Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Dwarvenhobble]

But it's not practically impossible. It's many, many, many times more likely than flying and shooting lasers. There's documented evidence of instances.

You just find it very hard to imagine, because you have a specific image of what Nordic history is like, and you're unwilling to change it in light of new information.

No there's claims about evidence that are debated because 1 male Jarl was nicknamed "The Black" and the argument is over if he had black hair or if that referred to his skin.

It's not being unwilling to change it. It's being unwilling to accept that a fictional Jarl in a fictional town represents historical accuracy lol

Oh, you can make complaints about storyline or presentation all you like, if you're consistent and it doesn't come across as grievance politics.

Sadly, you're not, and it does. Because you basically only have an issue when its a minority, and then you'll moan and gripe it into oblivion.

Ok so because I say so you're just upset and biased because you know you have no leg to stand on.

What you chose to apply highly subjective rules you get to judge as to when people can and can't do said things so I'm applying highly subjective rules and standards judged by me to make claims about you. Fair is fair. Or will you argue that only you should be allowed to do that.

Funny how you'll defend said things to the end of the earth if the character can somehow be claimed to be representation and its not people you perceive as "on your side" bringing up what you are basically admitting are perfectly valid objections

Uhrm... except cannibalism of black people did literally happen.

Citation NEEDED

Also part of the argument was it was seen as a delicacy a well. It's just pure old Tumblr level trash like the time Tumblr discovered a "Mass Slave burial site hidden on the grounds of a government building" and it turned out the person who posted it made it up and the pictured were screen captures from an episode of the show Bones.

True! But there's not a shred of evidence that he was, it's just some Twitter knob hurling insults. And you swallowed it, because if some drivel you see online fits your narrative, you'll believe it & repost it unquestioningly.

You mean other than wikipedia claiming

The book explores the homoeroticism of both literal and figurative acts of human cannibalism that occurred during slavery in the United States.

And like it or not cannibalism is seen as a fetish for some with arguably the lighter version of that being called vore

Sources are provided in the book. Reviews from well-regarded publications have noted that the book contains extensive first-hand sources.

And wikipedia notes much of it is an analysis of fictionalised stories.......

 

[Silvanus]

No there's claims about evidence that are debated because 1 male Jarl was nicknamed "The Black" and the argument is over if he had black hair or if that referred to his skin.

...This has literally nothing to do with anything.

There're instances of black Vikings. Very rare, but they're there. And so it's already a world apart from "flying and shooting lasers".

It's not being unwilling to change it. It's being unwilling to accept that a fictional Jarl in a fictional town represents historical accuracy lol

But... you're the one who's banging on about accuracy. You're the one griping about how it's not accurate. Neither I, or the showrunners, care about whether their fictional drama cleaves closely to historical fact or not.

What you chose to apply highly subjective rules you get to judge as to when people can and can't do said things so I'm applying highly subjective rules and standards judged by me to make claims about you. Fair is fair. Or will you argue that only you should be allowed to do that.

Funny how you'll defend said things to the end of the earth if the character can somehow be claimed to be representation and its not people you perceive as "on your side" bringing up what you are basically admitting are perfectly valid objections

This is such a mess of a paragraph. It's scarcely readable, I have no idea what you're going on about.

Citation NEEDED

OK, if you won't do your own research;

https://brill.com/view/journals/nwi...cle-10.1163-22134360-bja10002.xml?language=en

The Art of Being Eaten Alive

www.oxfordamerican.org

You mean other than wikipedia claiming

Uhrm yes, Wikipedia says the book looks at eroticism etc. Wikipedia didn't say he was a "homosexual sadism fetishist", stop lying. You can write about something without being a fetishist.

And wikipedia notes much of it is an analysis of fictionalised stories.......

And the rest of it isn't............

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

...This has literally nothing to do with anything.

There're instances of black Vikings. Very rare, but they're there. And so it's already a world apart from "flying and shooting lasers".

And Viking mythology tells tales of a god who can fly and wields the power of lightening in his mighty hammer. So there you go totally evidence you could have my suggestion happen too

But... you're the one who's banging on about accuracy. You're the one griping about how it's not accurate. Neither I, or the showrunners, care about whether their fictional drama cleaves closely to historical fact or not.

So why not go full fantasy mythology? Why try to jut ape the existing show Vikings?

Oh right "Because this time we'll make it diverse"

This is such a mess of a paragraph. It's scarcely readable, I have no idea what you're going on about.

