I looked at the comment history of one of them and they are active on drumroll please r/dating... They write incel-esque comments, one of them saying something along the lines of everyone here is lying to you, PM me with a photo, height, and penis size, and I'll give you real advice.
So if they give a fuck about defending Islam, what the fuck are they doing on dating subreddits, talking like they know what they're on about (according to this don, 90% of women reject a guy because of them being short), even though they're going against their alleged faith. Seriously, what devout Muslim would write bollocks like that on posts about an OP struggling in that aspect of life?
Where did the term cultural appropriation actually come from? I'm trying to figure this out and for the life of me can't find a straight answer.
In this Oxford Reference article, no single point of origin is mentioned, in fact, it is striking how none of the cited authors actually use the term being defined in the reference article:
- Concerning Kenneth Coutts‐Smith, "he himself does not [use] the phrase ‘cultural appropriation.'"
- New Negro and Harlem Renaissance writers wrote about the issue, "though not in these terms."
- Michael North is cited as "One of the finest discussions of these issues," but, [can you guess what comes next?] he "does not use the term ‘cultural appropriation’."
So, what's the deal? Where exactly did this specific term come from? Was it something that emerged first in public discourse, and was only thereafter taken up (appropriated?) by academics? Or is there an intellectual history that this reference article is, in fact, missing?
I notice that the whole generation above me seems a lot more intellect than I do, and I think it comes to the fact that access to the internet and TV were limited, and they had to pass their time with legit hobbies and reading good book. I'm currently in the process of fixing my social media addiction. I would really appreciate resources to help me become more knowledgeable on many different topics of my interests, I'm still finding it hard to read books and focus in them. So I would appreciate any tips or any websites that have blogs or YouTube videos or FREE documentaries on topics like history/politics/sociology etc.
Three Tier Question – Book Recommendations Please
Hello All! I'm a graduate student in theology studying patristic theologies. However, as I look ahead to my PhD I am considering moving forward in time a little bit and studying the medieval period, particular monks, monasteries, and intellectual history in Western Europe (especially especially British Isles, Ireland, Wales, etc.).
I am here for book recommendations. I have read lots on the subject, but mostly through the lens of philosophy and theology, and either way there is lots more to read I'm sure. What I'm looking for are books that handle three main topics:
-
Broader histories and information on the medieval period, especially in Western Europe/British Isles and surrounding areas. I'd like to get more well versed in the time period in general.
-
Those dealing with intellectual history and schools of thought in medieval period
-
Books dealing with monks/monasteries during the medieval period (including books about monks/monasteries and books by monks)
If you have any recommendations that would fit in one of these categories, I would be most appreciative.
Many thanks!
Also social history.
As you would expect, I've already looked at the definitions of these terms as they're usually given. But I'm still not satisfied with my understanding of these two disciplines, so I'm looking for a somewhat more detailed explanation.
Thanks!
I've noticed that people who are normally apolitical have become very vocal Trump supporters over the past 4 years, which does make me think that it is an ideological force to take seriously.
But could it be considered an extension of the pre-existing form of "Mainstream" Republican ideology (despite the cracks that formed when Trump first sought office), or is it its own branch of political thought? And if it's the latter, what could be said to be its ideological/intellectual predecessors?
For example, was Ivory in the ‚Ivory towers’ chosen because of its then association with academia? Were academics at the time enthusiastic elephant hunters or something?
"From Paris and other European centers in 1830 the United States were not a prepossessing sight. Visitors who had been well received and were in general complimentary to their local hosts were censorious about the rest of the country. The revolutionaries of 1789 in France had considered the Americans of 1776 freedom fighters of their own temper - mistakenly, but that image had vanished with the century. In the next, from Captain Basil Hall to Charles Dickens and Mrs. Trollope, the picture is that of a people without manners or discrimination and boastful besides. With one exception to be noted, the other critics - those who stayed away - interpreted the new nation as the land where equality was maintained at the expense of intellect and the arts, both virtually non-existent. In their place, energetic go-getting and beaming self-satisfaction fulfilled everyone's aspirations. The elections of the common-man President Jackson in 1828 had eliminated any remnants of the cultivated outlook acquired by the Founding Fathers from the French and English Enlightenment.
Crude though the portrait was, it is true that the American intellectual class that did exist in the 1830s looked less and less to England and France for ideas. It was Germany that fed them. Even when they read Coleridge and Carlyle, the leaders of advanced thought in England, they were receiving a dose of German ideas. Chief among American Germanists was professor George Ticknor of Harvard. He, George Bancroft (later the first national historian), and a few others had gone to German universities and carried home the message of Herder and Geothe, Kant and Schiller in all its poetical and philosophical strength. Ticknor in turn imparted it to young Emerson and his classmates.
The virgin soil of the New World was without Middle Ages waiting to be rediscovered, and the people had no firsthand memories of Bourbons and Napoleons. So what dominated the minds of young American geniuses was the religious emotion, the love of nature, the spirituality of art, the value of INDIVIDUALISM^1, and the hope of creating a national culture based on the uniqueness of the American experience. On all points Emerson is representative. Trained for the Unitarian ministry, the least demanding of Christian sects, he gave it up under the influence of Montaigne, who led him to ponder the lessons of nature and to vivify his own poetic version of Eastern thought. The impassive divinity diffused through the cosmos afforded him
... keep reading on reddit ➡
In the lectures on faith, lecture 4, it states that the six attributes of God that are necessary for someone to have faith in God are: knowledge, faith (or power), justice, judgement, mercy, and truth.
I have always wondered whether this is a new/original concept, or if this idea was picked up from somewhere. Obviously these six attributes, when taken individually, have a long history. But did any theologians prior to the lectures on faith put these six together? (Or have a similar if not identical idea)?
Hello Comrades!
As a precursor to my primary question I feel it relevant to mention that have only recently begun reading leftist theory (Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Meltzer) and unambiguously consider myself an extreme example of a novice.
I have begun reading the Communist Manifesto and found myself somewhat perplexed by the following quote:
"... in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch..."
Is Marx claiming all intellectual pursuits stem directly or indirectly from the prevailing mode of economic production? How can that be so considering the innumerable number of philosophical, theological, mathematic, etc... questions seemingly be quite disparate from economic or social matters?
Thank you so much!
