Dabbs notes in passing that the printing press facilitated the rise of Protestantism. Up to the reader to decide whether that's a positive or negative.
Sudden infant wails finally brightened the delivery room late that night, a relief to everyone, not least the mother. After a quick wipe-down and weigh, the baby was swaddled and handed back to the parents to be comforted. I leant across the bed towards the crying baby, put on my best Yorkshire accent and whispered into her …
In it's original sense of "Protest" against the establishment, that is. I wouldn't try to draw any modern religious conclusions from that.
Modern form tends to come in two forms, the puritan evangelical brand and the mostly relapsed live and let live form.
The Evangelicals still protest, mainly at anything that might be fun for anyone else.
Well it did in Europe. English Protestantism started because Henry VIII wanted to get he leg over Anne Boleyn.
That was just Englands version of Emperor Constantine - when it became politically expedient to embrace the new religion rather than continue prosecuting/persecuting it.
So, as was said, because he wanted to get his end away.
Nah. Henry was well aware of the distinction between sex and marriage, he didn't need to divorce or marry anyone to get his end away.
What he really wanted was a legitimate male heir, with the emphasis on "legitimate". (And hence, indirectly, also "male", since a female would always be of slightly suspect legitimacy - c.f. Mary and Elizabeth.)
It's easy to see people as motivated solely by selfishness and hedonism, but often there are excellent political reasons behind these stories. Henry VIII is one such.
A "Daughter of Time" type question. History school books tell us that Henry VIII wanted a legitimate son and heir. But it's occurred to me, why? The heir would step up when Henry died, so Henry could have said "Not my problem, someone else can sort it out when it happens."
So... perhaps the male heir means that a hypothetical someone else who would consider assassinating Henry in order to be king, would not, because someone else was in the way too. Is that it?
"Well it did in Europe. English Protestantism started because Henry VIII wanted to get he leg over Anne Boleyn."
It didn't actually; Henry VIII considered himself a Catholic and continued to call himself "Fidei defensor". In his view it was the Pope who was wrong.
The real split from Rome came later.
@Voyna i Mor: "Dabbs notes in passing that the printing press facilitated the rise of Protestantism. Up to the reader to decide whether that's a positive or negative."
The rot set in when the Romans suppressed the Druidic religion and replaced it with a reconstructed Hebrew death cult. The druids did actually sacrifice real people and not a symbolic representation in the form of a stale wafer.
'Take a ride in his Mercedes'
You owe me a new keyboard
Having read the work recently this phrase goes some distance towards explaining the hundreds of pages of elaborate revenge which this lead to. For a more recent and easier to read work which uses this hacking principle (and others) check out Pratchett's 'Going Postal'.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
Rings any bells?
No, it's apparently a quote from a grouchy older character in a play, not something that Socrates actually said so 'attributed to' in the generally accepted sense is not correct.
In the same way that while Shakespeare wrote 'methinks the lady doth protest too much', he didn't actually say it and you wouldn't say 'attributed to'.
The cumulative effect of the official telegraph (which no one trusts) plus throwaway gossip (which everyone believes) is utterly convincing.
Wish that was the case. We now diligently believe the official telegraph. Or should we call it the Torygraph? The abridged version called "Daily Beobachter" - for sure (*).
(*)Not invoking Godwin's law 2.0. Nope. Tempted but nope. I am sure, someone else will.
We now diligently believe the official telegraph. Or should we call it the Torygraph?
It's easier to pretend otherwise but people tend not to believe everything they read, even in their favourite newspapers. They choose what they want to believe. Sun readers laugh at the silly stories in that paper but don't necessarily believe them all to be true.
You may remember when the Daily Mail ran a spread about the Marxist historian father of (then) Labour Party leader Ed Miliband with the headline "The man who hated Britain". It turned out that dedicated right-wing DM readers didn't agree with the story or approve of its logic, and they wrote in droves to the paper to object. No apology was given but the disgruntled editor was forced to back down and his plans to use story as a platform for continued character assassination of the Miliband clan simply evaporated.
"It turned out that dedicated right-wing DM readers didn't agree with the story or approve of its logic, and they wrote in droves to the paper to object."
With the Mail readership it is not wise to question the patriotism of anyone who has served in the Armed Forces.
The funny thing is that my father was in the RN during and after WW2, and the wardroom of his last ship was indeed a hotbed of Marxism. At least one of his fellow officers was subsequently spied on by MI5. They all led blameless careers. And at well over 90, my father is still a bit Marxist.
