Carthago Delenda Est - Is 2000 years too soon to peanut?

[Not-Dorsidarf]

viewtopic.php?p=707805#p707805

Least insane politics-containment argument.

[conrad]

Polcon is like a flytrap ong

[Gwyn]

Have to say Dorsi's peanut thread titles are always on-point bangers.

[GPeckman]

I'm of the opinion that an admin should never take administrative action over a situation they themselves were involved in. Get another, uninvolved admin to look things over.

[TheRex9001]

I'm of the opinion that an admin should never take administrative action over a situation they themselves were involved in. Get another, uninvolved admin to look things over.

Didn't they say that they did just that in the ban appeal, I feel like you should still take admin action BUT you should 100% ask for second opinions first

[BONERMASTER]

"'Attempted to morally relativize the genociding of children'"

I had a great laugh upon reading this. Thank you for this thread!


With relative regards
-BONERMASTER

[Vekter]

I'm of the opinion that an admin should never take administrative action over a situation they themselves were involved in. Get another, uninvolved admin to look things over.

That rule generally applies to situations where the admin in question took an action based on someone insulting them. Admins are absolutely allowed to handle issues of bigotry when they crop up, even if they come about from a conversation they're involved in.

Also Intern John has always been kind of an asshole when I've interacted with them. Very quick to anger over even small things. I don't think he's a good fit for our community.

[bastardblaster]

free him he wrote too many words for them to be wasted

[TheLoLSwat]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THEY GOT INTERN JOHN/CENTURION

[jimmyl]

Also Intern John has always been kind of an asshole when I've interacted with them. Very quick to anger over even small things. I don't think he's a good fit for our community.

projecting fr

[InternJohn]

Polcon is like a flytrap ong

Probably should never have one in game discords, this is the first one I've participated in for a long time and I feel like it's just an 'us vs them' circle jerk even just as a spectator. I mostly just look there for the memes, but I'm in a discord that is pretty well informed on the conflicts so I figured I'd occasionally post updates.

I just got lost in history because I'm autistic about it and love talking about it. I do the same about music, and it's a bad habit I have.

[GPeckman]

I'm of the opinion that an admin should never take administrative action over a situation they themselves were involved in. Get another, uninvolved admin to look things over.

That rule generally applies to situations where the admin in question took an action based on someone insulting them. Admins are absolutely allowed to handle issues of bigotry when they crop up, even if they come about from a conversation they're involved in.

Also Intern John has always been kind of an asshole when I've interacted with them. Very quick to anger over even small things. I don't think he's a good fit for our community.

I'm aware that it's not outright against the rules, or it probably would've been brought up in the appeal by now. I still think that it's bad optics. If an admin gets into an argument with someone, then bags that person because of things said during the argument, then it'll always look at least a little sketchy.

Edit: Also, I don't think you're in a great position to call other people assholes over things said on discord. I recall you got involved in a disagreement over a recent PR and accused me of throwing fit because I criticized said PR.

[LEDDDriver]

Massive Gwyn L, what the hell?

[conrad]

I'm aware that it's not outright against the rules, or it probably would've been brought up in the appeal by now. I still think that it's bad optics. If an admin gets into an argument with someone, then bags that person because of things said during the argument, then it'll always look at least a little sketchy.

They checked with other discord jannies before pulling the trigger. It's a problem if you don't do due diligence.

[TheRex9001]

This is why you don't do polcon kids

[dendydoom]

the dude in the appeal can perhaps find some enjoyment in his historical studies by looking into how historiography works.

the idea of an objective study of history was popularized by leopold von ranke in the 1800s. he had a famous saying: "as it actually was." the current consensus of historians is to mock this saying because it's completely flawed. modern historians recognize that complete objectivity in historical writing is unattainable, given that historians always bring their own perspectives, biases, and interpretations to the sources they work with. to further elaborate:

firstly, history is inherently interpretive. the act of choosing which events and the primary sources that detail those events creates a narrative and subsequently a bias. even if we attempt total neutrality, our own interpretation of primary sources through the lens of social, cultural, political and personal contexts will influence the interpretation.

secondly, in the 1900s postmodernist historians challenged the idea of an objective historical truth. primary sources require interpretation and discussion. all historical accounts are subjective interpretation. there is no singular, objective history.

