"[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?
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?
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.