EnclavedMicrostate在2022-08-08~2022-08-14的言论

2022-08-14 作者: EnclavedMicrostate 原文 #Reddit 的其它文章

680: What was the relationship between China and Taiwan during the Three Kingdoms Era?, submitted on 2022-08-08 10:34:01+08:00.

—– 680.1 —–2022-08-08 14:01:32+08:00:

Your comment has been removed due to violations of the subreddit’s rules. We expect answers to provide in-depth and comprehensive insight into the topic at hand and to be free of significant errors or misunderstandings while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the subreddit rules and expectations for an answer.

681: bruh… just bruh, submitted on 2022-08-08 10:58:17+08:00.

—– 681.1 —–2022-08-08 16:46:58+08:00:

…’Huangheo’!?

682: Mindless Monday, 08 August 2022, submitted on 2022-08-08 19:00:08+08:00.

—– 682.1 —–2022-08-09 11:30:43+08:00:

I mean, Thermopylae is one of the most famous Greek military defeats, and if you dig past any of the gloss it achieved zilch. Not much to commemorate.

683: Pipsimon Projection Paradrop - Weekly Discussion Thread, August 8th, 2022, submitted on 2022-08-08 22:47:15+08:00.

—– 683.1 —–2022-08-09 11:21:34+08:00:

Pipsimon is a trademark-compliant soda in the Pokemon universe.

—– 683.2 —–2022-08-09 11:37:47+08:00:

‘Not one POC in sight’ says one user.

The concert. Was in fucking Japan.

—– 683.3 —–2022-08-09 11:53:31+08:00:

I’m half-wondering if there’s something else at work with the actual user – their bio mentions being able to speak Korean and ‘Chinese’ (which specific Sinitic language is, as ever, never specified), and I’m curious if there’s some unmentioned anti-Japanese sentiment involved.

—– 683.4 —–2022-08-09 12:11:24+08:00:

Either for being lifeless or for smelling, which uh… would this not be true of literally any other concert experience? Unless of course they were allegedly singling out the mostly-white audience which we know it was because this was a concert that took place in Japan in July 2022 which is of course when you would naturally expect many white people to be there.

—– 683.5 —–2022-08-10 02:52:43+08:00:

a project from another company to try and ride the popularity of kizuna ai

As the others have noted, that company was Cover. Miko has said she was directly scouted by Yagoo.

—– 683.6 —–2022-08-10 02:58:20+08:00:

I believe the first holo tuber model

Pretty much. kuromaru made the first concept images for Roboco in 2013 and the model was finished in late May 2016, with the first animations around late 2017 if I’m not mistaken.

—– 683.7 —–2022-08-10 12:52:21+08:00:

I’ve no idea if it was bullshit at the time and if it’s still accepted now, but many years ago I read an article that noted that money correlates with happiness up to a point, that being where your perceived basic needs are met and you have a certain amount to spend on yourself. So even if there are plenty of people who are at the point where more money won’t make a difference, there are plenty more who aren’t.

684: Based Fauna, submitted on 2022-08-09 02:51:08+08:00.

—– 684.1 —–2022-08-09 11:56:09+08:00:

Danin 🤝 Saplings

685: What Works provide an Overview of the Sino-Japanese War (1937) from a Military Policy Perspective?, submitted on 2022-08-09 04:10:19+08:00.

—– 685.1 —–2022-08-09 11:12:38+08:00:

Hans van de Ven’s China at War is relatively recent and probably the best militaristically-inclined approach to the Second Sino-Japanese War, and also has a somewhat compressed but still decent denouement covering the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War. My only real quibble with it is with van de Ven’s interpretation of the role of guerrilla warfare in Clausewitz and in turn its interpretation by Mao, insofar as I think Clausewitz’s thinking was more similar to Mao’s than he makes out, and that in turn Mao’s approach to Clausewitz was thus not hugely innovative.

—– 685.2 —–2022-08-09 11:42:24+08:00:

To be fair, he does not cover policy as much. For that, and for a more in-depth set of nuts-and-bolts discussions, you’ll want Peattie and Drea’s edited volume The Battle for China, which consists of a series of articles discussing various elements of the Nationalist and Japanese war efforts at various levels.

686: me irl, submitted on 2022-08-09 20:37:18+08:00.

—– 686.1 —–2022-08-10 03:31:07+08:00:

Unluckily for you, the signs are in Cantonese rather than Mandarin (both the lexicon and the rhyme scheme give that away). Also unluckily, the phrases are not translations of each other, but rather phrases with similar (intended) meaning. Fortunately for you, I do speak Cantonese, and am willing to at least claim to be your friend for the purposes of translating.

‘You are my love my angle don’t treat me like potato’ originally would have meant, idiomatically, ‘I treat you like a jewel, don’t treat me like swamp grass’. So, no potatoes here.