thirdly, historiography is heavily compelled by moral and ethical dimensions. events involving human rights abuses, genocides etc, are studied with due attention to the moral and ethical complications because to do otherwise is to ignore an important and vital facet of its interpretation that leaves it incomplete. historians understand that time is linear (hopefully) and that things that happened closer to the current day are likely more relevant and relatable to our worldview than things that happened in classical antiquity.

for example, there is mention of the destruction of carthage at the end of the third punic war in 146bc. how do we know what the romans at the time thought of its destruction and the enslavement of its inhabitants? guess what: we have no idea. the primary sources of the events were written by roman elites who expressed views that represented the interests of their class or the official stance, since they would probably have been interested in serving a civic duty.

but using our big brains we can **interpret** these sources to try and find a conclusion. this conclusion is an **interpretation** which holds bias and subjectivity.

cato the elder declared at the senate: "i consider that carthage must be destroyed." his words were recorded by a scribe. from this we can **interpret** that the official stance of rome was that they were fine with destroying carthage since it posed a threat to them. but considering the purpose and motivation for cato's addressing the senate, we can easily realize that this does not account for the personal opinion or feeling of the average roman citizen over the destruction and enslavement of carthage. we can find further evidence of this sort of cultural mindset in literary works of the time through something like the very famous "punica" by roman poet silius italicus. while rome at the time saw carthage as its enemy, punica shows reverence and respect for their combat prowess, and even shows a certain somberness for hannibal, who is shown as deeply committed to his cause and earning the favour of his gods, similarly to the roman's own cultural ideals. is this mournful? is this regretful? i don't know. it's up to your **interpretation** of the source.

we can also consider something like the accounts of polybius, a greek who lived in rome and was close to the scipio family. this access to scipio's accounts and documents allowed him to write his book "histories" which documented the punic wars. directly quoting the text for this one:

"And so was fulfilled the vow that the younger Scipio is said to have made at the time that he left Rome to take command of the expedition. For when, in answer to the customary summons to the gods to favour the undertaking, he had thrown a blazing torch into the sacrifice, he prayed that, if the enterprise were for the good of Rome, Carthage might thus be consumed by the fire."

we can **interpret** this reference to scipio's vow which adds a tone of fate or destiny, which often features in polybius' writings: the belief that certain events were set in motion by earlier choices and were thus inevitable. however, it's worth noting that while polybius describes these events with a sense of tragedy, he doesn't engage in extensive moral reflection or critique the roman actions outright, because the purpose of "histories" was not set out to reflect on ethical concerns or to condemn rome, given his closeness to the scipio family and alignment with rome's interests. the sources used to write "histories" was also taken from polybius's access to scipio's documents and firsthand accounts: a roman bias.

the only source i can provide which seeks to give a detached perspective is from the first AD, where seneca the younger writes in a letter (letter 91 to be precise) to lucilius. they are talking about the topic of mercy, and seneca reflects on the suffering that the carthaginians must have experienced:

"But," you say, "those wars were both righteous and necessary." Yes, as righteous as wars waged by human beings ever can be, but what is necessary is not desirable. We did indeed need to bind the human race under our laws, and this could not be accomplished without war; but even in cases of necessity, I am pained by the tragic events – that a Carthaginian should be led to surrender himself, and after his surrender be put to death, that he should be led to believe that his wife and children would be spared, and after he believed it, should see them slain before his very eyes, that he should be offered terms of surrender and after accepting them, be thrown into chains. I cannot see why that hero, who in the agony of death called himself "The Roman Hannibal," was not granted life and not sent to his native land. For we should have conquered with a noble and merciful spirit those very persons whom we could not have defeated by war."

and also in seneca's "consolation to helvia":

"How many funerals has the ambition of the Roman people celebrated, how many countries has it laid low to the ground, how many cities (among which was even Carthage) has it effaced from the face of the earth?"

here, in private discussion written for no reason other than to have a conversation, serving no political or cultural agenda, we find evidence of regret and mourning the tragedy of the destruction of carthage.

so, in conclusion, even considering all of this, the answer is still "we don't know." we can only recognize the sources available which paint an incomplete picture when you account for the purposes and contexts of the available primary sources and at best make an educated guess. welcome to history.

historians seek to manage bias and personal narratives but it is inevitable to some degree in any interpretation or account of a source. even if you are directly studying a primary source, or more likely an account of a monograph of a hagiography of some dude who probably didn't exist.

