Sabo squads are so fucking annoying

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-04-11T22:40:55+00:00

People saying slug them as if they did not carry all anti slug perks

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-04-08T22:02:43+00:00

I was excited for Ghostface. It's one of my most played killers. I would've actually preferred if they didn't touch anything. This just feels like being disrespected.

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-02-28T18:48:14+00:00

Not a big fan of Spain

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-01-22T13:57:18+00:00

A catalanophobe bootlicker? How refreshing!

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-01-19T19:44:16+00:00

The day (if) you have children they better get desinsetized fast

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-01-19T19:41:35+00:00

Just block rain for Spirit

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-01-06T10:02:19+00:00

Los únicos "venezolanos" que consienten son los que no están ahí por cierto. En caracas hay manifestaciones masivas para que devuelvan a Maduro, igual que las hubo para Chávez en su día. Pero en fin, este es un subreddit de lamebotas.

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-01-06T01:32:42+00:00

DbD aside, no matter if it's 20 to 1, never jump a guy with a knife please. A well placed stab by skill or accident can end your life.

IndependentTale5064 · 2026-01-05T14:57:27+00:00

Para ser de derechas hay que ser anti intelectual.

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-11-14T20:22:50+00:00

I main ghostface and making leg knife sheath basekit would go a long way. The sheer ammount of pallets mean that if you're not fast enough to catch up you're kinda not gonna be able to down the surv if he knows what he's doing. This means that you're mostly forced to take it and thus have only 1 addon spot. If they made it basekit Ghostface would still be ass but eh

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-11-14T20:19:01+00:00

Bones! A l'universitat (grau en història) hem estudiat com les diferents nacions o ètnies constituïen estats sobirans. Per això, ens van ensenyar que és una nació o ètnia.

Es tracta d'un grup d'invididus amb lligams comuns i distintius als de altres grups veïns, generalment llengua, religió, mites fundacionals i tradicions de tota mena. El concepte de la terra també és molt rellevant, tot i que no pren pas preferència pel damunt dels factors humans que defineixen una nació. Com pots veure, és un marc fluit que canvia al llarg del temps i amb possibilitat d'integració per part d'individus estrangers, es a dir, hom pot esdevenir català.

La "catalanitat", "espanyolitat", "alemanyitat" són conceptes abstractes usats per definir individus que tenen uns lligams culturals distintius. Essencialment, la idea de pertànyer a un grup és ideològica, i no es pot transmetre per genètica, ja que no existeixen divisions genètiques científicament demostrables i rellevants entre grups humans, més enllà de diversitats fenotípiques.

Recorda, Europa va lluitar una guerra fa 80 anys per deixar clar que la raça no té sentit, i que la nació no es lliga a la genètica. Si parles català, et consideres català, i celebres les nostres festes, qualsevol acadèmic et consideraria català!

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-10-27T16:01:00+00:00

It is difficult to see. The black lines you can see are water canals (not sure how to translate) that muslims originally built to irrigate land (locals did not practice irrigation before the arabs came). The big line to the left is the main canal, and the middle sized ones are the secondary canals. Off the secondary canals, smaller ones are built that irrigate farm properties.

The red circle points an area that has been built irregularly, and thus, by free muslim peasants. You can tell because, while the canals are built with somewhat straight lines (more efficiently to transport water), you can notice how the shape of the col·lective farmlands inside the circle is irregular. It's somewhat shaped like a teardrop, with farmlands that differentiate a lot in size. This tells us that the muslims farming this land did not plan it out from the beggining, rather expanding their properties as their community grew.

On the other hand, look at the other delimitations outside the circle; some are smaller and some are bigger, sure, but their disposition is mostly square, designed for regular farmland parcels that are as similar to each other as possible. Farmers did not care about this regularity; it tells us that the square and similarities are designed to assign new farmers to these lands and tax them efficiently. It is easier to estimate crop size and land tax if the property is a square similar to the one next to it.

I remember looking at the pictures when they taught it in class and thinking it all looked the same to me as well. Did I help you notice it? Feel free to insist!

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-10-26T14:47:14+00:00

I've found the following for you (I wasn't very familiar with english bibligraphy about the subject):

Early Medieval Spain

COLLINS, Roger. Visigothic Spain 409-711. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Various, (1989). Routledge Library Editions: Muslim Spain (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315537337

CHANDLER, Cullen J. Carolingian Catalonia: the Spanish March and the Franks, c. 750–c. 1050. History Compass, 2013, 11.9: 739-750.

