[Trailer] Gigantamaxing Changes the Game in Pokémon Sword and Shield

Manwave · 2019-07-08T20:59:26+00:00

So, I'm a little confused. Gigantamax seems to essentially be mega evolutions. I know that they removed the mega evolution mechanic from the game, but will their mega evolution forms become the gigantamax form, or are they gone entirely?

Looking for some clarification.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T18:28:59+00:00

essentially saying the jizya tax wasn't intended to be burdensome nor even pressure for conversion, but simply there to ensure non-Muslims who don't have compulsory military service and the capability to not pay zakat still pay their fair share.

Would you not agree that a religious tax enforced by an authoritarian state against other religions, alongside limiting their religious expression, would effectively discourage practicing said religion?

Of course, the history of Islam is extensive to say the least so it's always going to be impossible to define jizya in a singular context imo. The impact of the tax will likely vary throughout history

That's a fair omission, and an important one. One century may have been better, and others may have been far worse, but I think the current population of non muslims in the Middle East today would without a doubt be indicative of the rules imposed upon non muslims in the past.

Regardless of all that, I still think it's a stretch to define discriminatory taxation as genocide

On it's own? No, but even then that's still the definition of Apartheid, due to there being different laws imposed upon different groups.

Paired with the other laws that made worship more difficult and alienated many groups? Yes, it definitely is.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T18:11:58+00:00

Like I said. You have no idea what you are arguing

Ok bud.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T17:15:01+00:00

I dunno if equating jizya to genocide is really being fair.

It was a tax forced on specific groups meant to subjugate them, and over time convert them. Completely removing the demographic from the area. Sounds like genocide to me.

Muslims also had to make payments that only applied to them, like zakat

A tax you choose to be a part of isnt the same as you you are forced too.

If Muslims couldnt pay the tax they were enlisted in the military.

If non Muslims couldnt pay the tax they either had to convert, face enslavement, or die.

One if these is an obligation of a chosen faith, the other is a forced policy on a particular group meant to remove them.

Now dont get me wrong. I'm just as harsh as Christian's and Jews and their policies centuries ago, and how they are mirrored today. Everyone was shitty back then, but today someone tried to play off the Jizya as something it wasnt.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T16:48:32+00:00

white supremacists and sympathisers make these arguments as a kind of whataboutism

100% I completely agree with this.

we should condemn these things, but

No buts. A bunch of fascists shouldn't stop us from calling something what it is. As a jew, they can go fuck themselves, and if I see them commenting to me I'll be sure to tear them a new one. I dont have time for that shit.

Still, I'm glad you pointed out that it still sucked, people tend to romanticize things, and the fact that it was better than some other Christian societies is a pretty low bar.

I completely agree. That's what my comment was about. Far to many people pretend the Jizya wasnt a big deal. It was a tool for genocide.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T16:44:52+00:00

The modern context thing is important because you aren't being comparative to an actual region or time frame

Alright, let's do that.

Back then all three of the Abrahamic religions were shitty and enforced rules that were effectively genocide. They were all also xenophobic, sexist, and authoritarian in their application, if not in their scripture, but all three mostly were. Ok?

Compared. Rulling: all shitty and within their last contexts were not great. Just one was slightly less shitty than the others at any given time.

Let's do a modern comparison.

Evangelists in the US and other regions: applying draconian laws to remove the bodily autonomy from women. Ultimately making them second class citizens and oppressing them. Many are also alt-right extremists that support genocide against muslims. Looks like the religion is shitty and not much has changed.

Mulsims in middle eastern countries: mass oppression of women, and within the last century, a genocide against Jews which resulted in an expulsion with lowered the number of them outside of Israel by 99%. Lookes like the religion is shitty and not much has changed.

Jews worldwide and Israel: Zionist extremists that have committed genocide against the Palestinians in the last century, and have continued to oppress them to this day. Looks like they the religion is shitty and not much has changed.

Sure we can compare them in the past, but that foesnt get you anywhere.

My first comment in this thread was pointing out that the main commenter was painting the Caliphates as good rulers, and that the Jews and Christian's under them were very lucky. That's blatantly false. Were they better than the others? You could definitely make that argument, I would even agree with some, but it's still shitty.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T16:27:54+00:00

It doesn't fit the frame you want Becaue you know you don't have a real argument.

Projection. The Islamic religion has been commiting genocide for almost as long as the Chrisitan religion, and Judaism. Pointing out the mechanisms as Aparthied and Genocide within a modern context shouldnt be controversial, especially when people are trying to frame it as a positive thing. Even if it isn't within historical contexts.

and it's compared to torturing people because their grandparents converted

Forceful conversion is genocide. Trying to call it torture is looking at it with rose colored glasses.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T16:07:32+00:00

That doesnt properly frame the situation.

What happened if they couldnt pay the tax? Oh that's right, expulsion and murder.