source: i am a historian with too much time on my hands and i dont know why i got so into writing this response i don't actually care all that much i just like to write a lot about old shit and this is the only way i can get people to listen to me

[dendydoom]

you don't have to read all of that if you don't want to i kind of went into a fugue state and blacked out

[Timberpoes]

Lol

[InternJohn]

the dude in the appeal can perhaps find some enjoyment in his historical studies by looking into how historiography works.

the idea of an objective study of history was popularized by leopold von ranke in the 1800s. he had a famous saying: "as it actually was." the current consensus of historians is to mock this saying because it's completely flawed. modern historians recognize that complete objectivity in historical writing is unattainable, given that historians always bring their own perspectives, biases, and interpretations to the sources they work with. to further elaborate:

firstly, history is inherently interpretive. the act of choosing which events and the primary sources that detail those events creates a narrative and subsequently a bias. even if we attempt total neutrality, our own interpretation of primary sources through the lens of social, cultural, political and personal contexts will influence the interpretation.

secondly, in the 1900s postmodernist historians challenged the idea of an objective historical truth. primary sources require interpretation and discussion. all historical accounts are subjective interpretation. there is no singular, objective history.

thirdly, historiography is heavily compelled by moral and ethical dimensions. events involving human rights abuses, genocides etc, are studied with due attention to the moral and ethical complications because to do otherwise is to ignore an important and vital facet of its interpretation that leaves it incomplete. historians understand that time is linear (hopefully) and that things that happened closer to the current day are likely more relevant and relatable to our worldview than things that happened in classical antiquity.

for example, there is mention of the destruction of carthage at the end of the third punic war in 146bc. how do we know what the romans at the time thought of its destruction and the enslavement of its inhabitants? guess what: we have no idea. the primary sources of the events were written by roman elites who expressed views that represented the interests of their class or the official stance, since they would probably have been interested in serving a civic duty.

but using our big brains we can **interpret** these sources to try and find a conclusion. this conclusion is an **interpretation** which holds bias and subjectivity.

cato the elder declared at the senate: "i consider that carthage must be destroyed." his words were recorded by a scribe. from this we can **interpret** that the official stance of rome was that they were fine with destroying carthage since it posed a threat to them. but considering the purpose and motivation for cato's addressing the senate, we can easily realize that this does not account for the personal opinion or feeling of the average roman citizen over the destruction and enslavement of carthage. we can find further evidence of this sort of cultural mindset in literary works of the time through something like the very famous "punica" by roman poet silius italicus. while rome at the time saw carthage as its enemy, punica shows reverence and respect for their combat prowess, and even shows a certain somberness for hannibal, who is shown as deeply committed to his cause and earning the favour of his gods, similarly to the roman's own cultural ideals. is this mournful? is this regretful? i don't know. it's up to your **interpretation** of the source.

we can also consider something like the accounts of polybius, a greek who lived in rome and was close to the scipio family. this access to scipio's accounts and documents allowed him to write his book "histories" which documented the punic wars. directly quoting the text for this one:

"And so was fulfilled the vow that the younger Scipio is said to have made at the time that he left Rome to take command of the expedition. For when, in answer to the customary summons to the gods to favour the undertaking, he had thrown a blazing torch into the sacrifice, he prayed that, if the enterprise were for the good of Rome, Carthage might thus be consumed by the fire."

we can **interpret** this reference to scipio's vow which adds a tone of fate or destiny, which often features in polybius' writings: the belief that certain events were set in motion by earlier choices and were thus inevitable. however, it's worth noting that while polybius describes these events with a sense of tragedy, he doesn't engage in extensive moral reflection or critique the roman actions outright, because the purpose of "histories" was not set out to reflect on ethical concerns or to condemn rome, given his closeness to the scipio family and alignment with rome's interests. the sources used to write "histories" was also taken from polybius's access to scipio's documents and firsthand accounts: a roman bias.

the only source i can provide which seeks to give a detached perspective is from the first AD, where seneca the younger writes in a letter (letter 91 to be precise) to lucilius. they are talking about the topic of mercy, and seneca reflects on the suffering that the carthaginians must have experienced:

"But," you say, "those wars were both righteous and necessary." Yes, as righteous as wars waged by human beings ever can be, but what is necessary is not desirable. We did indeed need to bind the human race under our laws, and this could not be accomplished without war; but even in cases of necessity, I am pained by the tragic events – that a Carthaginian should be led to surrender himself, and after his surrender be put to death, that he should be led to believe that his wife and children would be spared, and after he believed it, should see them slain before his very eyes, that he should be offered terms of surrender and after accepting them, be thrown into chains. I cannot see why that hero, who in the agony of death called himself "The Roman Hannibal," was not granted life and not sent to his native land. For we should have conquered with a noble and merciful spirit those very persons whom we could not have defeated by war."

here, in private discussion written for no reason other than to have a conversation, serving no political or cultural agenda, we find evidence of regret and mourning the tragedy of the destruction of carthage.

so, in conclusion, even considering all of this, the answer is still "we don't know." we can only recognize the sources available which paint an incomplete picture when you account for the purposes and contexts of the available primary sources and at best make an educated guess. welcome to history.

historians seek to manage bias and personal narratives but it is inevitable to some degree in any interpretation or account of a source. even if you are directly studying a primary source, or more likely an account of a monograph of a hagiography of some dude who probably didn't exist.

source: i am a historian with too much time on my hands and i dont know why i got so into writing this response i don't actually care all that much i just like to write a lot about old shit and this is the only way i can get people to listen to me

It is interpretive and I remind myself to try and not make absolutes when referring to historical events. For example we can reasonably confirm most of what Gaius Julius Caesar mentions in his commentaries through archaeological evidence in places that he references, and through the scrutiny of other witnesses/opposition during the time (As if he just straight up lied you can be sure there would be a great outrage by his enemies). But even so, it is not all entirely certain, so it must be taken with a grain of salt.

When I do, however, make absolutes it is usually in confidence that I am aware of a precedent which has been set historically, as I have not encountered any other alternative. That said, it's still likely a mistake. I have positive biases towards civilizations I study, and I often tend to have to correct myself to avoid sounding arrogant. The other day I spoke of the Slavic regions as having no real notable history prior to the Migration period and Steppe tribes asserting power in said regions, however I was corrected by someone who lives there who had informed me of a relatively rich tapestry of ancient history that I was unaware of, and could find almost no sources on, as it was almost exclusively in his language.

I found this similar issue when attempting to find sources for things on the Japanese net, not being able to speak Japanese, it is shocking how much more information there is on the Japanese side of the web that is simply **not** accessible due to not being translated.

The Romans were most assuredly not a homogenous people, and they were incredibly similar to our culture in behavior. Some surely supported it, some surely did not. Though the ruling class effectively made it so they had no say in the matter, such as their power in so far as even banning public displays of mourning after the battle of Cannae.

I do not know if it was mournful or not, it is hard to say and I don't think it my place to make that assumption. I do know that the Romans had a very large propaganda campaign against Carthage after its destruction, and they had demonized them afterwards, such as with the accusation of child sacrifice. Though it is unknown if it is propaganda or reality, I can say that Romans tended to exaggerate negatives about their enemies quite often, as we all do.

"But," you say, "those wars were both righteous and necessary." Yes, as righteous as wars waged by human beings ever can be, but what is necessary is not desirable. We did indeed need to bind the human race under our laws, and this could not be accomplished without war; but even in cases of necessity, I am pained by the tragic events – that a Carthaginian should be led to surrender himself, and after his surrender be put to death, that he should be led to believe that his wife and children would be spared, and after he believed it, should see them slain before his very eyes, that he should be offered terms of surrender and after accepting them, be thrown into chains. I cannot see why that hero, who in the agony of death called himself "The Roman Hannibal," was not granted life and not sent to his native land. For we should have conquered with a noble and merciful spirit those very persons whom we could not have defeated by war."

It indeed rings of lamentable regret, in that a foe of worth and honor is betrayed in word and action. "What is necessary is not desirable". No one, not even the Romans, ever truly wants war.

thirdly, historiography is heavily compelled by moral and ethical dimensions. events involving human rights abuses, genocides etc, are studied with due attention to the moral and ethical complications because to do otherwise is to ignore an important and vital facet of its interpretation that leaves it incomplete. historians understand that time is linear (hopefully) and that things that happened closer to the current day are likely more relevant and relatable to our worldview than things that happened in classical antiquity.