‘You talk like angel walk like model but your body look like buffalo’ originally would have been ‘looking from a distance you are picturesque, looking up close you’re a pork chop’. This requires a couple of explanations. The phrase in the first clause meaning ‘picturesque’ is actually miswritten as 如絲如畫 ‘like silk, like artwork’ instead of the standard 如詩如畫 ‘like poetry, like artwork’; this is, by the by, another giveaway that it’s Cantonese because both 絲 and 詩 are si1 in Cantonese, but si1 and shi1 respectively in Mandarin. The term ‘pork chop’ is Cantonese slang for an unattractive woman.

You can actually find the full sign for the rambo phrase here: https://preview.redd.it/fk8q423um1l21.jpg?auto=webp&s=cc1a8b6d447add7cbbb26d31cb3366a83855f4b7. Idiomatically, the Cantonese would be along the lines of ‘your head is big but you have no brain; your brain is just a big pile of grass’. No potatoes here either.

Cantonese (at least HK Cantonese, other varieties may be different) for ‘potato’ is 薯仔 syu4 zai2.

—– 686.2 —–2022-08-10 03:39:37+08:00:

It depends how you speak it, and whether you do so as your first language. In the case of Hong Kong Cantonese speakers, there are certain distinctions in tone and emphasis from American/Commonwealth English speakers. In particular, there tends to be one syllable that gets pitched up and held, but never the final one, which is always a bit de-emphasised and so sound differences are not as obvious. So for instance a-ngel, pota-to, mo-del, buff-alo. Secondly, Cantonese doesn’t have a final ‘l’ sound, so it is often replaced by simply holding the vowel. What that means is ‘angel’ ends up sounding like ‘ain-jo’, which would rhyme with ‘potato’, and similarly ‘model’ becomes ‘mod-oh’, which would rhyme with ‘buffalo’.

So no, they don’t rhyme in ‘standard’ British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, or American English, but they do rhyme in strongly Cantonese-accented English.

cc /u/Grammophon and /u/Such-Wrongdoer-2198

687: AMA: Female Pirates, submitted on 2022-08-09 21:11:10+08:00.

—– 687.1 —–2022-08-09 21:38:01+08:00:

Hello and thanks for coming on! I’ll try to make this a question rather than a statement.

In the admittedly somewhat cursory reading I’ve done on the Red Flag pirates of early 19th century China, a theme that seems to have emerged is that the role of Ching Shih (also known by other names) in the fleet was deliberately exaggerated by elite male Qing authors to emphasise the pirates’ deviation from orthodox social norms. How did gender affect how female pirates were written about compared to their male counterparts? I suppose a necessary corollary to that is, who wrote about pirates? How strongly do women’s voices feature in the source landscape?

—– 687.2 —–2022-08-10 00:09:45+08:00:

Thank you!

—– 687.3 —–2022-08-10 03:50:31+08:00:

Now that you mention it, I honestly cannot remember at this point; as noted it’s not really my subfield at all and it has been a long time since I did that reading. It might have been Murray but to be honest, it might even have been an older post on AH by a user whose name I have long since forgotten. It’s worth noting by the by that ‘Zheng Yi Sao’ is in fact ‘wife of Zheng Yi’, so ‘Ching I’s widow’ is in fact the same term, just not using Pinyin Romanisation.

—– 687.4 —–2022-08-11 01:13:47+08:00:

You’re right, I think it was you!

688: I’ve gotten fascinated with the Three Kingdoms period of China. What books about the topic are worth reading?, submitted on 2022-08-09 23:59:03+08:00.

—– 688.1 —–2022-08-10 02:30:27+08:00:

Unfortunately, the academically solid material is, in some instances, rather inaccessible. However, while much of Rafe de Crespigny’s oeuvre is, as you have discovered, extremely pricey in print copy, the Australian National University has graciously made almost all of his key works available as free PDFs through its Open Research Repository:

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/browse?type=author&authority=907b8620-2109-49aa-93b6-6e3f3a72b2c2

689: Corruption is rampant in many countries at all levels of society. And yet, in America corruption at the low government or police level is nearly unheard of. What is the history of low level corruption in America, and at what point did America achieve the current status quo and how?, submitted on 2022-08-10 17:42:13+08:00.

—– 689.1 —–2022-08-10 21:33:59+08:00:

This submission has been removed because it violates our ‘20-Year Rule’. To discourage off-topic discussions of current events, questions, answers, and all other comments must be confined to events that happened 20 years ago or more. For further explanation of this rule, feel free to consult this Rules Roundtable.

690: Short Answers to Simple Questions | August 10, 2022, submitted on 2022-08-10 21:00:09+08:00.

—– 690.1 —–2022-08-14 03:11:46+08:00:

I think you mean /u/toldinstone?

691: In what way would the fate of Afghanistan had changed if they handed out Bin Laden to the US?, submitted on 2022-08-10 22:01:30+08:00.

—– 691.1 —–2022-08-10 22:03:18+08:00:

Sorry, but your submission has been removed because we don’t allow hypothetical questions. If possible, please rephrase the question so that it does not call for such speculation, and resubmit. Otherwise, this sort of thing is better suited for /r/HistoryWhatIf or /r/HistoricalWhatIf. You can find a more in-depth discussion of this rule here.

