this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
63 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15915 readers
1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Power users and mods just keep repeating: "History is not a science because culture (i.e., god) is all-powerful. We might use evidence but we distrust grand theories."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They just keep saying the same shit over and over again. I thought I was crazy to write that liberal historians have regressed to a pre-Enlightenment state and just replaced “god” with “culture,” but r/askhistorians is saying “yeah, that’s actually exactly what we do, and we’re proud of it!”

No scientist would ever say “it’s impossible to understand things,” but it’s apparently a totally normal take from libs to conclude that there are no patterns to human behavior and everything is just individualistic, subjective, and random.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago

interpreting history from a materialist lens makes you 'biased' or 'ideological', which is bad. historians are supposed to be like a machine, take input in and produce a compiled output of all the facts.

source: my favorite unbiased historian, renowned for writing a biography of Churchill where he said he did nothing wrong