Yes, I agree that it is extremely important to understand the mindset and ethics of the era, but in order to do so one must also depart from the modern bias of our own world. Greeks practiced pederasty, and for Spartans it was virtually mandatory. How can we, then, examine this society in depth while condemning them all the same? I have always believed that you must view history from a neutral perspective and understand **why** they had felt and thought as they did, otherwise you are merely perpetuating a form of incredible arrogance to deign to judge people with no basis besides your own personal ideologies. A murderer was still a murderer, and thus despicable even in his own time frame, but then what of the slaver? It was accepted at the time, so are we to immediately assume that all slavers were by default morally reprehensible? I choose to try and be as impartial as I can, and put aside my biases if at all possible. To enter into a study with preconceived notions, to quote one of my favorite books, "Invariably leads to creating facts to suit theories, rather than theories to suit facts."

Perhaps that is a mistake, I could not say.

[dendydoom]

glad to see your response dude, i think it's great that you have an interest in history and i think you should continue to pursue it, you clearly have a passion for it. there are much better places to get into it than in polcon discord channels!

[Timberpoes]

Polcan is too chan adjacent. It's containment for a reason. MSO insists we must have politics in the community, and as a result we have the troll farm and lolcow factory that is polcon shared with the gaming portion of the Discord as a whole.

[Kendrickorium]

you don't have to read all of that if you don't want to i kind of went into a fugue state and blacked out

thanks, i got 3 or 4 sentences in and started sweating

[Kendrickorium]

my god that appeal hurts my fucking brain

isnt gwen the one that constantly spams gay animals?

[Kendrickorium]

viewtopic.php?p=707805#p707805

Least insane politics-containment argument.

oh, 10/10 thread name.

[Wolfmoy]

What polcon does to a mfer

[Pepper]

seth is going to have to double up on the backbreaking labor in the salt mines now, wtf

[TypicalRig]

lady giving a backstory to her youtube cooking video

dendy please stop doing this

[cSeal]

Another polconite dead.... my power waxes.....

[kieth4]

Haha I'm not a headmin so I do not need to read this

[Gwyn]

my god that appeal hurts my fucking brain

isnt gwen the one that constantly spams gay animals?

No that's the other Gwen

[BlueMemesauce]

Actually, the Discord Terms of Service don't mention anything about genocide. I think they're referring to the Discord Community Guidelines, which state "Do not organize, promote, or support violent extremism. This also includes glorifying violent events or the perpetrators of violent acts, as well as promoting conspiracy theories that could encourage or incite violence against others."

[TheRex9001]

Why does game activity correlate to someone being a discord jannie

What reason does someone have to loiter around in the community if they don't actively participate in it

They deal with discord shit from the sound of it

[Redrover1760]

I really feel bad for Intern John, as he sort of reminds me of myself. You can obviously tell he loves history, and perhaps his understanding of the tragedy through a historical and comparative lens to Roman History is a sort of coping mechanism, to try and understand the current events by comparing to long past events, that brutality happened so much back then. The amount of genocides or attempted genocides in history is too many.

However, people who are more worried about coping about the tragedy in other ways see it in a more... Not historial perspective. Focused on the thing that actually happened, instead of historical objectivism and that countries act selfishly and to extremes to protect their own interests. The two clashed, communication failed entirely because Gwyn did not understand John's analytical viewpoint and assumed he was somehow promoting violence instead of just saying "Genocides and Slaughters happen quite a lot in history, and, if you look at it from, not my moral viewpoint, but a extremely utilitarianist viewpoint countries have benefited from the suffering and devestation of others." And instead, Gwyn reacts with a loaded question about morals unrelated to what John is trying to say instead of simlpy asking for clarification of what John actually thinks about the event under the assumption John is a bad actor. John's failure to read the room to not perform historical analysis on a tragedy 1-2 days after it just started in polcon of all places wasnt very smart either, however, but from the thread I dont see any actual support of genocides or terrorism so like...

Unban John please? He's not a bad person, really, and struggling with common sense in regards to sensitive topics is not exactly a valid ban reason.

As bad as today is, it was worse before, at least in terms of raw relative body count.

Also, I get the sense that Intern John was uncomfortable with the topic and questions, and didn't want to discuss them, which was then taken by guilt when he refused to answer the questions given to him.