Personal incredulity fallacy.

But in more basic terms, if you're going to make up bullshit to try and make claims about me I'll make up bullshit to make claims about why you're doing it, unless of course you'd like to admit I'm right on the money and you don't have any actual arguments that don't rely on basically "I don't like what you're saying so you're wrong"

OK, if you won't do your own research;

https://brill.com/view/journals/nwi...cle-10.1163-22134360-bja10002.xml?language=en

The Art of Being Eaten Alive

www.oxfordamerican.org

Did you expect me not to read it or not to call out just how little it really supports the claims.

2 instances of it happening.

1 where shipwrecked sailors who ate fellow sailors who were black

1 where a slave rebellion leaders flesh was melted to make Castor Oil.

congratulations 1 example of them eating black people in extreme circumstances and they weren't slaves
1 example of a very cruel punishment on an ex slaver and they didn't eat him but melted his flesh down to make castor oil

The 2nd of which is actually a disputed example to begin with as others have claimed he was beheaded and buried in an unmarked grave.

The 1st account isn't the full truth either as Issac Cole (no race seemingly given in records) died and was the first to be eaten by the starving crew. Lawson Thomas died next and was eaten Isaiah Sheppard was next and finally Owen Coffin who was related to the captain of the ship which in most accounts was white and finally was Barzillai Ray. So no it wasn't a case of the crew ganging up and killing and eating just 3 black men as the source suggests but they ate 3 people as said people died then killed 1 white 18 year old boy to eat then finally ate another person who died.

Basically I can probably find more accounts of desperate times on US soil seeing white communities resort to cannibalism then there is evidence of white people ever eating black people as a delicacy or slave ships killing their slaves to serve as food.

Uhrm yes, Wikipedia says the book looks at eroticism etc. Wikipedia didn't say he was a "homosexual sadism fetishist", stop lying. You can write about something without being a fetishist.

I mean that's probably the nicer interpretation of said work rather than making up bullshit whole cloth to serve as I think the term is "Misery porn" you know the books one comedian once described as "The things you find on the shelf marked critics choice that include titles like 'Daddy No' and 'Touched But Not By an Angel'"

And the rest of it isn't............

No because it's seemingly made up bullshit.

 

[Silvanus]

And Viking mythology tells tales of a god who can fly and wields the power of lightening in his mighty hammer. So there you go totally evidence you could have my suggestion happen too

Except Vikings is not set in a mythical setting. It's set in a dramatised real-world setting. And in the real world, there were black Vikings (albeit very few), and there were no people who could fly and shoot lasers.

So why not go full fantasy mythology? Why try to jut ape the existing show Vikings?

Oh right "Because this time we'll make it diverse"

...It's not "aping" it, it's literally a spin-off. It's the same IP.

And the reason not to go "full fantasy mythology" is... that's the writer's fucking choice?

Personal incredulity fallacy.

But in more basic terms, if you're going to make up bullshit to try and make claims about me I'll make up bullshit to make claims about why you're doing it, unless of course you'd like to admit I'm right on the money and you don't have any actual arguments that don't rely on basically "I don't like what you're saying so you're wrong"

You do that anyway, though. It's your whole approach: just make shit up. Always has been. Why would this be any different?

Did you expect me not to read it or not to call out just how little it really supports the claims.

2 instances of it happening.

1 where shipwrecked sailors who ate fellow sailors who were black

1 where a slave rebellion leaders flesh was melted to make Castor Oil.

congratulations 1 example of them eating black people in extreme circumstances and they weren't slaves
1 example of a very cruel punishment on an ex slaver and they didn't eat him but melted his flesh down to make castor oil

The 2nd of which is actually a disputed example to begin with as others have claimed he was beheaded and buried in an unmarked grave.

The 1st account isn't the full truth either as Issac Cole (no race seemingly given in records) died and was the first to be eaten by the starving crew. Lawson Thomas died next and was eaten Isaiah Sheppard was next and finally Owen Coffin who was related to the captain of the ship which in most accounts was white and finally was Barzillai Ray. So no it wasn't a case of the crew ganging up and killing and eating just 3 black men as the source suggests but they ate 3 people as said people died then killed 1 white 18 year old boy to eat then finally ate another person who died.

Basically I can probably find more accounts of desperate times on US soil seeing white communities resort to cannibalism then there is evidence of white people ever eating black people as a delicacy or slave ships killing their slaves to serve as food.