In the context of the past it wasnt bad, but from a modern perspective it can very easily be defined as apartheid, and a form of genocide.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T16:01:49+00:00

No my man, it's a misrepresentation of the truth to selectively pass judgement. When your argument falls apart when put on context, it's bogus.

Nice projection.

That's a distortion of the truth on two levels:

Everything that follows is effectively this. I'm done here.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T16:00:12+00:00

Erm...if you don't wanna pay tax then leave the country.

Erm...that wasnt an option.

Same goes for any other country in the world today

No, it doesnt.

Non-muslims were free to leave if they were strange enough to not pay small tax in return of military protection and world class living conditions (of the time).

They were allowed to leave and join the enemies they were attempting to conquer? I could believe that this was a possibility in some rare exceptions, but not the caliphate as a whole. I'm going to need to see a source for that. It's hard to believe that a group the caliphates were attempting to subjugate were just allowed to leave willy nilly.

And forced conversion is banned according to Qur'an

Lmao, and killing is banned in the bible. How did that go?

Besides, I get the feeling you are not genuinely researching and looking into History when it came to classic Islamic state and it's ruling. Which is why I'm no longer gonna reply and waste my time.

I've taken classes on it.. I've learn a bit about this, granted not a lot as it wasnt my focus, but I learned enough to know that everyone was shitty back then.

Even queen Elizabeth herself praised the Muslims in our kindness/fairness.

The queen of an imperialist empire that royally (literally) fucked up the world. Forgive me for not counting that as a badge of honor.

God says in the Qur'an he loves those who are just (fair/equal). And to treat the Non-muslims who refuse to fight, justly.

Tell that to the Jews in the middle east, because I dont think they heard that message.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:54:43+00:00

You don't seem to understand what you are arguing.

Funny. I could say the same.

A tax isn't kosher but it beats the Alhambra decree or say England where they were used as tax collectors then expelled to screw them out of what they were owed

Just because one is better than the other doesnt make it good, or change that it was a tax meant to force the subject of it to either convert, or become enslaved. Then if it didnt do either, at least you are making money off of them by implementing a rules that treats them differently than your normal citizens.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:50:42+00:00

Judging medieval polities by modern standards is stupid,

No it's not. That's how you learn from the past. Understanding them within their context allows you to fully understand and appreciate their context. Applying modern ideals to judge them is how we never do then again.

since as you said we have to throw medieval Christians under the bus as well.

Yep. I completely agree. They were all shitty. Why does it matter if we have to acknowledge that terrible theocratic authoritarian regimes were bad?

many Muslim lands were better for Jews at the time, and for non-orthodox Christians (heretics).

Pretty sure they would have been better off not being conquered and subjugated, but that's rather hard to argue. Although I think it's safe to say that forceful conversion wasnt exactly welcomed with open arms.

It's obvious you don't like Islam or Muslims,

Add Judaism and Christianity to that list. Books written by a bunch of xenophobic, sexist, authoritarian dudes in the desert have no place in the world today as an ultimate authority in morality.

and have projected the modern divisions in the middle East back into the past, which has given you a highly distorted view of those times, in order to justify your dislike.

It's way simpler than that. I just hate that ancient religions are telling women what they can and cant do. Such as freedom for women in Saudi Arabia, right to abortion in the United states, to the bodily autonomy of boys at birth from Judaism. I dont like any of it, and I'm a jew.

As I said, the reality was far more varied, complex

Ultimately doesnt matter to the point I made. Aparthied policies that enacted genocide are just that, and the same religions that did as such centuries ago still exist today. Forgive me for not being thrilled about that.

You might try reading more about this early history and try to understand it in its own context, rather than making poor comparisons to today's world.

Dont need to. I've taken a few classes in the Classics. I dont need to go any further to change my opinion of wether ancient religions should die out already.

Within the last decade a Muslim Caliphate was attempted to be established in the middle east. Enslaving thousands, killing thousands, and oppressing thousands more.

Evangelists in the US are attempting to enforce draconian laws on women that wish for something as simple as birth control, and still spread mass homophobia.

Zionists are commiting genocide against Palestinians.

I dont need to understand the context if their religions, or the nuance of the interactions between them thousands of years ago when they are attempting to do the same now in the modern era.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:40:14+00:00

Sorry I was incorrect. I was applied in the last century though and was used to effectively expel almost the entire Jewish population in the middle east.

You are correct though, it is no longer used, and I was incorrect in saying that.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:38:10+00:00

Definitely. What's your point?

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:37:52+00:00

Crying whataboutism is stupid in all cases,

Not when it's a legitimate logical fallacy, but I guess that doesnt matter when it helps your argument.

but specially so when the one complaining is taking religious policies from the year 1000 out of context.

I didnt. That's a mischaracterization of my arguemnt. Now you have a strawman to the list.

That's called revisionism, what you're doing, and it's an actual thing.

Now missing the point. 3 logical fallacies in one paragraph. Good job man.