692: The Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong was inhabited by more than 33.000 people. Between 1987 and 1992, the city was evicted to be demolished. How were the logistics of relocating and re-employing so many people over only five years solved?, submitted on 2022-08-11 04:43:45+08:00.

—– 692.1 —–2022-08-11 13:12:53+08:00:

The answer above, and indeed the question, necessarily presume a little bit of background knowledge on the Walled City which not all readers may have, so I’m filling that in in order to pre-empt what I think may end up being the most common follow-up questions on that count.

Firstly, it is important to note that while the first Google results for ‘Kowloon’ give you the Walled City, Kowloon and the Kowloon Walled City are not synonymous terms. Kowloon, from Cantonese 九龍 gau2 lung4 (‘nine dragons’), has had two meanings historically. Firstly, it referred to the 47km^2 peninsula ceded to Britain under the Convention of Peking in 1860, bounded on the north side by the appropriately-named Boundary Street. Secondly, it referred to a town to the northeast of that ceded territory, which would later become the Kowloon Walled City (九龍寨城 gau2 lung4 zaai6 seng4). In the decades after the New Territories lease in 1898, the urban area of Kowloon expanded significantly, so the modern-day boundaries of Kowloon, which encompass the districts of Kowloon City, Kwun Tong, Sham Shui Po, Wong Tai Sin, and Yau Tsum Mong, include a further 20 km^2 or so of land that was leased in 1898 rather than ceded in 1860; this whole area was known as Kowloon by at least 1982, when the precursor to the modern district boundaries were laid down. The Walled City, which by this stage was no longer simply called ‘Kowloon’, formed a small enclave within what is now the district of Kowloon City. Nor was it dominant in population terms: the upper-end estimate of 50,000 residents would have constituted less than 2.5% of the 2.03 million residents of Kowloon, and less than 1% of the roughly 5.67 million residents of Hong Kong as a whole.

The emergence of the Walled City relates directly to the aforementioned treaties. The 1898 lease explicitly excluded ‘the city of Kowloon’, which the Qing used as a military outpost, and it remained under de jure Qing jurisdiction until the imperial state fell in 1912. Its ambiguous legal status meant that there was no investment in the area by British public authorities, and both the Republic of China and latterly the People’s Republic of China would claim to continue the Qing’s jurisdiction, but had very little means of enforcing it through British territory, nor much intent to do so. This put the Walled City in a bit of a legal loophole where the British colonial government had no jurisdiction to exercise, while the mainland governments claimed jurisdiction but could not and would not meaningfully exercise it. The Walled City in the form it is best known – a dense chunk of buildings up to 14 storeys high, crisscrossed by damp alleyways – was the result of considerable construction works that took place in the 1960s, as the Walled City essentially became a high-rise version of the earlier squatter communities mentioned in the above answer, housing those who could not afford to live elsewhere for financial reasons, or who deliberately sought out the legal grey zone to carry out various illicit businesses.

—– 692.2 —–2022-08-11 14:18:54+08:00:

The decision to demolish the city was made in 1987 by mutual British and PRC agreement, with the handover agreement having been made back in 1984. Issues with its status had been threefold: firstly it was a haven for various forms of illegal and unregistered businesses, secondly there were considerable health and safety concerns, and thirdly, it also lay in the flight path for the Runway 13 approach to what was then the Hong Kong International Airport at Kai Tak, already a particularly tricky one even without buildings in the way. Feasibility studies for a replacement for Kai Tak would not begin until the year after. So with the handover now agreed to, both parties agreed that the demolition could go ahead.

—– 692.3 —–2022-08-11 18:42:32+08:00:

So the long story short is it didn’t. In theory, it could have done. The Convention is quite explicit on key counts concerning the Walled City (indeed, arguably more space is devoted to the ‘city of Kowloon’ than to any other thing). Quoting the relevant sections:

It is at the same time agreed that within the city of Kowloon the Chinese officials now stationed there shall continue to exercise jurisdiction except so far as may be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. Within the remainder of the newly-leased territory Great Britain shall have sole jurisdiction. Chinese officials and people shall be allowed as heretofore to use the road from Kowloon to Hsinan.

It is further agreed that the existing landing-place near Kowloon city shall be reserved for the convenience of Chinese men-of-war, merchant and passenger vessels, which may come and go and lie there at their pleasure ; and for the convenience of movement of the officials and people within the city.

[…]

It is further understood that there will be no expropriation or expulsion of the inhabitants of the district included within the extension, and that if land is required for public offices, fortifications, or the like official purposes, it shall be bought at a fair price.

If cases of extradition of criminals occur, they shall be dealt with in accordance with the existing treaties between Great Britain and China and the Hong Kong Regulations.

