how to address the people's demands in light of the great debate and gilet jaune crisis, but the fire occurred just before he could broadcast it. Needless to say, we're still waiting for to see that speech. Really fucking convenient, the incident has bought him some time and he sure as fuck is going to milk it for all its worth.
The Brutalization thesis is not true, tbh. While it has its proponents, it has some major holes in it.
Why would you ever want to rebuild it with "modern design". Modern buildings are for the most part really sterile and boring looking, while I understand that you can't really go out and make apartment blocks in the style of Gothic architecture you should at least try and preserve old architecture like this instead of making something mundane to replace it.
Because even that money had come from a government grant. The cathedral needed hundreds of millions in repairs before the fire that they couldn't afford as-is. They do not have the money to recover from this on their own.
I completely agree, though I suspect a motivation may be to "leave today's mark" on the cathedral. I can't see any other than something close to the original as nothing short of vanity by the people in question.
Weren't there a lot of reports saying that the funds given for the maintenance of Notre Dame were largely insufficient? No, they wouldn't want to hide the transfer or anything. Just the fact that the fire caused a massive amount of publicity and donations, which profited to everyone. You know I can't, it's just an idea. Don't pretend this is what I believe. It's just a theory that I think is worth envisaging since the financial motivations are very much there.
You literally said: I don't pretend this is what you believe. I know this is what you believe. Either believe in the truth or keep backpedaling until you reach it.
Stop being dense, I only said I also have doubts but I still believe it is most likely an accident.
Because an accident is far more believable than the fuckin government burning down one of their biggest tourist and historical landmarks in the middle of expensive renovations when there was a serious risk of the whole building being a complete loss.
You're right, that was stupid of me.
So there's that extensive conspiratorial rant shooting in 26 different directions, with no sources or cohesive elaboration for any of it, and you just go "Actually yeah I agree" You want to explore some fantasy plot for the sake of entertainment, that's fine, but there's a place, a time, and a way to introduce that conversation, that doesn't also give real credibility to insane conspiracies
the cathedral is a relic from another era, from a time when christianity was an extremely powerful force in everyday life for the majority of people and the cathedral would have been one of the largest and most impressive engineering works in the country. a pinnacle of medieval civilization and culture, long since surpassed since most europeans are functionally atheist and build skyscrapers which dwarf cathedrals just to house offices. making a "modern design" for the spire implies something like they are going to put in a glass dildo nobody likes and would detract more from the cathedral to focus on the architect/patron who erected it. cathedrals usually took centuries to be built, with constant design changes and refinements to create something that, while the product of many different generations, would create a single coherent whole with a singular purpose (a house of god). macron, the french billionaires, and the architects who are all clamoring to rebuild it don't respect god nor the people who believe in him. as a consequence they view this accident as a perfect time to stamp something "modern" that will very obviously clash with the rest of the cathedral. a lot of modern architects are very fond of these sorts of tricks because everyone nearby is forced to look at it. it's not like a painting where if you don't like it, you can choose not to look at it. architecture though is different since you can't not exactly look at it, and putting your mark on the world by putting something hideous on top of one of the most important monuments in christendom is a very effective way of forcing people to recognize you, because you were responsible. By it being ugly and contrasting harshly with the cathedral, it makes people stop and pay attention to the eyesore rather than to the beauties elsewhere.
Nazis have rights too. Or are universal rights not good anymore? I can't imagine how weak you must believe yourself or your ideas to be to not be able to beat actual nazism.
Macaroni did 4/15 https://youtu.be/EgfYYMjpf1s
oh god no
More good news: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/19/europe/notre-dame-bees-fire-intl-scli/index.html
You don't see the difference between ethno-fascists and mayday communists? Maybe the lack of genocide as part and parcel of the latter's ideology, despite what you're trying to imply? This trend of putting fascists and communists on an equal footing in an effort to appear neutral is getting tiresome. They're not comparable at all.
There certainly appears to be a person up there, but the flash seems entirely added into the video, it's so much smoother and faster than the rest of the frames.
I wonder if the maker of the video believes Bush did 9/11
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.