In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
I like Dunyain as a poster. I even said (relatively recently) hes a much better poster than I remember from ~2018
Sometimes he comes in with some hot takes that seem borderline trollish though
unrelated screenshot of a tweet:
i think a lot of this is that you are familiar with the impossible elements of exodus but not the ones in its counterpartthat if we said "the jews left egypt in 1446 bc" as according to exodus it wouldn't sound so outlandish of a comparisoni also think you're missing the nuance here, likewise nobody is refuting that jews were once in egypt and did migrate out - nobody is refuti
You're ascribing a lot of nuance to Kelhus that just doesn't exist in his posts. Most of what you're saying is fine, but Kelhus didn't say anything about all the stuff around Muhammed being as unlikely as the events in Exodus, he said specifically the idea that the first Islamic caliphate was founded in Medina in 622 was as likely as the events of Exodus. Obviously there's zero chance that everything happened exactly as described in Islamic texts but if that's the comparison he was trying to make then he needs to say that - people aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he has a history of making ridiculous claims about similar things where he has obvious biases. Similarly when he's talking about the research/referencing of this stuff he doesn't say there's a bit of a taboo about it, he claims that it's all just accepted as true without real evidence and that there's no real research into it, despite obvious examples to the contrary as I noted before.
Most of what Kelhus posts has some factual basis behind it but he regularly takes things to extremes and ends up making ridiculous claims. Maybe I'm especially biased against him because one of his main bugbears seems to be Muslim immigration in Europe, where he regularly states as fact things that are about as likely as the first Islamic caliphate being founded in 622.
Maybe I'm especially biased against him because one of his main bugbears seems to be Muslim immigration in Europe, where he regularly states as fact things that are about as likely as the first Islamic caliphate being founded in 622.
This gets to the heart of the issue. The gap in quality re Kelhus's posting on some topics versus other topics is vast. He has a couple of real hobby horses (media bias, Muslim immigration, and a few others). On those topics, he is frequently awful and very prone to mindlessly repeating whatever he has been told by the right-wing derposphere. On other topics, he is much less prone to such things.
I think that he is rarely, if ever, trolling.
Why do we keep deadnaming Dunyain?
I can speak only for myself. I think multiaccounting is ridiculous except in very limited circumstances, which don't include coming back under a new name because your previous account was banned for repeated asshattery. And if we are going to allow people back after a time no matter what, then we basically should never permaban anyone except spammers. We should just give out one year bans for the worst offenses and then let people come back.
The reality is that if a new account named moicuL started posting a bunch of right wing extremist stuff nine months from now, the account would not be banned.
(This isn't a shot at the mods. I wasn't really any different during my brief tenure. The software doesn't really allow you to revoke a permaban issued by a different mod.)
where he regularly states as fact things that are about as likely as the first Islamic caliphate being founded in 622.
legit lol
it's things like this which is why i've always loved you as a poster 😀
but genuinely, if roc wrote the thing that kel wrote which started this then i promise you nobody would have refuted any of it and that's my main gripe with the majority of posters here - you guys are way too tribal
you absolutely wouldn't get keyboard warriors frantically googling about history of islamic states - finding info on well documented ones several hundred years after the timeline we are discussing and go "i knew it, i knew he was a racist liar" wholly oblivious to the fact that his "rebuttal" has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand - proving he's just eager to prove kel wrong and that's the only goal he had the entire time
and by default it kinda makes me an insufferable douche going "well ackshually" all the time, which is to to the point that i've long considered permaing my account here simply because i think my mental health would improve dramatically if i just tuned it all out instead
but genuinely, if roc wrote the thing that kel wrote which started this then i promise you nobody would have refuted any of it
Right. I just get a free pass no matter what I say. 🙄
in other news......
make radiation great again!
NPR obtained copies of over a dozen of the new orders, none of which is publicly available. The orders slash hundreds of pages of requirements for security at the reactors. They also loosen protections for groundwater and the environment and eliminate at least one key safety role. The new orders cut back on requirements for keeping records, and they raise the amount of radiation a worker can be exposed to before an official accident investigation is triggered.
I wouldn't say you get a free pass, but you certainly are far more likely than me or Rickroll to get the benefit of the doubt.
You're on a longer leash (so to speak) than Luckbox, for example.
What do you attribute that to?
I can speak only for myself. I think multiaccounting is ridiculous except in very limited circumstances, which don't include coming back under a new name because your previous account was banned for repeated asshattery. And if we are going to allow people back after a time no matter what, then we basically should never permaban anyone except spammers. We should just give out
Sorry I just wanted to say deadnaming because it sounded funny, but that makes sense
We could start calling you shortstacker if you prefer. 😀
but genuinely, if roc wrote the thing that kel wrote which started this then i promise you nobody would have refuted any of it and that's my main gripe with the majority of posters here - you guys are way too tribal you absolutely wouldn't get keyboard warriors frantically googling about history of islamic states - finding info on well documented ones several hundred years afte
I didn’t think it was racist, I thought he was being silly. I wanted to know what it was he was even talking about because it seemed to go against the source he was using.
