All these places, as well as Europe and Africa, were hotbeds of Confucianism in my last Civ game as China
I think damuriajashi is referring to the Sinosphere when he says “asians”, because one milenium ago Confucianism had only spread to China, Korea, and Japan. Since then it has also spread to Vietnam (c. 15th century I believe).
~Max
Huh, I thought he was younger than that.
Oh, I’m pretty sure he is. That’s kind of what I’m pointing out.
After I call her out for being whiny and petulant, she writes,
My response is not appropriate for GD, so I’ll put it here:
DemonTree, if you want me to treat you like a child, I will. But I expect that you didn’t lie when you registered for this site and said you were at least 13 years old. I expect you to act like a fuckin adult, not like a kid.
Children don’t come in for criticism when they act childishly. You do. Grow the fuck up.
You are clearly stupid, have you ever had an original thought? I mean the vast majority of your arguments are simply linking to the opinions of others. Sometimes youa re linking to the opinions of children because its better than what you can come up with. Even the folks who agree with you only tolerate your massive stupidity because you are a meat shield that takes the shrapnel for their side of the argument. You aren’t even a tool, you are tactical cover.
I missed the part where I say this.
I don’t think I have ever disagreed with this.
Yes, and asian sounding names don’t do well in that study either.
See, this is your problem, @GIGObuster. You need to stop citing sources published in peer reviewed journals in relevant areas of study and start just making shit up based on how you feel about things being reported on by whatever garbage news source you happen to tune into.
Yeah, he also does think that anyone that supported me is also stupid, forgetting that most of the support he gets is from an unhinged guy and a gal that is clueless.
Yeah, if you think a cite is wrongheaded, dig into it and discuss. Attacks on Gigo are essentially cover for those whose sensitive dispositions makes them averse to primary source material.
As I have explained before, yours is only a more sophisticated defense of willful ignorance.
And as noted before, it is clear that you only demonstrate ignorance and also cowardice too when you do think that killing the messenger does take care of the big army that is coming.
Also, you demonstrate just the same dumb behavior observed among creationists and climate change deniers, a propensity to reinvent the wheel and even deny that there is such a thing as past published science, history and culture that has to be taken into account before trying to become an og and claim that original thoughts must be the usual, now that is one of the biggest demonstrations of ignorance as James Burke would tell you.
During the interview, James Burke confided that, as a young graduate student, he had met a professor who, in the footnote of a book, had made the point that the development of the stirrup in pre-medieval times had had a profound effect on shaping the history of Western Europe from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance; and he stepped through the connections showing how the stirrup allowed a soldier to stay armed in battle and really plow over the other guy in the fight, who then responded by putting armor onto himself, which caused the original warrior to put on heavier armor, which spread to an industry in producing super sturdy horses, who needed land to graze on, which was appropriated from the church and other places by men who came to be known as Dukes, and the process continued and developed to the point where huge horses carried superbly armored men into battle for city states that developed into nations. All connections, and James Burke like this idea, so when he approached the man who wrote the book to ask if he could use this idea about connections to explain historical phenomena, the professor responded with “I stole it, you steal it!” When Burke answered back incredulously that the professor had “stolen” this idea, the professor gave him a wry smile and said “my boy, you don’t think we are born with ideas, do you?”
The point is that we all borrow from each other, we “stand on the backs of giants” and we develop ideas from other people’s ideas. When that happens, give credit where credit is due, but try to see if you can take those ideas and carry them into different directions. I’m grateful to James Burke for “stealing” this professor’s idea, as it helped me develop and work with a “paradigm” of testing I hadn’t earlier considered. It’s by no means a new paradigm, but it was to me.
Like if that takes away that you were wrong anyhow. As others noted, you are just being childish in the extreme. And like other conservative critics, you are indeed reusing creationist and climate change denialists tactics when thinking that one paper is the doom of a theory when it is just about one possible factor in a theory. It is like thinking that if Punctuated Equilibrium is falsified that therefore the whole of evolution is falsified…
Christ almighty, the petulance just won’t quit:
So, she asks whether the theory can be “falsified,” as though there’s some experiment you can do to test the hypothesis. She’s corrected on the subject, but doubles down, so I point out the foolishness of her question by showing how you’d “falsify” CRT (e.g., by demonstrating shit like “White people didn’t inherit wealth”).
Rather than be like, “Oh, right, I guess that doesn’t really make much sense to ask,” she’s like, “SEE I KNEW IT COULD BE DONE!” at which point people start mocking her.
Now? Now she wants the whole thread to be about how she was right all along, because one theorist looked at one small part of CRT and made some weird comment about how that piece was hard to evaluate, AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID AND WHY WAS EVERYONE SO MEAN TO HER.
It’s so hard to tell the difference between abject stupidity and trolling. But I’m gonna respond to this foot-stamping tantrum here, rather than in that thread.
Now I think you’re being totally unfair. 
You are vastly underestimating DT and you should be ashamed.
I think she’s more than capable of both stupidity and trolling simultaneously.
He rarely cites peer reviewed studies. He once cited a high school op ed. He is a woke joke. If you reflexively defend the idiots of your religion people will see your religion as full of idiots.
Of course that was to show that even Asians at that level are not swallowing what you preach, not all in any case. And as mentioned, you are an idiot for still thinking that using woke as an insult does not label you as a conservative troglodyte or follower of the same info trash makers.
No, it was because you scour the internet looking for links that agree with whatever you happen to be saying at the moment.
Look. There are plenty of smart intelligence woke progressives on this site. You are not one of them. I try not to engage you because you are so fucking stupid that it’s like arguing with an algorithm.
I don’t know what you do for a living but I imagine it is pretty mindless because you cannot possibly keep up with anything that requires regular critical thinking. I hope you have a happy life and with your intellect it shouldn’t be to hard to convince yourself that you are in fact happy.
Smart enough to realize that you branded yourself as an idiot that regurgitates dumb childish conservative insults once again.
Pfft, you keep telling yourself whatever you need to to keep the wolves of insecurity at bay. The reason you are where you are in life right now is because you are not nearly as smart as you think you are so you believe that you deserve a life better than what your meager talent and abilities have carved out for you in this world. But frankly you are probably lucky to have the life you have now. Be grateful, recognize you are doing better than you have any right to expect, and let the smarter progressives talk without interrupting them with your leg humping.
You are projecting a lot of insecurity there, that is clear.
Meredith D. Clark, an assistant professor in the Department of Media Studies at University of Virginia, argues that the misuse of woke is a combination of an elite class taking the word and making it toxic to serve their own purposes; and in some cases, a not-so-subtle form of anti-Blackness.
“It is a quick way to signal to others that whatever those people over there are saying is not real, not substantial, this is something that’s easily dismissed, you shouldn’t pay attention to it,” said Clark. “And that is the same sort of treatment that has been reinforced over and over again through anti-Black policies and social practices used to try to cement our position at the bottom of society.”
Speaking of wolves, you are feeding the wrong one. Or humping it, I did not need to see a projection of that. 