So there was a very clear set of stipulations as to how the Qing could maintain an official presence – even an armed one within reason – within their existing settlement (which I will refer to here as Kowloon City, as distinguished from Kowloon in the sense of the 1860 concession). The Qing were in fact willing to make use of that provision, and in April 1899, in the wake of the Six-Day War between the British garrison and villagers in the New Territories protesting land reform, the Qing sent 600 reinforcements to Kowloon City on top of an existing garrison of just under 550. Most of this garrison was soon withdrawn under pressure, leaving just 200 men by 4 May, and it would then be expelled in the second half of the month when British troops marched in to occupy Kowloon City in parallel with a temporary occupation of Shum Chun (aka Shenzhen) as a result of tensions that had mounted over allegations that the Qing Viceroy of Guangdong and Guangxi, Tan Zhonglin, had sent the reinforcements in April in an attempt to aid the rebels. After this was defused, the British occupation force left, but the Qing garrison and local officials did not return. In other words, the Qing jurisdiction was only practically exercised for 10 months before it was abandoned – hence my noting that it was purely de jure.

What followed was a period in which the British government basically put Kowloon City in legal limbo, voiding the existing land ownership of any remaining inhabitants (not that many, as the civilian population had never been more than about 200) and issuing 5-year leases in their place. Public services would effectively be provided by the Church of England, which maintained chapels, schools, orphanages, and medical facilities, but there was virtually no new construction of private houses, which were largely in disrepair. The British would, in 1933, announce plans to demolish the houses, but the ROC government protested on the grounds that this would violate the 1898 Convention, and refused to accept any proposed British intervention. When the restored colonial government made a second attempt in 1947, again it was rebuffed by the ROC. After that, the colonial government simply chose not to press the issue, and essentially allowed the Walled City to expand upwards.

—– 692.4 —–2022-08-11 21:14:54+08:00:

It was a community of outcasts, but one linked to the city around them, and which therefore couldn’t exactly be stopped from contracting and subcontracting builders from the British city. In terms of renting and ownership, while there wasn’t a firm legal mechanism to confirm ownership of property, apartments were privately owned and rented out: there’s several references to this in the translated testimonies reproduced in Girard and Lambot’s City of Darkness, cited in the above answer. To cite just three examples which illustrate somewhat different levels of financial fortune:

I’ve been around the City for the past 25 years. Actually, we used to be In Sai Tau Village [the adjoining ‘squatter’ settlement pulled down in 1985]. When we first moved here the rent was a little over $100 a month; now it’s about $1300. This building used to be a three-storey block until it was rebuilt. During the redevelopment we moved next door for eight or nine months.– Hui Tung Choy, noodle shop owner

I’ve been around the City for some 30 or 40 years. We took over the store for $13000, though this included several thousand dollars’ worth of stock in cigarettes and about a $1000 worth of medicine… I still own a flat on the fifth floor too, and that pays me $1000 in rent each month. I don’t need a lot of money. – Yau Lap Cheong, retired shopkeeper

We built a place across the alley. I bought a wooden hut for about $3000 and then, about 20 years ago, I asked a contractor to build a 10-storey building to replace it. It cost more than $100,000. Each storey was about 500 square feet. We kept four for ourselves and sold the rest for $30,000 each. It took several months to build. The architectural plans were drawn up by the contractor, and he arranged the electricity and water supplies as well. – Lam Mei Kwong, doctor

693: COWnFauna & Noel Milk? FAQing Diabolical, submitted on 2022-08-11 05:13:47+08:00.

—– 693.1 —–2022-08-11 07:56:14+08:00:

I mean I’ll take just a Noel/Fauna ASMR stream in general.

694: Has any culture believed in the equivalent of Christian “heaven” but underground?, submitted on 2022-08-11 09:16:03+08:00.

—– 694.1 —–2022-08-11 13:36:58+08:00:

Please repost this question to the weekly “Short Answers” thread stickied to the top of the subreddit, which will be the best place to get an answer to this question; for that reason, we have removed your post here. Standalone questions are intended to be seeking detailed, comprehensive answers, and we ask that questions looking for a name, a number, a date or time, a location, the origin of a word, the first/last instance of a specific phenomenon, or a simple list of examples or facts be contained to that thread as they are more likely to receive an answer there. For more information on this rule, please see this Rules Roundtable.

Alternatively, if you didn’t mean to ask a question seeking a short answer or a list of examples, but have a more complex question in mind, feel free to repost a reworded question. Examples of questions appropriate for the ‘Short Answers’ thread would be “Who won the 1932 election?” or “What are some famous natural disasters from the past?”. Versions more appropriate as standalone questions would be “How did FDR win the 1932 election?”, or “In your area of expertise, how did people deal with natural disasters?” If you need some pointers, be sure to check out this Rules Roundtable on asking better questions.

Finally, don’t forget that there are many subreddits on Reddit aimed at answering your questions. Consider /r/AskHistory (which has lighter moderation but similar topic matter to /r/AskHistorians), /r/explainlikeimfive (which is specifically aimed at simple and easily digested answers), or /r/etymology (which focuses on the origins of words and phrases).

695: Vikings raid England in the start of 793 AD. Army size?, submitted on 2022-08-11 10:06:47+08:00.