"Citation needed" -> example given -> "That doesn't count!"

Yes, we've been on this merry-go-round before. And yes, they were slaves, the source literally says so. So yeah, I expected you not to read them, and you proved that you didn't.

I mean that's probably the nicer interpretation of said work rather than making up bullshit whole cloth to serve as I think the term is "Misery porn" you know the books one comedian once described as "The things you find on the shelf marked critics choice that include titles like 'Daddy No' and 'Touched But Not By an Angel'"

Blah-blah-blah, irrelevant drivel to distract from the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever he's a "homosexual sadism fetishist". Your Twitter troll source made shit up. Are you able to actually acknowledge that, or are you going to shift into more irrelevant deflection or presumption?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Except Vikings is not set in a mythical setting. It's set in a dramatised real-world setting. And in the real world, there were black Vikings (albeit very few), and there were no people who could fly and shoot lasers.

The Jarl is not based on a real one
It's not set in a real city or settlement.

Why not go full fantasy?

And the reason not to go "full fantasy mythology" is... that's the writer's fucking choice?

Just not going with quite the same attempted realism as the original show then?

You do that anyway, though. It's your whole approach: just make shit up. Always has been. Why would this be any different?

So what happens when I keep proving my claims again? Do I will the bullshit into existence or was it always real to begin with and you just refused to acknowledge it?

"Citation needed" -> example given -> "That doesn't count!"

Yes it doesn't count because
1) It's not Slaves
2) It's not eating them as a delicacy

When you're arguing that yes slaves were totally eaten as a delicacy or killed and eaten on slave ships by the crew you kind of need to show SLAVES being killed and eaten either on land or on SHIPS with the implication it was done so deliberately for the purpose of eating them.

You can't use evidence of sailors who died and got eaten by stranded comrades and the only person they actually killed was an 18 year old white boy who accepted his fate as evidence of them specifically killing and eating black salves........

Yes, we've been on this merry-go-round before. And yes, they were slaves, the source literally says so. So yeah, I expected you not to read them, and you proved that you didn't.

No they were slaves. Did you even bother reading the source you linked to?
A simple Wiki search tells you this

The crew of 21 was mainly white but there were a small group of free black men.

Key word there is FREE. As in NOT slaves.

Blah-blah-blah, irrelevant drivel to distract from the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever he's a "homosexual sadism fetishist". Your Twitter troll source made shit up. Are you able to actually acknowledge that, or are you going to shift into more irrelevant deflection or presumption?

Are you able to present an alternative about why why wrote a fictional account of sodomy and cannibalism in the slave trade apparently in rather explicit detail?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

More from Woke world

Not enjoying music by a black person when it's deemed iconic means you're a racist

 

[evilneko]

The point -- [ whoosh ] ----->
.
.
.
.
==========
Hobble

 

[Chimpzy]

Ya'll still bickering over historical accuracy in Vikings, a show in which Ragnar Lodbrok, who probably never really existed, but is an exaggerated amalgamation of several different actually historical people, gets addicted to opium, which he got from a Chinese slave from a raid in Moorish Spain, and who is implied to be an imperial princess?

K aight.

 

[Silvanus]

The Jarl is not based on a real one
It's not set in a real city or settlement.

Why not go full fantasy?

Do you understand the concept of setting?

Just not going with quite the same attempted realism as the original show then?

Most people don't find a black character in a setting in which black people existed to be so unrealistic that they can't focus.

So what happens when I keep proving my claims again? Do I will the bullshit into existence or was it always real to begin with and you just refused to acknowledge it?

You never prove shit. When you're asked to provide sources, usually you'll just provide either 1) something that didn't say what you claimed; or 2) some vague reference to something you can't provide a direct source or quote for.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes it doesn't count because
1) It's not Slaves
2) It's not eating them as a delicacy

When you're arguing that yes slaves were totally eaten as a delicacy or killed and eaten on slave ships by the crew you kind of need to show SLAVES being killed and eaten either on land or on SHIPS with the implication it was done so deliberately for the purpose of eating them.

You can't use evidence of sailors who died and got eaten by stranded comrades and the only person they actually killed was an 18 year old white boy who accepted his fate as evidence of them specifically killing and eating black salves.......

