Random Thread

[keenir]

There wasn't a whole empire of elites to feed, but three cities-- Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. And almost all our reports are about Tenochtitlan.

Spanish narratives say every town had human sacrifice.

yyyyeah, no idea why the Spanish would ever use hyperbole about something they disaproved of.
(or its a lie, like a certain somebody's claim that all immigrants are dog-eating criminals)

[WeepingElf]

There wasn't a whole empire of elites to feed, but three cities-- Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. And almost all our reports are about Tenochtitlan.

Spanish narratives say every town had human sacrifice.

yyyyeah, no idea why the Spanish would ever use hyperbole about something they disaproved of.
(or its a lie, like a certain somebody's claim that all immigrants are dog-eating criminals)

That's what I think of this, too. The Spanish likely exaggerated the Aztec human sacrifices because they had an agenda: telling the world how evil devil-worshippers the Aztecs were such that they had a moral excuse for genocide.

[zompist]

That's what I think of this, too. The Spanish likely exaggerated the Aztec human sacrifices because they had an agenda: telling the world how evil devil-worshippers the Aztecs were such that they had a moral excuse for genocide.

Undoubtedly the Spanish exaggerated; but the Aztec and other Mesoamericans also left physical evidence, including the tzompantli used to display racks of skulls. These are best documented in Tenochtitlan.

Cultures worldwide have practiced human sacrifice— the Romans did until 114 BCE. The Aztecs, at least, practiced it at a wide enough scale that Harris's speculations about humans as a meat source become relevant.

[rotting bones]

yyyyeah, no idea why the Spanish would ever use hyperbole about something they disaproved of.
(or its a lie, like a certain somebody's claim that all immigrants are dog-eating criminals)

The Aztecs themselves boasted of conducting so many human sacrifices that we are questioning the logistics of whether it could have been physically possible given the replacement rate for humans. Trying to absolve the Aztecs of human sacrifice sounds like a Western chauvinist position that assumes human sacrifice is evil. The Aztecs didn't think their gods were evil. They thought the gods were strong, holy bringers of good fortune. They showed off their blood-splattered temples with pride. They thought their deep demonstration of faith was a spiritually uplifting sight.

BTW, human sacrifice is an ongoing problem in India right now: https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/indi ... 19899.html India even has goddesses who resemble their Aztec counterparts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhinnamasta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C5%8D%C4%81tl%C4%ABcue

At least Aztecs weren't sacrificing random people off the streets. They were only allowed to sacrifice slaves bought from the market and war captives. (Of course, merchants could waylay you on the roads and sell you to be sacrificed.) Personally, I prefer open human sacrifice for consumption over capitalism. Nothing is hidden in account books. If you want to eat me, do it openly.

[rotting bones]

Placing a lime on artwork should be a mark of approbation.

These are the kind of profound thoughts I have when I work night and day without eating or sleeping.

[alice]

Some words I never thought I'd hear in this particular order: "[my godson] is hosting a Bob Ross painting evening in Japan".

[Man in Space]

Clown Core’s album Van is only 17-ish minutes long, but listen to it straight through and you’ve got a fantastic musical representation of what bipolar disorder feels like. (At least I think so.) I’d recommend just the audio since there’s more than a slight sophomoric streak to the visual album.

[Raphael]

German literature question: is there anyone here who likes the works of Bertold Brecht? And, if you do, could you explain to me what exactly you see in them?

Because, back when I had to read some of his stuff in school, I had the impression that his plots were extremely simplistic, his characters were very one-dimensional, there's was nothing impressive or original or remarkable about either his poetry or his prose, and everything he had to say was completely banal. And then we were told that he had come up with a new Theory of Theatre according to which all of those traits are features, not bugs.

So why on Earth is that guy seen as such an important figure in the history of German literature?

[bradrn]

Completely unrelated question (I hope Raphael doesn’t mind):

I had a look at Chris Wayan’s Planetocopia today, for the first time in a few years, to find that it doesn’t seem to have changed at all since I last saw it. Does anyone happen to know what happened? I’d be particularly interested in ‘Lateria’ (high axial tilt)…

(Oddly, there is some recent content on the site. The last update was from last month!)

[WeepingElf]

This may be because Brecht - as is well-known - wore his Marxist persuasions on his sleeves, and Marxism has been fashionable among West German intellectuals since the 1960s. (And in East Germany, it was state doctrine, of course.)

[Raphael]

No problem, bradrn!

This may be because Brecht - as is well-known - wore his Marxist persuasions on his sleeves, and Marxism has been fashionable among West German intellectuals since the 1960s. (And in East Germany, it was state doctrine, of course.)

(Brecht was already seen as a pretty big deal in the 1920s.)

So all I have to do is parrot the right platitudes, and I could cobble together some paint-by-numbers writings and end up being seen as a great literary phenomenon?

[WeepingElf]

No problem, bradrn!