—– 695.1 —–2022-08-11 13:37:19+08:00:

Please repost this question to the weekly “Short Answers” thread stickied to the top of the subreddit, which will be the best place to get an answer to this question; for that reason, we have removed your post here. Standalone questions are intended to be seeking detailed, comprehensive answers, and we ask that questions looking for a name, a number, a date or time, a location, the origin of a word, the first/last instance of a specific phenomenon, or a simple list of examples or facts be contained to that thread as they are more likely to receive an answer there. For more information on this rule, please see this Rules Roundtable.

Alternatively, if you didn’t mean to ask a question seeking a short answer or a list of examples, but have a more complex question in mind, feel free to repost a reworded question. Examples of questions appropriate for the ‘Short Answers’ thread would be “Who won the 1932 election?” or “What are some famous natural disasters from the past?”. Versions more appropriate as standalone questions would be “How did FDR win the 1932 election?”, or “In your area of expertise, how did people deal with natural disasters?” If you need some pointers, be sure to check out this Rules Roundtable on asking better questions.

Finally, don’t forget that there are many subreddits on Reddit aimed at answering your questions. Consider /r/AskHistory (which has lighter moderation but similar topic matter to /r/AskHistorians), /r/explainlikeimfive (which is specifically aimed at simple and easily digested answers), or /r/etymology (which focuses on the origins of words and phrases).

696: How exactly does a military occupation work in the ~modern era?, submitted on 2022-08-11 11:47:13+08:00.

—– 696.1 —–2022-08-11 13:37:44+08:00:

This submission has been removed because it violates our ‘20-Year Rule’. To discourage off-topic discussions of current events, questions, answers, and all other comments must be confined to events that happened 20 years ago or more. For further explanation of this rule, feel free to consult this Rules Roundtable.

697: How important is John Calvin to western thought?, submitted on 2022-08-11 12:46:48+08:00.

—– 697.1 —–2022-08-11 13:38:12+08:00:

This submission has been removed because it violates the rule on poll-type questions. These questions do not lend themselves to answers with a firm foundation in sources and research, and the resulting threads usually turn into monsters with enormous speculation and little focused discussion. Questions about the “most”, the “worst”, “unknown”, or other value judgments usually lead to vague, subjective, and speculative answers. For further information, please consult this Roundtable discussion.

For questions of this type, we ask that you redirect them to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history or /r/askhistory.

698: What constellations were most important to humanity’s development(s) of oceanic navigation?, submitted on 2022-08-11 13:13:17+08:00.

—– 698.1 —–2022-08-11 13:38:02+08:00:

This submission has been removed because it violates the rule on poll-type questions. These questions do not lend themselves to answers with a firm foundation in sources and research, and the resulting threads usually turn into monsters with enormous speculation and little focused discussion. Questions about the “most”, the “worst”, “unknown”, or other value judgments usually lead to vague, subjective, and speculative answers. For further information, please consult this Roundtable discussion.

For questions of this type, we ask that you redirect them to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history or /r/askhistory.

699: Was Tibet a slave society prior to Chinese conquest?, submitted on 2022-08-11 18:31:41+08:00.

—– 699.1 —–2022-08-11 19:40:48+08:00:

More might of course be said, but this claim is pretty comprehensively covered by /u/JimeDorje in this answer.

700: Does this french flag in Ridley Scott’s Napoleon biopic make sense?, submitted on 2022-08-12 02:26:47+08:00.

—– 700.1 —–2022-08-12 12:46:36+08:00:

Please repost this question to the weekly “Short Answers” thread stickied to the top of the subreddit, which will be the best place to get an answer to this question; for that reason, we have removed your post here. Standalone questions are intended to be seeking detailed, comprehensive answers, and we ask that questions looking for a name, a number, a date or time, a location, the origin of a word, the first/last instance of a specific phenomenon, or a simple list of examples or facts be contained to that thread as they are more likely to receive an answer there. For more information on this rule, please see this Rules Roundtable.

Alternatively, if you didn’t mean to ask a question seeking a short answer or a list of examples, but have a more complex question in mind, feel free to repost a reworded question. Examples of questions appropriate for the ‘Short Answers’ thread would be “Who won the 1932 election?” or “What are some famous natural disasters from the past?”. Versions more appropriate as standalone questions would be “How did FDR win the 1932 election?”, or “In your area of expertise, how did people deal with natural disasters?” If you need some pointers, be sure to check out this Rules Roundtable on asking better questions.

Finally, don’t forget that there are many subreddits on Reddit aimed at answering your questions. Consider /r/AskHistory (which has lighter moderation but similar topic matter to /r/AskHistorians), /r/explainlikeimfive (which is specifically aimed at simple and easily digested answers), or /r/etymology (which focuses on the origins of words and phrases).

701: How was Belgium impacted socially, economically and politically by the the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 ?, submitted on 2022-08-12 09:33:49+08:00.

—– 701.1 —–2022-08-12 12:44:21+08:00:

Hi there - unfortunately we have had to remove your question, because /r/AskHistorians isn’t here to do your homework for you. However, our rules DO permit people to ask for help with their homework, so long as they are seeking clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself.