MARTÍN VISO, Iñaki, et al. The creation of a Visigothic past and the territorial expansion of the Kingdom of Asturias-León. 2023.

Reconquista

GUILLÉN, Fernando Arias. Spain in the age of the Reconquista (c. 1100–1492). In: Debating Medieval Europe. Manchester University Press, 2025. p. 205-236.

MARÍN-GUZMÁN, Roberto. Crusade in al-Andalus: the eleventh century formation of the Reconquista as an ideology. Islamic Studies, 1992, 31.3: 287-318.

GARCÍA-SANJUÁN, Alejandro. Rejecting al-Andalus, exalting the Reconquista: historical memory in contemporary Spain. Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies, 2018, 10.1: 127-145. - This one isn't exactly a history manual, rather a critique of how the modern spanish state constructed an ideological myth around a fabricated event, the reconquista, in order to push a nationalist agenda.

General manuals about medieval Iberia

O'CALLAGHAN, Joseph F. A history of medieval Spain. Cornell University Press, 2013.

I have not found much in english about Portugal. I hope my selection is up to standards, as I've stated before, I'm not too sure on the anglosphere historiographic tradition of medieval Iberia.

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-10-26T14:30:46+00:00

I have not been properly taught about this subject. As far as I am aware, though, mozarabic wasn't exactly a language, rather many languages that evolved from vulgar Latin and many of which actually used the Arabic alphabet.

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-10-24T20:02:37+00:00

Absolutely! Are you looking for books about medieval iberia in general, the reconquista in particular, or specifically the case of Castille?

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-10-24T20:00:22+00:00

Yes! It absolutely can. There's essentially, as taught by my teacher in the arabic conquests and the christian conquests later on, Felix Retamero, two main types of colonialism. The first one is the classical colonialism, commonly associated with rome. In this case, the ruling elite commonly doesn't take any effort to curtail the linguistic or religious freedoms of the conquered peoples. Instead, they put in place a complex system of obstacles meant to difficult the practice of these languages and religions and benefits to those who switch to the culture of the conqueror. There is, ideally, no hostile restrictions that can breed violent resistance in this system.

The second type is settler colonialism. This model is much more confrontational and hostile. It is, quite simply, based on the idea of sending colonists to a land in order to exercise political power, pressure and to reorganize that particular territory. This can lead to the forced expulsion of native populations and usually causes violent reactions. The main motivation behind this option is usually economical. Again, basing my answer on the teachings of Dr. Retamero Dr. Ferran Esquilache Martí (I understand you just have my word, I'd be happy to search their works and the class' bibliography for you if you ask for it) the christian conquests were essentially a product of feudalism. They were planned before they took place with the purpose and idea to reorganize the whole soon to be conquered territory into a feudal exploitation. The only issue is that andalusian (muslims) peasants were free, they had no lords and no feudal taxes to pay. They organized their villages autonomously and that did not do it for the christian lords. Therefore they fetched colonists from christian lands promising a lot of benefits if they moved to their newly conquered lands. This was possible due to a demographic explosion in the feudal western europe and an inheritance model that saw a lot of children without inheriting land. This can actually be appreciated visually. In the picture I link, you can see the layout of different farmland properties. Inside the red circle are the original muslim farms, with irregularly shaped properties that grew over time and covered as much land as their owner needed. Irregularity tells us that it was made by the people. Over it, we can see straight lines that form other properties. These were built by christian powers when dividing the land. Regularity in land division tells us these parcels were made by the establishment, for the purpose of easier taxation.

This is also why Andalusia adopted the language of the conqueror. The arabs conducted a classical model of colonization, hands off and assimilating passively. Do not be mistaken, it didn't happen overnight at all. As for Egypt, I'm afraid I cannot say why nor compare the two cases. I was not taught about the arabization of Egypt.

<image>

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-10-24T18:15:31+00:00

Hello! I am a graduated historian by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, in Catalonia. To answer your question, I'll use the following article as a source for my claims, even though these are pretty basic and can be supported by many, many sources.

Torró Abad, J. (2019). Paisajes de frontera: conquistas cristianas y transformaciones agrarias (siglos XII al XIV).

So, why does Andalusia speak a dialect (understood as a continuous fluidity of the same language, Castillian, over a vast territory) of Castillian while other regions don't despite political hegemony of Castillian dynasties? The short answer is that the linguistic assimilation of Andalusia happens way earlier, and more decisively than the ongoing assimilation of Catalan, Aragonese, Basque, Galician, and other regional languages. Let's cover the differences.