This may be because Brecht - as is well-known - wore his Marxist persuasions on his sleeves, and Marxism has been fashionable among West German intellectuals since the 1960s. (And in East Germany, it was state doctrine, of course.)

(Brecht was already seen as a pretty big deal in the 1920s.)

So all I have to do is parrot the right platitudes, and I could cobble together some paint-by-numbers writings and end up being seen as a great literary phenomenon?

I cannot answer your question, but literary criticism has always be an arcane art to me of which I understand nothing. The problem started in school, where we were expected to appreciate texts that mostly did not move me at all.

On a very different (though in some ways actually quite similar) matter: On Facebook, dead links sometimes get likes. I wonder why. Apparently, some people automatically like everything their friends post without reading it.

[Creyeditor]

German literature question: is there anyone here who likes the works of Bertold Brecht? And, if you do, could you explain to me what exactly you see in them?

Because, back when I had to read some of his stuff in school, I had the impression that his plots were extremely simplistic, his characters were very one-dimensional, there's was nothing impressive or original or remarkable about either his poetry or his prose, and everything he had to say was completely banal. And then we were told that he had come up with a new Theory of Theatre according to which all of those traits are features, not bugs.

So why on Earth is that guy seen as such an important figure in the history of German literature?

I like the Verfremdungseffekt and I think it is similar to what people do nowadays in popular cinema (i.e. Deadpool speaking directly to the audience in his movies) and I like the songs from his works like Solidaritätslied and Die Moritat von Mackie Messer. And I kind of also like the messages of some of his works. But I haven't actually seen or read a full play by him.

[Raphael]

I like the Verfremdungseffekt and I think it is similar to what people do nowadays in popular cinema (i.e. Deadpool speaking directly to the audience in his movies) and I like the songs from his works like Solidaritätslied and Die Moritat von Mackie Messer. And I kind of also like the messages of some of his works. But I haven't actually seen or read a full play by him.

Thank you.

[alice]

literary criticism has always be an arcane art to me of which I understand nothing. The problem started in school, where we were expected to appreciate texts that mostly did not move me at all.

Oh, literary criticism is quite easy in essence: the purpose of the Literary Critic is to persuade the Reader that the story the Author is telling has nothing to do with the one the Reader thinks they are reading, or have read, as the case may be, but is actually something completely different and far more profound. You might think you've just read a strange little story about a whale, but it's really an elaborate metaphor for decades of British rule in Ireland, and if you aren't able to appreciate that without it being pointed out to you first, you're a Lesser Kind Of Person.

That said, being expected to appreciate works of art which did not move me at all¹ did make up rather a lot of my secondary-school education.

1. With one exception, a book which moved me greatly when I read it independently but which was ruined for me when we studied it in English Literature² classes.

2. One of only two official exams I ever officially failed.

[WeepingElf]

Something else.

Is malloc really Eddy? Some people have said so, and there are certainly similarities (both perceive the troubles they themselves and the society as a whole are facing as insurmountable), but I still have my doubts; while both are patent cranks, they seem to be cranky in different ways. Eddy was an orthodox Marxist with a mediocre but likeable (to me at least) conworld; while malloc is somewhere on the left wing, too, he does not seem as orthodox to me as Eddy.

[Raphael]

literary criticism has always be an arcane art to me of which I understand nothing. The problem started in school, where we were expected to appreciate texts that mostly did not move me at all.

That said, being expected to appreciate works of art which did not move me at all¹ did make up rather a lot of my secondary-school education.

1. With one exception, a book which moved me greatly when I read it independently but which was ruined for me when we studied it in English Literature² classes.

2. One of only two official exams I ever officially failed.

Only somewhat tangentially related to this, I've seen some sex educators argue that there should be more emphasis on how to have enjoyable sex in sex education classes in school. Indirectly, your two contributions kind of make me think that this might be a bad idea.

[Raphael]

Something else.

Is malloc really Eddy? Some people have said so, and there are certainly similarities, but I still have my doubts; while both are patent cranks, they seem to be cranky in different ways.

There was an announcement years ago, after malloc took part in a particular discussion, that malloc/Eddy was only allowed to return to the ZBB on the condition of refraining from certain topics, and that that discussion was about one of those topics.

[WeepingElf]

Something else.

Is malloc really Eddy? Some people have said so, and there are certainly similarities, but I still have my doubts; while both are patent cranks, they seem to be cranky in different ways.

There was an announcement years ago, after malloc took part in a particular discussion, that malloc/Eddy was only allowed to return to the ZBB on the condition of refraining from certain topics, and that that discussion was about one of those topics.

So malloc is indeed Eddy - but I can't remember him posting about his conworld, about the Terps, their biotheremins and all that. I doubt that his conworld (which wasn't really good, but IMHO did not break any rules) was one of the topics he should refrain from.

[zompist]

I've seen some sex educators argue that there should be more emphasis on how to have enjoyable sex in sex education classes in school.

This sentence reads very differently depending on where "in school" attaches to.