No they were slaves. Did you even bother reading the source you linked to?
A simple Wiki search tells you this

" The crew of 21 was mainly white but there were a small group of free black men. "

Key word there is FREE. As in NOT slaves.

*The Biggest Facepalm*

The crew of 21 contained a small group of free black men. The CREW.

The crew does not constitute all the black people on board, dude, because slaves are not "crew".

From the source, which you have obviously not read;

"At the time, the Arrogante had more than 330 Africans on board [...]"

More than 330 Africans...! That doesn't sound like a "small group" in a crew of 21! Let's see what else there is...

"On the brig—a slave vessel named Arrogante—the sailors saw a “large cruiser ship in the distance,” a circumstance that led the captain to give orders to find an escape route as quickly as possible.1 The getaway attempt was short-lived, as the fast-sailing British cruiser soon caught up with the slave traders, [...]"

"The Arrogante, with a crew of 35 men, mostly Portuguese, which included the captain, the pilot, and other officers, plus eight passengers, had obtained her human cargo 40 days before from the notorious Spanish slave dealer Pedro Blanco"

"the violence effected upon this group of enslaved Africans"

It really beggars belief that you can simply ignore the content of a source... and then accuse someone else of failing to read it, when they accurately report what it says. Mindblowing hypocrisy.

Are you able to present an alternative about why why wrote a fictional account of sodomy and cannibalism in the slave trade apparently in rather explicit detail?

Yes, easily. It's a study of a historical phenomenon. Tell me: do you believe that everyone who writes about murderers are, themselves, murderers? Anyone who writes about war is a war fetishist?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Do you understand the concept of setting?

Yes.

Do you?

Most people don't find a black character in a setting in which black people existed to be so unrealistic that they can't focus.

When they were such a small minority back then a black woman leader does rather stick out.

You never prove shit. When you're asked to provide sources, usually you'll just provide either 1) something that didn't say what you claimed; or 2) some vague reference to something you can't provide a direct source or quote for.

I prove shit to a far higher degree than you do with your sources where you rely on the claim free people are slaves and people eating those who have died is them murdering them.

But heyin woke world

'War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. '

I guess

 

[Silvanus]

Yes.

Do you?

Well enough to know that including something that historically happened (albeit quite rare) is not as ridiculous as including something that's physically impossible sci-fi nonsense.

I prove shit to a far higher degree than you do with your sources where you rely on the claim free people are slaves and people eating those who have died is them murdering them.

But heyin woke world


I guess

I've literally provided direct quotes from the source above showing they WERE SLAVES.

You're blindly insisting the source doesn't say what it says. It's fucking hilarious that you think anybody else is denying reality. It's literally right there in the source, which you didn't bother to read.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

*The Biggest Facepalm*

The crew of 21 contained a small group of free black men. The CREW.

let me repeat that wikipedia quote for you with added empahasis

The crew of 21 was mainly white but there were a small group of free black men.

Funny how you cut out the part about the 21 crew being mainly white

The crew does not constitute all the black people on board, dude, because slaves are not "crew".


From the source, which you have obviously not read;

"At the time, the Arrogante had more than 330 Africans on board [...]"

My God..........You really didn't read your source did you?

In 1821, when a shipwreck destroyed the American whaling vessel Essex

This is from YOUR source.

From Wikipeida

Essex was an American whaler from Nantucket, Massachusetts

and more

the 20 sailors prepared to set out in the three small whaleboats

So unless you want to try and source the claim that a Whaling vessel somehow how 330 slaves on board and saw were then brought along in 3 small whaleboat (WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY NO SOURCES NOT EVEN YOUR OWN) then you've screwed up here because you're not even talking about the same ship a your source anymore. In fact your source does not mention a ship called the Arrogante at all

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

More than 330 Africans...! That doesn't sound like a "small group" in a crew of 21! Let's see what else there is...

"On the brig—a slave vessel named Arrogante—the sailors saw a “large cruiser ship in the distance,” a circumstance that led the captain to give orders to find an escape route as quickly as possible.1 The getaway attempt was short-lived, as the fast-sailing British cruiser soon caught up with the slave traders, [...]"

So to entertain you I just looked up the Arrogante (which you've switched to using despite your source not mentioning)

The Portuguese ship

Arrogante

Other fun information, the case was heard in court and very much seen as an extreme incident.