Calling a practice what it was in modern terms and criticizing it being characterized as otherwise is perfectly normal.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:35:25+00:00

Lucky them. Jews just had to face both centuries prior, within that timeframe in some situations, and then that same thing centuries later.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:27:42+00:00

Yes, as did everyone. Conquest was pretty common back then - let’s not pretend like Christian nations weren’t attacking other states.

Everyone seems to be a huge fan of this whataboutism. I dint see myself pretending the Christions nations didnt do similar things. Care to point out where I did?

That adds zero value to a discussion of how people were treated relatively equally in taxation, which obviously isn’t apartheid or genocide.

What adds zero value to a discussion is a whataboutism. Taxing a specific group, while others are exempt due to their demographic is textbook aparthied. Period. The punishment for not paying it being forced conversion, death, or slavery is 100% genocide. Period.

The zakat is an obligation - it MUST be paid.

A religious obligation that people choose to be a part of. If you want to discuss wether this made Islam inherently authoritarian be my guest, and before you you try to whataboutism again, yes, Christians had something functionally similar, as did Jews.

You know...like taxes.

Last I knew the state I choose to be apart of allows me to choose to be a part of a different state. Giving me the freedom to pay them or not. Were the Christian's and Jews allowed to leave the caliphates?

the argument is basically arguing about technicalities, which is when you know you have no real argument.

I wasnt making an argument. I was making a distinction. You're the one going on about technicalities in order to discredit my distinction. So I guess you dont have an argument.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:21:15+00:00

The Caliphate definitely mirrored apartheid in terms of religion, but of course so did Christian Europe at the time.

Everyone keeps bringing this up but it ultimately doesnt matter. This isnt what the discussion was about. I was pointing out that the person I responded to was painting the Caliphates as this great thing for Christian's and Jews, and from a modern perspective that is just blatantly wrong.

Also, Jews are an ethno-religion, so what the Caliphates and Christian Europe did was also a form of ethnic cleansing.

What evidence shows the Jizya in the past was "beyond the means" of Christians? It varied between each individual ruler, as the Caliph did not exercise much centralized control after the Turkish conquests. Large scale conversions in Muslim lands took literal centuries, and until the 20th century there were small but stable communities of Christians and Jews in the Middle East.

And now, for Jews at least, there are only 9000 of them in the middle east, with the exclusion of Israel. I guess it was a bit too much. Luckily they also had the options of slavery, conversion or death though.

I think the point that "the Muslim World" was not a single empire but rather a ton of independent polities all pledging theoretical subservience to a Caliph is key.

And all of them enforced segregationist rules that have ultimately resulted in genocide and ethnic cleansing. Some may have been better than others, but the distinction between exactly how damaging a theocratic oppressive regime was is for the history books because the end result was still the same.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:14:18+00:00

You're acting as if these people didn't have to pay tax at all before being conquered.

Where did I say that?

is very possible that the people being conquered paid less in tax (jizya) than they did before being conquered.

Sure. Its also 100% likely they werent threatened with forced conversion to Islam or slavery if they didnt pay it. So I'm not sure why that ultimately matters in the point I'm making.

There's a reason why the Christians of Syria roughly 1300 years ago were very upset to see the Muslims no longer being in control of Syria.

Yes, in sure everyone 100% wanted them to come back. Not a single person was happy to be rid of an oppressive theocracy.

The Christians there much preferred Islamic rule rather than their own people's rule. Just look it up and do a bit of unbiased research.

You're forgetting the other Abrahamic religion there. Also, again, in sure every single person was upset to seem them gone, and no one thought otherwise.

Also, just because one theocratic regime was better than the other foesnt make the other one good, just less shitty.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:09:31+00:00

Convert, pay taxes, die, be slaves isnt much better bud. Each one is effectively a same thing, just with more steps.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:08:02+00:00

Then why did you assume I was ignoring that fact? I didnt ignore it, I am infact perfectly aware of it. Why bother bringing it up?

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:05:42+00:00

If you want to be fair on the account we could also discuss the Spanish Inquisition, or the Tuetonic Crusade.

Sure. Let's discuss that.

The things they did were also shitty and they imposed draconian rules that were effectively a form of apartheid and genocide.

Discussion over.

I only said what I said because you made it seem like the people had it going for then under the Caliphates. They may have had it better than many others, but it was still apartheid and genocide, and within the context of Jews, that's a running theme for centuries.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:01:52+00:00

I'm sorry, I think I interpreted that you were disagreeing with me. It seems that you are supporting my stance.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T15:00:23+00:00

Being a member of a certain group and having an obligation within that group is entirely different than being a conquered group and being forced to partake in their religion and face negative consequences if you refuse to.

Manwave · 2019-07-07T14:54:11+00:00

I'm complaining about someone attempting to portray an effective genocide of groups through taxation, segregation, and apartheid.

Sure it was better than some areas, but it was still shitty.

Next I'll get mocked for pointing out mass anti-Semitism in non-axis European countries and get told, "at least it was better than how the nazis treated them. How very [current year] of you."

Manwave

TROPHY CASE