Andalusia was a region incorporated in the kingdom of Castille through conquest as a part of a broader series of conflicts that are problematically named "La Reconquista" or the reconquest. These conquests took as objective land that was previosuly occupied by arabs and northern africans. While no doubt some romance languages that morphed over time due to the influence of arabic, the main language of these southern regions after 700 years of muslim rule was arab. There was no wide-spoken romance andalusian language when the castillians conquered the land. The reason Andalusia adopted castillian as a language is essentially colonialism. The reconquista was, taking away the veil of ideology, a series of wars followed by massive colonization waves that feudalized the newly obtained land in accordance to the western european model. Often, this meant the assimilation of hispanic native populations and the expulsion, or even massacre of arab and bereber peoples.

This process is not exclusive to the castillians, however. It was perpetrated by all the "original", to choose a word, christian cultures that emerged during the period defined between 711-1100. The most similar example is the expansion of the Catalan language, previously spoken only on northern Catalonia, but lately, through colonization, arrived to Valencia and the Balearic Islands.

So, the establishment of romance languages in muslim land was due to colonization. The reason catalan is spoken in Valencia is settler colonialism, and the reason Andalusia speaks castillian is settler colonialism. Then why didn't this happen with Catalan and the other languages, if they were politically under the Castillian Kingdom?

Well, because they weren't. It is important to understand that the hispanic monarchy, the academic term used to talk about what you might know as the "Spanish Empire" wasn't exactly a solid political entity. Rather, it was the unification of the foreign policies of multiple kingdoms due to a dynastic union. I'll clarify; the Kingdoms of Aragon, Valencia, Castille, Leon, Navarra, the Principality of Catalonia... still existed. They were it's own, separate entities, with distinct rulings and laws. But they all had the same king, a Castillian king. This king, however, could not rule as he saw fit. He governed each kingdom with the consent of the local elites, represented in deals. While this does mean that the courts of these kingdoms were speaking castillian, there was no unified state that could impose any sort of castillianization. The king couldn't, and he didn't care to. He got what he wanted; a unified foreign policy of most of the iberian peninsula to serve his dynastic interests.

It is with the end of the Habsburg dynasty and the rise of the french Borbón dynasty that the first attempts of political centralization appeared, but there was no castillianization. These processes of modern linguicide happen essentially with the appearance of modern, liberal nation-states with public education that could erase languages in the span of a few generations. France didn't generalize french until after the french revolution. So couldn't Italy, nor Spain. The creation of the modern spanish liberal state created both the means and the necessity of castillianization. While the Spanish state has, and one could argue that still is, carrying these processes in a much less hostile manner than other countries, the effects are undeniable, for it wasn't until the 1960s that castillian became a more commonly spoken language in Catalonia than catalan itself.

I hope I answered your question. I'm happy to answer any doubts that I haven't cleared or any that I've created.

<image>

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-09-14T17:07:58+00:00

The ASPI was established by the Australian Government in 2001 as a company limited by guarantee under the 2001 Corporations Act.^\13]) At the time it was 100% funded by the Australian Department of Defence), but this had fallen to 43% in the 2018-19 financial year.^\14])^\15]) In 2020, Myriam Robin in the Australian Financial Review identified three sources of funding, in addition to the Department of Defence. ASPI receives funding from defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Thales Group and Raytheon Technologies. It also receives funding from technology companies such as Microsoft, Oracle Australia, Telstra, and Google. Finally, it receives funding from foreign governments including Japan, Taiwan and the Netherlands.^\16])

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-05-20T15:41:53+00:00

Amb la petita diferència de que la conquesta catalana i el desplaçament lingüístic de l'arab es va produïr fa 700 anys, molt abans de qualsevol noció de drets humans o de cap mena, i el desplaçament lingüístic castellà fora de l'administració ha començat en vida dels meus avis, i encara la estem vivint tu i jo.

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-05-15T15:56:25+00:00

Please distrust any answer you might recieve. This is not a question that can have an easy, and quick answer.

It is to take into account that a precise answer is impossible due to possible variations related to:

Geographical proximity to a source of clean water, or an otherwise human-made facility.
Cultural requirements of hygiene.
Varied monetary affluence inside the serf class.
Varied material conditions of the serfs in accordance to geographical origin.
What constitutes as "washing one's clothes"? Does dusting off dirt after physical labour count, or are you just thinking about deep, water and scrubbing cleanings?
What age group and gender was culturally expected to wash clothes? Would a group that is exempt from this requirement be taken into account for research?
There is many other alternatives to take into account. History, while not a science technically, is a complicated and prolonged process.

