"[T]he oddity I pointed out in that piece that the chuds are both really attached to classical antiquity and also don’t know very much about it."
As a history nerd in the Bay Area tech scene, it always amazes me how so many of the e/acc, NRx, and "The West" people fit the quote above.
I think this is why Curtis Yarvin has been successful, as he states bad history with confidence to people who either don't know the difference, or have a direct interest in promoting his "The rich should rule us, actually" ideology.
all history from 2000+ years ago is bad history. neither the chud nor the cuck vision of classical antiquity is anywhere near accurate. entire decades get extrapolated from a few surviving bits written a century after the events. every sentence in every history book about that era implicitly comes with "We assume that..."
That's an absurd false dichotomy. I'm assuming the historians are the cucks in your analogy? As the author points out, many of the "chuds" haven't even read translations of Greek or Latin texts, while historians can read the text in the original. The main skill historians have is exactly the strawman you've set up to knock down. They understand the limits of our knowledge of ancient societies, and the "chuds" do not.
You are holding historians to an epistemological standard that I am confident you don't hold anybody else to. Whether intentionally or not, you're muddying the waters to undermine their expertise. Why?
>I'm assuming the historians are the cucks in your analogy?
only the grifters who are in business of re-imagining history for the modern audience.
>You are holding historians to an epistemological standard that I am confident you don't hold anybody else to. Whether intentionally or not, you're muddying the waters to undermine their expertise. Why?
why shouldn't I? historians do not deserve unconditional veneration, no one does. for every serious historian there are two dozen creative writers who can produce a thousand pages about everyday life in in Egypt 6000 BCE.
history is a very soft science. ancient history in particular is equivalent to trying to divine how the stars and planets millions of light years away look based on fifty bytes of real data from a telescope.
> neither the chud nor the cuck vision of classical antiquity is anywhere near accurate
Which version continuously looks for new data to test its vision of classical antiquity? Which version changes its vision over time as it acquires new information?
You should work on the ability to distinguish respect from charitability.
One can be charitable to views that one does not respect. And if one ends up being disrespectful it does not mean that they were insufficiently charitable.
"[T]he oddity I pointed out in that piece that the chuds are both really attached to classical antiquity and also don’t know very much about it."
As a history nerd in the Bay Area tech scene, it always amazes me how so many of the e/acc, NRx, and "The West" people fit the quote above.
I think this is why Curtis Yarvin has been successful, as he states bad history with confidence to people who either don't know the difference, or have a direct interest in promoting his "The rich should rule us, actually" ideology.
all history from 2000+ years ago is bad history. neither the chud nor the cuck vision of classical antiquity is anywhere near accurate. entire decades get extrapolated from a few surviving bits written a century after the events. every sentence in every history book about that era implicitly comes with "We assume that..."
Well at least we can filter out the Jeffrey of Monmouth's though.
Haha you can tell I listen to a lot history podcasts. I won't fix it.
That's an absurd false dichotomy. I'm assuming the historians are the cucks in your analogy? As the author points out, many of the "chuds" haven't even read translations of Greek or Latin texts, while historians can read the text in the original. The main skill historians have is exactly the strawman you've set up to knock down. They understand the limits of our knowledge of ancient societies, and the "chuds" do not.
You are holding historians to an epistemological standard that I am confident you don't hold anybody else to. Whether intentionally or not, you're muddying the waters to undermine their expertise. Why?
>I'm assuming the historians are the cucks in your analogy?
only the grifters who are in business of re-imagining history for the modern audience.
>You are holding historians to an epistemological standard that I am confident you don't hold anybody else to. Whether intentionally or not, you're muddying the waters to undermine their expertise. Why?
why shouldn't I? historians do not deserve unconditional veneration, no one does. for every serious historian there are two dozen creative writers who can produce a thousand pages about everyday life in in Egypt 6000 BCE.
history is a very soft science. ancient history in particular is equivalent to trying to divine how the stars and planets millions of light years away look based on fifty bytes of real data from a telescope.
> neither the chud nor the cuck vision of classical antiquity is anywhere near accurate
Which version continuously looks for new data to test its vision of classical antiquity? Which version changes its vision over time as it acquires new information?
Bret previously on "statue pfps" https://www.thebulwark.com/p/why-stone-faced-fascists-keep-g...
and chatting with one directly https://xcancel.com/BretDevereaux/status/1742957031353466903
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
You should work on the ability to distinguish respect from charitability.
One can be charitable to views that one does not respect. And if one ends up being disrespectful it does not mean that they were insufficiently charitable.