He did not want to talk about ethics or morals in polcon, but the conversation was forced upon him in his historical analysis, and his continued ignoring of the questions was not a sign of guilt but rather a refusal to speak of this. In addition, instead of a request by an admin to stop speaking about the current topic, instead Gwyn resorts straight to banning him entirely over refusing to answer a question about morality. Just because you ask someone "Do you think murdering an entire ethnicity of children is moral or not?" And they refuse to address your Yes/No question (Which is a logical fallacy in debate, as it assumes the choices stated by the author are the only ones that exist, or generally constrains the scope of discussion to force a point.), that does not mean they do agree with such a thing. It probably seemed like that in the moment, but the entire time Intern John has iterated that he did not want to debate the morality of the situation, so it makes sense he ignores the question entirely.

For my last point, it is not binary either. The Palestine-Israeli conflict is incredibly nuanced like every war in history, ever. There often isn't a right side. Often, there are sides that are "less evil or more right than others." Was it good that the Conquistadors conquered the Aztecs regularly committing human sacrifice? Its a loaded question, as you can't really answer it from an objective position from how I asked it.

Edit:

Ban reason was indeed for avoiding answering a question when he was trying to talk about other things.

[Timonk]

holy shit
medicated sinful post

[Timonk]

wheres the bingo board

[Turbonerd]

Actually, the Discord Terms of Service don't mention anything about genocide. I think they're referring to the Discord Community Guidelines, which state "Do not organize, promote, or support violent extremism. This also includes glorifying violent events or the perpetrators of violent acts, as well as promoting conspiracy theories that could encourage or incite violence against others."

Pretty shre breaking community guidelines also breaks ToS, so it doesn't mayyer.

[dendydoom]

thirdly, historiography is heavily compelled by moral and ethical dimensions. events involving human rights abuses, genocides etc, are studied with due attention to the moral and ethical complications because to do otherwise is to ignore an important and vital facet of its interpretation that leaves it incomplete. historians understand that time is linear (hopefully) and that things that happened closer to the current day are likely more relevant and relatable to our worldview than things that happened in classical antiquity.

Yes, I agree that it is extremely important to understand the mindset and ethics of the era, but in order to do so one must also depart from the modern bias of our own world. Greeks practiced pederasty, and for Spartans it was virtually mandatory. How can we, then, examine this society in depth while condemning them all the same? I have always believed that you must view history from a neutral perspective and understand **why** they had felt and thought as they did, otherwise you are merely perpetuating a form of incredible arrogance to deign to judge people with no basis besides your own personal ideologies. A murderer was still a murderer, and thus despicable even in his own time frame, but then what of the slaver? It was accepted at the time, so are we to immediately assume that all slavers were by default morally reprehensible? I choose to try and be as impartial as I can, and put aside my biases if at all possible. To enter into a study with preconceived notions, to quote one of my favorite books, "Invariably leads to creating facts to suit theories, rather than theories to suit facts."

Perhaps that is a mistake, I could not say.

certainly! it is very important to recognize modern biases in our interpretations of historical sources. i absolutely agree with you.

however, without trying to seem patronizing or condescending, because i know you already know this, but slavery occurred within those periods for a myriad of reasons, and historians seek to analyze those reasons and understand them. sometimes slavery was utilized as an economic solution to the need for labour, but at times was also used for political or religious reasons to control or stop a race, culture or population from propagating.

since the implication of modern bias is a cultural one, i'll approach this with an example of the critique of slavery within a cultural context. let's consider, for the sake of argument, the society of 5th century ireland which utilized slavery when raiders would attack and enslave opposing settlements. from this we could make the observation that slavery was simply "a product of its time" because it was part of the culture of raiders.

however, let's also consider the life of st. patrick, the patron saint of ireland, who at the age of 16 was captured by irish raiders and enslaved. we can look to his writings in "confessio" to understand his thoughts on this:

I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a priest, of the settlement of Bannavem Taburniae; he had a small villa nearby where I was taken captive. I was at that time about sixteen years of age.

while not directly a condemnation of the practice of slavery, during his captivity is when he converted to christianity for comfort. after returning to britain, he sought to return to ireland as a missionary to spread the message of christianity, of which most importantly he espoused the virtues of freeing slaves and treating people with respect because of the sanctity of life. it's here he witnesses irish raiders once again enslaving people from local communities, this time newly converted christians, and in his writings to the soldiers of coroticus, he reveals the depth of his anger at having witnessed coroticus and his men, who were also christian, killing fellow christians and taking others as slaves:

They wickedly and hostilely plan out a strategy. They carry off the sheep, and then, driven by their greed, they make them slaves; and they help to scatter the members of the body of Christ as though to the most remote regions of the earth.

the sheep in this context not being literal sheep, but rather members of his "flock" in a christian sense.

he goes on:

"Others were miserably torn from their homeland: all the time they were with their captors they kept the Easter fast, and refused to take any food at all."