So you're arguing it was seen as fine and acceptable for white people to kill and eat black slaves because:

• Of an incident committed by he Portuguese
• which was seen serious enough to have tried in a court of law at the time

Such a normalised practice eh? Oh and the kicker, the case didn't find the captain guilty of it as many of the slaves who gave testimony were mere children and so the testimony and accounts were highly inconsistent.

"The Arrogante, with a crew of 35 men, mostly Portuguese, which included the captain, the pilot, and other officers, plus eight passengers, had obtained her human cargo 40 days before from the notorious Spanish slave dealer Pedro Blanco"

"the violence effected upon this group of enslaved Africans"

It really beggars belief that you can simply ignore the content of a source... and then accuse someone else of failing to read it, when they accurately report what it says. Mindblowing hypocrisy.

Because your source didn't actually talk about it at all

Yes, easily. It's a study of a historical phenomenon. Tell me: do you believe that everyone who writes about murderers are, themselves, murderers? Anyone who writes about war is a war fetishist?

So why again was he also studying fictional accounts.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well enough to know that including something that historically happened (albeit quite rare) is not as ridiculous as including something that's physically impossible sci-fi nonsense.

So rare that it would be likely most people barely saw anyone like that their wholes lives

I've literally provided direct quotes from the source above showing they WERE SLAVES.

On board the Whaling ship the Essex?

You're blindly insisting the source doesn't say what it says. It's fucking hilarious that you think anybody else is denying reality. It's literally right there in the source, which you didn't bother to read.

Your source literally doesn't though. The source your yourself literally linked to to support the presently disputed source doesn't bring up any of what you're arguing now.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Welcome once again to woke World

Brother of the former Labour leader calls for attacks on MPs offices.

Piers Corbyn arrested 'after call to burn down MPs' homes'

Brother of former Labour leader Jeremy is known for his anti-Covid lockdown protest speeches

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The point -- [ whoosh ] ----->
.
.
.
.
==========
Hobble

So care to explain the point to us lowly mortals of how people on camera not enjoying a particular concert means they're clearly racist?

I'm sure a concert or two I've been to with white dudes in the band, if they were televised would have seen me acting like some of those in said clips too, not exactly getting into it much.

 

[Silvanus]

let me repeat that wikipedia quote for you with added empahasis

[...]

So unless you want to try and source the claim that a Whaling vessel somehow how 330 slaves on board and saw were then brought along in 3 small whaleboat (WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY NO SOURCES NOT EVEN YOUR OWN) then you've screwed up here because you're not even talking about the same ship a your source anymore. In fact your source does not mention a ship called the Arrogante at all

*an even bigger facepalm*

So... you're quoting only from the second source I posted.

Look again. I posted TWO SOURCES. The first deals with the Arrogante. The second deals with several tangential instances, including the Essex (where sailors resorted to cannibalism and ate the black crewmembers first) and Nat Turner (whose body was rendered into grease and other materials).

It's unbelievably funny to me that someone would pay so little attention that they don't even look at one of the sources... and then have the arrogance to blindly insist that the information wasn't posted, when it was IN THE SOURCE THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO OPEN.

Because your source didn't actually talk about it at all

Literally all of those quotes were directly from the source itself.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

*an even bigger facepalm*

So... you're quoting only from the second source I posted.

Look again. I posted TWO SOURCES. The first deals with the Arrogante. The second deals with several tangential instances, including the Essex (where sailors resorted to cannibalism and ate the black crewmembers first) and Nat Turner (whose body was rendered into grease and other materials).

It's unbelievably funny to me that someone would pay so little attention that they don't even look at one of the sources... and then have the arrogance to blindly insist that the information wasn't posted, when it was IN THE SOURCE THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO OPEN.

So the only support you have for the practice happening is 1 account that was seen as serious enough to be taken to court and ended up not seeing it proved..........

yeh truly proof that white people were killing black people to eat them as a delicacy.

*ATOMIC FACEPALM*

 

[Silvanus]

So the only support you have for the practice happening is 1 account that was seen as serious enough to be taken to court and ended up not seeing it proved..........

yeh truly proof that white people were killing black people to eat them as a delicacy.

*ATOMIC FACEPALM*

Just gonna skip over the fact that you've shown quite clearly that you didn't even look at the source in question, then blindly and repeatedly insisted it didn't say what it said-- even accusing me of misquoting it and changing my story? You know, before realising you were looking at the wrong source, and hadn't even opened the other one. Gonna skip over that little mildly embarrassing titbit, eh?