Two things off the top of (what's left of) my mind:
1. You seldom have opinions at great variance with moderate to left-leaning Democrats.
2. You are very articulate and don't call people names on a regular basis like many of the lefties do here. You don't say thing like, "All Trump voters are racist idiots."
no, if you wrote something factually correct but mildly controversial it would not undergo all the lies and bs that kel just endured by people foaming at the mouth to "debunk" you
if you wrote that obama's chef was found drowned naked at 3am it would not get a free pass
if you wrote that there's scant evidence outside of the koran for history of the first islamic state then it would get a free pass
I'm pretty sure dunyain has quite a few old names.
no, if you wrote something factually correct but mildly controversial it would not undergo all the lies and bs that kel just endured by people foaming at the mouth to "debunk" youif you wrote that obama's chef was found drowned naked at 3am it would not get a free pass if you wrote that there's scant evidence outside of the koran for history of the first islamic state then it w
I suspect that people take a poster's entire body of work into account when responding rather than viewing each post as an individual blade of grass with no connection to the larger field.
no, if you wrote something factually correct but mildly controversial it would not undergo all the lies and bs that kel just endured by people foaming at the mouth to "debunk" youif you wrote that obama's chef was found drowned naked at 3am it would not get a free pass if you wrote that there's scant evidence outside of the koran for history of the first islamic state then it w
that’s not even what he claimed though. he claimed wiki cited the koran as a source, which they didn’t. he also claimed there were no citations when there were over 100.
that’s not even what he claimed though. he claimed wiki cited the koran as a source, which they didn’t. he also claimed there were no citations when there were over 100.
i viewed that as a rhetorical error - but standby that of those 100 sources - none of them are first hand
if i wrote a book about the first caliphate today and it were popular it'd certainly become source #101 on that page, but my own source material would largely be based on the koran - either directly or indirectly by working off a later work which leaned heavily onto that
if you read that wiki you'll see a lot of it is "well umm, kinda, you know" sort of stuff
ie if you google the history of the hajj - based off religious scholars who use the koran as guidance, google will confidently tell you that it first happened in 629 and become a mandatory thing just 2 years later
but looking at that wiki, we don't have a single reference of the hajj outside of the koran until 741 and even then it's incredibly vague and doesn't even put the pilgrimage site on the arabian peninsula but rather smack dab in mesopotamia
so we know for a fact that anything whatsoever related to that first hajj in 628 is entirely based off nothing other than the writings of the koran
and yet... citations 80 through 94 populate the passages detailing that specific thing
two of these are indeed the koran - but all the others are just books by historians who wrote using the koran as their only source
so you can see now how this is mostly circular reasoning and why simply pointing to "all the citations" doesn't hold water under the mildest bit of scrutiny because they all lead back to the koran as the source
if i wrote a book about the first caliphate today and it were popular it'd certainly become source #101 on that page, but my own source material would largely be based on the koran - either directly or indirectly by working off a later work which leaned heavily onto that
You'd be kind of a incurious idiot if you did that since a cursory google tells me there are sources aplenty like al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings (915 AD) that cover the history of the early Caliphate. A little research and you could probably find copies of the primary sources al-Tabari used.
but looking at that wiki, we don't have a single reference of the hajj outside of the koran until 741 and even then it's incredibly vague and doesn't even put the pilgrimage site on the arabian peninsula but rather smack dab in mesopotamia
That's because you skimmed the AI summary of a google search and didn't bother to look at any of the sources or even ask about the source material. Because you're kind of bad at this and operating on motivated reasoning.
You'd be kind of a incurious idiot if you did that since a cursory google tells me there are sources aplenty like al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings (915 AD) that cover the history of the early Caliphate. A little research and you could probably find copies of the primary sources al-Tabari used. That's because you skimmed the AI summary of a google search and didn't
So your gotcha is that someone in 915 wrote about something that supposedly happened hundreds of years before they were born? Which means they had to have had a source themselves or had just made it up.
You literally proved Rickroll's point with your gotcha. The point is there is literally no primary sources for anything that happened before roughly ~800, which means the "history" of what happened before that time is most likely fiction.
And because of their biases, Wikipedia will just state (most likely) fiction as "history", and then you have to closely scour supporting material to find all the disclaimers. And Wikipedia would never operate this way with Western history.
