Deme

Can you quote the part where I said that you said that? Oh don’t bother, you can’t even seem to accurately quote yourself. The comment you replied to was “…or just too close to nazi symbolism for comfort?” and your reply was “All of the above tbh.”

I just explained in length what I said and why I said it, so I’m not going to do it again. This has been entertaining enough. Have a good night.

If you want to debate semantics, I’ll say that what’s there to admit? I never made any claims about what it is you’re saying, other than that one citation of your original response. The closest was when I said that “If you wish to label all of those as nazism, only the nazis will thank you for it.”. I didn’t claim that you do, but if you do, then only the nazis will thank you for it.

What I did do was take what I perceived to be the reasoning behind your comment (this picture of people posing as vikings is too close to nazi symbolism, so the concept and aesthetics of vikings is too close to nazi symbolism, presumably due to the far-rights attempts to appropriate said aesthetics) and apply it in a wider context in an attempt to demonstrate why I have my issues with it. If the vikings are too close to nazi symbolism, then what else is? You didn’t explain your reasoning, so I had to make some assumptions based on what I see around me in the world. We have plenty of neonazis here in Finland trying to appropriate ancient symbols for themselves, and we’re having similar discussions about that here every now and then. Countries (even smaller ones) aren’t hiveminds and you will find most opinions represented within them.

If you think that symbols shouldn’t be surrendered to the nazis, then why take issue with this image where the viking aesthetic is being used outside of fascistic ideology? It only serves to diminish that association. And the fact that you do take issue with this, means that you don’t want to see symbols which you consider to be too close to nazi symbolism to be used by those who don’t wish to portray themselves as nazis, effectively surrendering the symbol to the nazis. If you want the concept and aesthetics of vikings to be surrendered to them, what other symbols do you want to surrender?

You make no efforts to clear up your stance to any of the above, so I’m still left speculating.

Your original response was “All of the above tbh.” to a list of critiques of the photoshoot. If you think that posing for a viking picture is too close to nazi symbolism, then why do you think that? I can’t see anything that would directly associate the picture with the german nazi party, or fascism in general.

The only explanation I could figure was that you think the nazi appropriation of the general aesthetic taints the whole concept of vikings with the nazi label. If my assesment is incorrect, then I do apologize. It’s just that that specific line of thinking is sadly somewhat common and is the core of a wider phenomenon of surrendering the symbols and aesthetics of many pre-christian traditions (particularly in northern Europe) to the nazis.

That one has basically no other associations in the western world and I’m not a hindu, so I don’t have a reason to. But pagan traditions, symbolism and mythology are a different matter. If you wish to label all of those as nazism, only the nazis will thank you for it.

I was talking about the symbolism associated with the viking cultures, not the way they conducted themselves when visiting neighbours. I wouldn’t want the majority of thar to be shelved off as nazism just because some germans a millenia later thought the letters and mythology looked cool and wanted them for themselves. Or should we ditch every aspect of mythology and folklore that the schizoid Himmler decided to take a fascination with?

While I think it’s just harmless fun, understand most of those criticizms. But the nazi comparisons seem sad and pathetic. Should every symbol the nazis tried to appropriate for themselves be surrendered to them? Should we give them the ability to limit what symbols the rest of us are allowed to use? I don’t think we should.

Not if you’re off to the side

They didn’t cut ties with the UN as an institution, just SecGen Guterres.

Unfortunately.

In my country the law states that in crosswalks without traffic lights, pedestrians must be given unobstructed access. I’ve considered getting steel tipped shoes and just kicking the violators with those. After all, it’s basically the same as walking swiftly. I bet the case would be even stronger with a green traffic light…

Imagine trying to use the bicycle path there…

Repeating the last word of the top caption at the start of the bottom caption used to be a common ironic trope at least in certain circles, an attempt to make the meme shittier on purpose. An elegant literary device for a more civilized age…

thank mr skeltal

I almost hope they do. I’ve got popcorn ready.

Could you give an example of a situation where metric makes less sense than imperial? I will then explain to you that it only appears to you like that, because those are the units you’ve lived your whole life using. Without that baggage, the adaptability and easy conversions make SI-units objectively superior in every situation.

Deciliters are used in cooking

Apologies, I’m not too well versed in the differences between imperial and US customary units. (I try my best to stay away from both)

*Imperial

Empiricism is a different thing entirely

Stars are dim. Earth and the Moon are bright. If you exposed the shot such that stars would be visible, the Earth and the Moon would be horrendously overexposed.

If you look at this one of the moonlit nightside of the Earth they took on the way out, you can see stars. The website has EXIF-data on the bottom with more info on the exposure.

Well, yeah. I can kick a dent into a car, but mostly I just raised crumple zones to emphasize that these are inelastic collisions we’re talking about.

And yes, the breaking distance is pretty much the only way that vehicle mass is relevant for pedestrian survival.

You are thinking of perfectly elastic collisions. That’s a fantasy and not applicable to the real world. A human body isn’t a beach ball and cars have crumple zones (although I believe pickups suck in this regard as well).

And your comparison isn’t applicable in terms of masses either. Both a sedan and a pickup are way heavier than a person.

Edit: Without getting too deep into the math, let me put it this way: The energy of the impact is equal to the energy that the car loses during that impact. The car doesn’t lose mass, so it depends instead on how much the car loses velocity. That depends on how the mass of the other object stacks up against the mass of the vehicle. Car hits something much heavier than itself? It stops and all of it’s kinetic energy is expended. Car hits something much lighter? A bug on a windshield. A human obviously isn’t quite as neglibly light as a bug and the mass of both the human and the vehicle do factor into this, but with both a sedan and a pickup truck, the speeding vehicle never expends more than a fraction of it’s kinetic energy on the impact itself. The rest of it is dealt with via breaking, and a pickup will have a harder time slowing down due to it’s kinetic energy.