If you have indeed asked a homework question, you should consider resubmitting a question more focused on finding resources and seeking clarification on confusing issues: tell us what you’ve researched so far, what resources you’ve consulted, and what you’ve learned, and we are more likely to approve your question. Please see this Rules Roundtable thread for more information on what makes for the kind of homework question we’d approve. Additionally, if you’re not sure where to start in terms of finding and understanding sources in general, we have a six-part series, “Finding and Understanding Sources”, which has a wealth of information that may be useful for finding and understanding information for your essay. Finally, other subreddits are likely to be more suitable for help with homework - try looking for help at /r/HomeworkHelp.

Alternatively, if you are not a student and are not doing homework, we have removed your question because it resembled a homework question. It may resemble a common essay question from a prominent history syllabus or may be worded in a broad, open-ended way that feels like the kind of essay question that a professor would set. Professors often word essay questions in order to provide the student with a platform to show how much they understand a topic, and these questions are typically broader and more interested in interpretations and delineating between historical theories than the average /r/AskHistorians question. If your non-homework question was incorrectly removed for this reason, we will be happy to approve your question if you wait for 7 days and then ask a less open-ended question on the same topic.

702: The views of radical republicans?, submitted on 2022-08-12 10:56:37+08:00.

—– 702.1 —–2022-08-12 12:45:04+08:00:

This submission has been removed because it violates the rule on poll-type questions. These questions do not lend themselves to answers with a firm foundation in sources and research, and the resulting threads usually turn into monsters with enormous speculation and little focused discussion. Questions about the “most”, the “worst”, “unknown”, or other value judgments usually lead to vague, subjective, and speculative answers. For further information, please consult this Roundtable discussion.

For questions of this type, we ask that you redirect them to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history or /r/askhistory.

703: The US Supreme court seems to be going through a period of heightened politicization. Have there been other periods of politicization of the court or is this an aberration?, submitted on 2022-08-12 11:00:45+08:00.

—– 703.1 —–2022-08-12 12:45:08+08:00:

This submission has been removed because it involves current events. To keep from discussion of politics, we have a 20-year rule here. You may want to try /r/ask_politics, /r/NeutralPolitics, or another current-events focused sub. For further explanation of this rule, feel free to consult this Rules Roundtable.

704: What’s something we teach historically that’s false/a scam but has been so normalized we don’t see it as false/ a scam?, submitted on 2022-08-12 11:51:43+08:00.

—– 704.1 —–2022-08-12 12:45:51+08:00:

Apologies, but we have removed your question in its current form as it breaks our rules concerning the scope of questions. However, it might be that an altered version of your question would fit within our rules, and we encourage you to reword your question to fit the rule. While we do allow questions which ask about general topics without specific bounding by time or space, we do ask that they be clearly phrased and presented in a way that can be answered by an individual historian focusing on only one example which they can write about in good detail.

So for example, if you wanted to ask, “Have people always rebelled against health rules in pandemics?” we would remove the question. As phrased, it asks broadly about many places collectively. However if you ask “In the time and place you study, how did people rebel against health rules in a pandemic?” we would allow the question. As phrased, while still asking broadly, it does so in a way that clearly invites a given expert to write exclusively about their topic of focus! We encourage you to think about rewording your question to fit this rule, and thank you for your understanding. If you are unsure of how best to reshape your question to fit these requirements, please reach out to us for assistance.

705: Free for All Friday, 12 August 2022, submitted on 2022-08-12 19:00:11+08:00.

—– 705.1 —–2022-08-13 02:51:33+08:00:

Meanwhile Jurchen Jin does not get to be a canonical ‘dynasty’ despite total control of the Central Plain. Welcome to Han chauvinism.

—– 705.2 —–2022-08-13 09:34:18+08:00:

(just ignore all the classical Chinese culture they adopted)

To be fair, that need not be particularly relevant either.

—– 705.3 —–2022-08-14 03:00:23+08:00:

Chinese diplomatic propaganda is all but literal dick-waving anyway. 90% of modern Chinese diplomatic communications can be easily understood when interpreted as the ramblings of racist shitheads who are insecure about their masculinity.

706: Former crypto influencer is now on the FBI’s most wanted list after taking 4 billion in investments and vanishing, submitted on 2022-08-13 19:37:06+08:00.

—– 706.1 —–2022-08-14 02:53:47+08:00:

It’s an interesting podcast that is worth a listen, though if I’m not mistaken the host is (or at least, was at time of production) a lowkey cryptobro. He seems to believe there are legitimate crypto use cases, and that aside from being a scam in itself, OneCoin poisoned the well around crypto. The takeaway really – imo – is that it is arguably the best example of how crypto all runs on hype, in that one of the most invested-in crypto schemes ever turned out to not even require any of its core technology.

707: Did Alexander the Great cease his eastward conquest on account of a defeat in India?, submitted on 2022-08-14 11:38:12+08:00.

—– 707.1 —–2022-08-15 18:30:17+08:00:

I discuss the ‘mutiny’ (or otherwise) at the Hyphasis River in this past answer. As ever, there are multiple contradictory versions that are equally, or at least comparably, legitimate.