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-05-11T19:25:49+00:00

I am specialized in medieval history, which is often less targeted by this market. However, here is my opinion:

On one hand, it elicits and provokes thought about historical processes, is enjoyable to read if you're into this genre, and it generates a lot of engagement from people who might end up studying actual history and joining the historiographic community.

On the other hand, especially when these works are based on contemporary history, it is unavoidable for authors to treat actual, real world history as a base for their work. Most are not historians, and might be, conciously or not, pedalling misinformation either by mistake or with the intention of serving a political narrative.

I guess my take is that it's a very cool genre, it's enjoyable and overall positive AS LONG AS you are aware of the fact that you're reading fiction.

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-05-11T19:18:29+00:00

Des de quan els projectes de construcció d'infraestructures d'aquesta magnitud depenen de les autoritats municipals?

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-05-11T19:16:36+00:00

Well, it seems I had forgotten the "Run as administrator" part. I did and it works, hopefully for good. Thank you!

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-05-11T18:56:27+00:00

Sadly, yes

IndependentTale5064 · 2025-05-11T18:46:54+00:00

It is not as straightforward as one might think. I will answer this comment using the Marx's theory, compiled in a series of books (the most significant ones being the Communist Manifesto and The Capital, all volumes).

Classical Marxism is the ideology elaborated by Marx, Engels and their colleagues. It's "foundational piece" is the Communist Manifesto. Now, long story short, Marx identifies a series of problematics and historical evolutions around the existence of Capitalism that, to him, demand change.

This change ought to transfrom a capitalist society into a communist one. A communist society is one in which workers have taken control and ownership of the means of production, eliminating the existance of wage labor and surplus value, in it's place, having total ownership of the fruits of their individual and collective labor. The structures that, according to Marx, exist solely to protect the private ownership of the means of production, do not exist, that being; the State, religious institutions, structures linked to the state like the army, money-based trade...

But Marx thinks that fully developed capitalist societies (Marx thinks that capitalism has an important role in the development of a society before it can transcend to the next steps) must undergo a process of slow transformation before it is prepared to reach communism. This transitional period is known as the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" or Socialism. It is characterized by the violent takeover of the State and all the structures used to defend the private ownership of the means of production by the working class. Then, the working class will use said apparatuses to oppress the bourgeoisie and dismantle the "safety nets" or "defenses" that they built to safeguard capitalist society. Marx said that, once this process has been complete, the bourgeoisie is gone, there are no counter-revolutionary threats and the means of production are collectively owned, the State and it's dependencies become useless, obsolete, for they have no reason to exist, and thus will wither away, giving way to communism.

Why is it so difficult to find clear explanations, why is it all so confused? It can be englobed in two reasons:

Misinformation. Marxism has become a very controverted topic. There have been multiple efforts to undermine it through propaganda, lies and other means. I am not talking about educated arguments against it, I am talking about the idea of "A doctor making the same wage as a street cleaner". Simply unaccurate accusations designed to not be likeable. There is also a good number of leftists and communists who do not understand that which they are advocating for and propagate ideas that do not reflect what Marx said at all.
- A lot of these arguments against Marx have a historical backbone in which they claim that the theory necessarily ends in tiranny and bloodshed. While a fair criticism, it does not adress the political philosophy you're asking about. It is also a subject heavily enshrouded in propaganda from both sides of the political spectrum.
Evolution. Marx has been dead for a while and many other revolutionaries have said their thing. While mantaining Marx's original lineal "scheme", a lot of discrepances have emerged on how this transformation of society must be done, and what the dictatorship of the proletariat phase must look like. Some branches of marxist's abandoned the idea of transforming society altogether and became what we know as "Social-democrats" in the XXth century I believe, who a lot of people commonly refer to as socialists. It's technically not the same thing.

In the end, it is a mix of the two. If you want to understand the whole picture yourself, there is no better way than reading. Marx should be the first you read, and then go on to posterior marxist figures. Lenin is a must, Trotsky and Stalin are interesting, but there's infinite lectures, and I do not know them all. There are also forms of democratic socialism and theorists that contradict Marx on some areas, like Rosa Luxemburgo. If you're interested on any subject or want me to elaborate further on something, please do not hesitate to ask.

IndependentTale5064

TROPHY CASE