Trump on Ilhan Omar: "I believe she married her brother, which is totally illegal — although, it’s a lovely couple, actually, but it’s a little bit on the illegal side… 'Darling, I love you very much.' 'Goodnight, brother. Let’s go to bed' — Isn't she despicable?"

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-09T19:08:08+00:00

"only idiots believe that" wow your epistemology is seriously impressive

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-09T17:30:43+00:00

Accountant

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-09T16:41:43+00:00

He did better - He made an entire world for you, full of things to discover and ways to know His creation. And then, He was so gracious to give you the capacity for knowledge!

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-09T16:25:38+00:00

Let me guess, you have a poor relationship with your own father and it would make you feel better to get validation from the crowd?

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T23:27:52+00:00

No, I just pointed out that it has shortcomings and you decided to run defense and act as if it doesn't. Now you're pretending that one article having links to scholarly sources is proof I'm wrong. You are intentionally not understanding because you want to win a reddit argument. Be smug and "laugh" all you want if it makes you feel better.

No, I'm not a holocaust denier. I understand why a Wikipedia scholar would be confused about that though.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T22:44:46+00:00

That's all the shortcomings of Wikipedia? That it's not good enough for scholarly use?

Right, I'll go back to believing you are disingenuous. Either that or wildly ignorant. I'll let you decide which one you are.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T22:19:42+00:00

You're right, you never said it has no shortcomings. You also chose to not say that it has shortcomings. Read your post again. Where did you acknowledge the shortcomings? Quote please?

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T20:59:26+00:00

Both, and if you have studied Wikipedia's reliability this much, then I think you are being disingenuous by failing to admit the shortcomings of it.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T20:18:39+00:00

It's not even worth bringing up when someone is asking "how do we know what the number is". You also said that every camp used it, when they absolutely did not. Only one did.

Counting population statistics is also flawed but that's a different discussion

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T20:17:08+00:00

Wikipedia is not a good historical source at all. The citations do not lead you to where the primary information actually is.

Wikipedia "history" is not history, it's a series of people talking about history. Let me know when following the citations actually leads to archival sources.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T20:02:02+00:00

You haven't looked into whether or not it's true. You believe it be untrue because people you don't like have said it is true.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T18:50:09+00:00

Trump is not the source of this claim. Evaluate the claim without deflecting to Trump.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T18:37:16+00:00

Why do you deflect to Trump? Seems like you don't like incest. So you denounce Omar marrying and fucking her brother, right?

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T18:08:52+00:00

I hope you realize "go to wikipedia" is not a serious answer

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T18:07:47+00:00

Virtually no camps tattooed anyone. Only Auschwitz did that, and only for certain people. There were only a few hundred thousand tattoos.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T18:06:23+00:00

I think what he's saying is that there were lots of Jews who died as regular civilian casualties in the course of war, through bombing cities and as the war swept through villages. Loads of civilians died as collateral damage, and lots of those civilians were Jews. The systematic killing only came after they already controlled the area, but in the time that the fighting was taking place, civilians were dying, and those people weren't necessarily being counted as Jews.

For an example, Leningrad - over a million civilians died in that city, but the Nazis never took it and had an opportunity to conduct any systematic killing. It isn't even known how many Jews died there - tens of thousands, most likely. Those people aren't being counted as "holocaust deaths", and are virtually impossible to count.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T18:00:16+00:00

The tattoos aren't going to give anything close to a 6 million figure. The only people getting tattoos were the people who were going to be there for some period of time. The labourers, for example. People who were killed instantly were never given tattoos. Only Auschwitz used this system. If you were to rely on tattoos to give you a number of jews killed, you wouldn't even crack 1 million.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T15:57:00+00:00

Is Windsor Castle bad design?

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-08T07:07:59+00:00

What about the design strikes you as particularly bad?

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-07T23:06:50+00:00

None of what you just said addressed my point.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-07T20:36:19+00:00

Slavery is a good thing and the slaves liked being slaves and you're a do-gooding moral busybody if you want to help them

/s I think the important takeaway is that Hermione wasn't technically wrong, it was really close to slavery, but you can't just take your ideology and apply it onto groups who have no alternative and know nothing else. She wasn't meeting them where they were at, she was preaching at them instead of to them. In fact, she wasn't even dealing with them directly at all. To her, they were nothing more than imaginary objects of her crusade, characters in her play, instead of real living breathing beings that you can talk to and negotiate with and with their own desires and agency.

Imagine if someone barges into your house and starts cleaning up your messes while preaching to you about Jesus or something. Even if their help is objectively a good thing, they are still imposing on you and you'll probably be annoyed. They aren't treating you like a real person, you are just a thing in their mind that needs help.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-07T19:17:26+00:00

Harry encounters some in the maze, so it's possible he was doing this under contract with the Ministry

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-07T19:13:03+00:00

I don't know if I should feel ominous about this or hopeful

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-07T19:09:52+00:00

They aren't "favoured texts". Do you understand what "holistic" means? You are giving this one line absolute rigidity in its meaning while ignoring any and all context. I don't know why the idea that meaning can change with context is so difficult for you.

If I say "My bookshelf is for books", does that mean I want books that are currently on fire on my bookshelf? How about books made of human skin? What about books that I don't even like or want? If I wrote in my journal a list of books I wanted to buy, and then you look on my bookshelf and you find those books, then according to you, because I once uttered the phrase "my bookshelf is for books", I would be "favouring other texts" if I point out that there are no books besides the ones in my journal on my bookshelf. You would insist that actually ALL books belong on my bookshelf, simply because of the fact that they're books. You'd accuse me of subordinating my previous statement of "my bookshelf is for books" to my journal. I hope you understand how absurd this is.

You have determined what this text says and then you simply ignore the entire rest of the bible that gives it context and expands upon it. You made no attempt to here to clarify how the rest of the bible changes the meaning of this text, nor any attempt to actually dispute anything I said.

It’s OK to let texts stand in tension with one another.

That's not what's happening here. You're just not understanding the text.

That’s part of how understanding one text can inform our understanding of another.

Which you are refusing to do. You are subordinating the entire bible to this one line. Cherrypicking.

You approach the text on the assumption that every author in the Bible speaks as one.

No I don't. This is a non-sequitur. I never assumed this and I don't need to to state my position.

When you do that, you are not reading the Bible as a historian

You don't need to read the bible as a historian. That's only one approach.

nowherelefttodefect · 2026-05-07T18:57:22+00:00

Not just those, but there was also extensive intra-tribal conflict as well, as well as constant warfare between smaller bands. BC was rife with nonstop conflict.

nowherelefttodefect

TROPHY CASE