That said, to quickly address the more specific wording of your question I think the answer is to say that both perspectives are, in some sense, correct. On the one hand, Alexander did not suffer any battlefield defeats in India. But on the other, there is broad concurrence in the sources that by 326 BCE, the Macedonian army had suffered heavy material attrition and was deeply demoralised. While that is far from being the same as having ‘lost on the battlefield’, which would imply some covered-up tactical disaster, it would be correct to say that the army was ‘sufficiently weakened that he [Alexander] could not progress further’.

—– 707.2 —–2022-08-16 11:50:46+08:00:

There’s always a theoretical possibility that the sources have engaged in some major cover-up, but it’s one that is, in this case, so slim as to be absurd. Among other things we need to consider what ‘conquest’ really means, because in Alexander’s case this could, in some cases, simply mean receiving the submission of a particular locale’s existing rulers. In the case of India, this meant that he ultimately affirmed the status of Taxiles (or Ambhi) and Poros (yes, the one he defeated at the Hydaspes) in their existing kingdoms, but with an at least claimed submission to Alexander; granted these two men were given rule over additional territory that Alexander had fought over. When exactly Alexander is supposed to have formally reinstalled these two kings is not 100% clear but is supposed to have occurred after the incident on the Hyphasis, so you could argue that this was somehow to do with a failure of Macedonian administration in the roughly one year period since defeating Poros, but to be frank I do not see how you would. Among other things, it isn’t clear that Poros and Taxiles weren’t handling the interim administration. That said, it’s not impossible that there’d be a revolt against these new clients, but if there was, it’s hard to see why Alexander would keep them.

708: Are wizards and magicians from medieval literature strictly fictional, or were there people IRL who claimed to be wizards?, submitted on 2022-08-14 20:26:30+08:00.

—– 708.1 —–2022-08-15 10:53:02+08:00:

Sorry, but we have had to remove your comment. Please understand that people come here because they want an informed response from someone capable of engaging with the sources, and providing follow-up information. Wikipedia can be a useful tool, but merely repeating information found there doesn’t provide the type of answers we seek to encourage here. As such, we don’t allow answers which simply link to, quote from, or are otherwise heavily dependent on Wikipedia. We presume that someone posting a question here either doesn’t want to get the ‘Wikipedia answer’, or has already checked there and found it lacking. You can find further discussion of this policy here. In the future, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the rules before contributing again.

709: [Hobby Scuffles] Week of August 15, 2022, submitted on 2022-08-14 23:00:11+08:00.

—– 709.1 —–2022-08-15 10:17:18+08:00:

And I don’t think anyone thinks she’s outright a CCP spy so much as she maybe buys into the CCP propaganda on queer stuff and maybe wants to appeal to China a bit too much.

I think there is an important conversation to be had about how disliking or opposing the CCP and/or emigrating from China doesn’t mean that a person disagrees with the core tenets of modern Chinese ultranationalism, its attendant emphases on purist ideals of masculinity and femininity, or, as a direct extension of that, queerphobia in all its guises. ‘I, as a cishet Han Chinese person, believe I deserve more political rights’ is not fundamentally in conflict with Han-centric nationalism, nor does it logically follow that this position would also entail supporting rights for minorities (of any kind).

—– 709.2 —–2022-08-15 10:20:52+08:00:

Wait, I thought he was pro GamerGate at one stage? Did he swing the other way politically in the past few years, or is it just that Chinese ultranationalism happens to appeal to a side of him that was always there?

—– 709.3 —–2022-08-15 14:00:12+08:00:

The Russian version of the TOS presumably. Cyrillic is just the script.

—– 709.4 —–2022-08-15 16:46:22+08:00:

Sorry, I might have phrased that awkwardly – I was expanding on rather than contending with your point.

—– 709.5 —–2022-08-15 22:04:27+08:00:

I’m honestly surprised anyone is still invested in any product that might give kickbacks – financial or publicity – to JKR.

—– 709.6 —–2022-08-15 22:58:40+08:00:

!!!! This !!!!

I remember back in the early 2010s all of the hardcore fans complaining about Dave Filoni, dropped off the Star Wars wagon for a while, and came back around 2020 to discover that apparently Dave Filoni was the second coming of Christ or something within fandom. Because of course.

—– 709.7 —–2022-08-17 21:15:42+08:00:

Now you would think that these previous brand vtubers combined with the fact that the majority of the Vtuber audience is at the very least neutral or positive to Corpo Vtubers (with the 2 corpo’s Hololive and Nijisanji dominating the market worldwide in terms of both group numbers and followship) but it still seem’s to have weirded people out.

I think the issue has to do in part with most ‘Corpo’ VTubers still being original IPs and not existing characters, as well as the general affirmation of the principle of one talent to one VTuber which makes Tony the Tiger, a frequently-recast mascot, definitely a transgression of typical norms of the scene.

—– 709.8 —–2022-08-17 22:36:43+08:00:

Well, Kizuna AI’s popularity tanked because they did it, which essentially proved that it’s not a viable approach.