"That is why I grieve for you, grieve for you, my dearest ones; but again, I rejoice within myself: I have not laboured for nothing, and my journeying abroad has not been in vain."

"They live in death, allies of the Scots and the apostate Picts. Dripping with blood, they welter in the blood of innocent Christians whom I have begotten for God and confirmed in Christ!"

through st patrick we can find an interpretation that even within the framework of early medieval thought, there were individuals who recognized and spoke out against the moral and ethical implications of slavery, with st patrick himself guided by his own personal experience of enslavement and used christianity as a means to improve the lives of the irish and to condemn slavery through the lens of christian thought. while many practices of the past should be understood within their historical context, it's vital to remember that even within those contexts, there were a variety of perspectives and critiques. acknowledging these voices is not to impose modern biases on the past, but rather to recognize the diversity of thought that existed even then and helps us to build a more indepth and well-rounded interpretation of the period.

[bifur]

-snip-

I fucking love history and both of your posts here have been fascinating reads

[oranges]

discord jannies should not ban people they were just in an argument with, get another jannie to do it, especially if you went to the effort of getting them to literally check in on the ban in the first place.

[CPTANT]

Well that was a wall of text. Ultimately I don't think the ban reason:

'Attempted to morally relativize the genociding of children'

Is what was actually done. John called it pointless in most cases, an unfortunate reality and said people were deafened to the suffering of those we hate.

[Togopal]

While I am not supportive of the reason of the ban I think this man is too smart to be a part of this community and should be kept away for his own good

[kieth4]

LEARN BREVITY HOLY SHIT

[Jacquerel]

why say with two words what you could say with a much increased volume of words achieved by combining the sum of a larger variety of synonyms for the same thing alongside redundant repetition and restatement as well as unecessary addition detail which actually distracts from my initial point and also occasional ramblings about something unrelated I just happened to think of while writing? and don't forget repeating the same thing I said earlier again because I forgot that I already said it, or redundant repetition.

[Jonathan Gupta]

why say with two words what you could say with a much increased volume of words achieved by combining the sum of a larger variety of synonyms for the same thing alongside redundant repetition and restatement as well as unecessary addition detail which actually distracts from my initial point and also occasional ramblings about something unrelated I just happened to think of while writing? and don't forget repeating the same thing I said earlier again because I forgot that I already said it, or redundant repetition.

just dont

[dendydoom]

the forums aren't an academic journal i'm not editing down my stream of consciousness rambling and i'm usually stoned as shit when i come here it's the only way to find any entertainment in it

[LEDDDriver]

I side with intern john on this one.

[Timberpoes]

Unban him if only to save on disk space for the massive walls of text he's inserting into the database.

[jimmyl]

unban my man

[TheLoLSwat]

I feel like you should only be banned in polcon related conversations if you’re being overtly malicious or talking about some crazy insane shit and then not caring when asked to stop and John didn’t really come close to either

[dendydoom]

i can see where both sides sort of come from - but i'm prefacing this by saying that i genuinely thing internjohn is just another one of us weird history obsessed dipshits with no malicious ulterior motive.

but i also understand the concern from policing polcon channels. the dreaded "romeaboo" is mocked in many circles because they take a flimsy view of history and couch their intolerance within it. they don't seek to analyze and deconstruct history within its own contexts, but rather they simply make vague, sweeping references to ancient rome and the stance of its state, and co-opt its symbols, terminology and narratives in order to provide their ideologies with a veneer of historical legitimacy. they might reference the roman empire as a golden age of european supremacy, or as an example of a racially pure and powerful civilization. this usage is often historically inaccurate and just straight up disregards facts like the multicultural and diverse nature of the roman empire. to summarize: people who think history is some sort of total war video game and romanticize it to an extreme.

internjohn doesn't match any of these stereotypes if you dig a little deeper. he really does just love ancient rome.

if you want my drive-by take, it was just a false positive where someone innocent, for a split second, fell into the mold of the evil polcon stereotype around a sensitive topic.