—– 709.9 —–2022-08-17 23:09:10+08:00:

Game-bu, a unit under Brave Group. Brave is apparently better these days although not before recasting one of its remaining VTubers in late 2020 (albeit in a much more tactful and generally accepted way) and it’s running the decently successful Riot Music. Still unfortunate for the four original Game-bu members, but all have resurfaced in the VTubing sphere since.

—– 709.10 —–2022-08-18 20:48:27+08:00:

I very deliberately kept quiet about this at the time because I didn’t think it deserved getting too much attention in the heat of it, but there was a bit of a blow-up in the Hololive community about a week ago when a Redditor who was a BNF of its male branch, Holostars, went on a public tirade and declared they were quitting both the Hololive and Holostars subs because the Hololive subreddit moderators wouldn’t answer his repeated calls (over the course of a year and a half, apparently) to increase their promotion of Holostars content, and as a parting shot broadcast the Discord handle of r Hololive’s head mod, just to make sure that they, er, would immediately destroy any potential goodwill on the part of the community?

What then became apparent was that they had been actively harassing the mods of at least one other subreddit (although the user making this claim mods 17 subs and didn’t specify which in particular) in a similar manner, so that was also unpleasant for many to have discovered.

There’s really not that much to add to be honest, though summaries and links can be found here and here on the VirtualYoutubers sub – names are named, so visit at your peril.

—– 709.11 —–2022-08-18 23:45:25+08:00:

So here’s the thing, right: most of these are basically true? Like, Virginia Woolf did actually dress in blackface and a fake beard to pretend to be an Ethiopian diplomat and actually fooled the Royal Navy, for instance. Roald Dahl was a virulent anti-Semite. And Orson Scott Card is really a real piece of work.

But it’s the individual wild ones that stand out. John Green being an implicit antisemite is… fascinatingly weird; ditto Stephenie Meyer being pro-underage relationships; and most bewilderingly Asian-American novelist Celeste Ng being accused of anti-Asian racism.

But on the flip-side you have all these 19th/20th century authors whom it seems like she only knows of but hasn’t really read, and so simply accuses them of ‘racism’ and not all the other stuff as well. Enid Blyton was plenty xenophobic and liked traditional gender roles, so that’s more than just racism there. Any Rand [sic] was surely more than just racist. And is racism the only thing you can dob Rudyard Kipling for?

—– 709.12 —–2022-08-18 23:47:53+08:00:

Oh yeah, raving antisemite despite actually serving in the RAF in WW2 (he was quite literally a fighter ace at that, having shot down 5 enemy aircraft). You can (many TWs) read up a bit on his views here if you’d like (but… you probably don’t want to).

—– 709.13 —–2022-08-19 01:02:30+08:00:

Are or aren’t? I don’t see them.

—– 709.14 —–2022-08-19 03:15:52+08:00:

To be ‘fair’, the Tempus ban was lifted after the outburst so he wouldn’t have known. Not that that makes it better by any means.

—– 709.15 —–2022-08-19 11:18:20+08:00:

Remember, China is neither nationalist nor eugenicist, and has no notions of racial purity.

(/s if that was needed)

—– 709.16 —–2022-08-20 16:05:19+08:00:

It’s a thing that pops up in wargaming rules too, and to be honest I think the argument can swing both ways. Here it’s even more drastic because wargaming tends to be done with D6s, so an automatic fail on 1 and automatic success on 6 is way more common.

The justification is, in my view, sensible enough, especially for automatic success on 6: let’s imagine I have a situation where a unit is shooting at the limit of its effective range and could hit on a 5, but let’s say the defender has a cover modifier that reduces it by -2, making hits mathematically impossible. This wouldn’t make sense in the real world, though: some hits should still be scored. Similarly, if you’re at really close range and have some other modifier, your hit rate still shouldn’t be exactly 100%.

—– 709.17 —–2022-08-20 16:32:28+08:00:

I’m kind of surprised how quickly the toxic side of fandom came out after what had been a genuine outpouring of grief but also goodwill from the rest of the community. I half-wonder if Kson and Nazuna (formerly Hololive’s Coco and Rushia) joining VShojo, which has itself fired a lot of PR shots at Hololive recently, has led to the hardcore tribalists going after anyone who looks to be betraying the brand somehow.

—– 709.18 —–2022-08-21 02:36:06+08:00:

While I don’t utterly disagree, I don’t think that’s a fair statement in this case, where the core issue is a specific – and relatively high-profile – VTuber giving an interview with a relatively high-profile VTuber news/gossip site and appearing to take aim at the top VTuber agency, then also the next most, and then it turning out to have involved a bunch of editorialising by the article author, but with the VTuber in question and her agency not exactly publicly claiming that the substance was untrue. It is very overtly a case where the agency and the site are appearing to deliberately attempt to stoke drama, and possibly the VTuber herself although in context it seems more like a misinformed take on her end, but one that ties in closely to her agency’s PR stance.

文章版权归原作者所有。
二维码分享本站