You may remember when the Daily Mail ran a spread about the Marxist historian father of (then) Labour Party leader Ed Miliband with the headline "The man who hated Britain
I do. I also remember this spread (though I saw it abroad at the time): https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/26/1372251040906/phpLy4tFuAM.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=368d2e23441e684d51d9e1c4484af6c6
It is a common scenario when:
1. The powers that be "bend the truth a little bit". A bit of doctoring evidence here. A bit of erasing evidence there.
2. The newspapers vehemently support it.
The majority believes it. Sometimes for years. It takes people decades (and sometimes NEVER) to clear their names and the names of their loved ones.
Sure, it is usually not all of them, but the mainline ones definitely do participate in this. Some of them with glee. The Daily Pravda is a good example of that. So is Sun and friends.
It is by no means specific to Britain by the way. Happens everywhere. However, people coming from places which have broken away from a history of that generally presume ANY power that be to be lying. Anywhere we go. My standard assumption is that a government is lying. Any one. Of Any country. I believe the opposite only after evidence has been presented.
The original boss of the original Police State. Read all the mail and cracked all the codes. mary lost her head of over that and some people also died mysteriously. Shakespeare was careful about Tudor related history and King stuff. A bit before Churchill decided to tap all the telegraph cables just before WWI. Churchill created forerunner of WWII Bletchley & later GCHQ.
You still had to pay the printer to get published, he didn't offer to print it for free if you told him all about yourself, then later on you'd find out he'd sold all the juicy details on to other people while swearing to you that your secrets were safe with him if you ask him to keep them private.
Probably on it's way back to the nest..!!
may be she's still got that crap powerbank he gave her as a Christmas present...
"There it was, still in its box, unopened and still cradled in Christmas wrapping paper: the crap powerbank I'd give her."
I see a difference between the Berg's. Gutenberg invented the medium but did not use the data for his own profit, when Zuckerberg did all the opposite.
one of the men who had him unjustly imprisoned before he had an opportunity to take a ride in his Mercedes.
What a brilliant pun. I'm amazed of the deep knowledge of French culture Mr. Dabbs has.
Although I'm of the age now where I'm simultaneously considered too young by many I work with and too old by others, I despair at the attitudes of both camps to each other. Being in the sweet spot does afford me the benefit of seeing things all ways though, so not all bad
Hopefully , if society gets a grip on this whole new fake news / data mining / information culture / age of communication / brainwashing / hate spreading / election biasing / internet thing ......
The Daily Mail will be the first against the wall.
This post has been deleted by its author
Isn't that confirmation bias?
I might try the Daily Mail, to get a more balanced view
It's the first time I've seen the phrase "Daily Mail" and "balanced view" used in the same sentence without some sort of negative..
(And anyway - wouldn't the cure be worse than the disease? A bit like cutting off your fingers because one of them has a bit of psoriasis.)
My dad used to get the Express because it had good sports reporting (he'd read it from the back first).
Then it got bought by a self-interested pornographer, merged with the Daily Star (a paper that used to give me a headache just from the look of the font), developed the aforementioned headline style, became a parody of a proper newspaper, before being recently sold to the Mirror Group after 17yrs of drudge.
Headlines in the Desmond years tended to run on a repeated loop that included weather-related calamity, and how one simple tablet, probably a vitamin, could prevent memory loss and dementia. The irony of repeating that story every 4-6 weeks was almost certainly lost on the readership.
Definitely - although the Gambols were pushing it trying to make the Austin Allegro look cool, or to oddly claim a hand in the front-end styling. Still, there was always Rupert the Bear...
The Express did syndicate Calvin and Hobbes in the 80's, so something for the 70's/80's kids as well.
I doubt that has changed much over time. What has perhaps changed is more people seem to believe falsehood as truth and vice-versa. Though maybe it is just that people are more able and likely to come together to collectively believe such things, are more visible when doing so.
In the Good Old Days we read our papers and muttered, watched TV and shouted it at, bimbled down to Trafalgar Square, waved our placards, then went home. Most times no one else noticed.
These days we are more likely to see and hear what others think, can more easily engage with those collectives, become part of them.
And was theatre to entertain the masses and transport them away from tbe drudgery of life for a little while.
Much as theatre and films do today.
Most boring play of all time (did stage lighting for a fairly serious amateur group for this)
"Much ado about nothing"
When you've run out of good ideas and need some cash in a hurry....
Clue is in tbe title.
These days we are more likely to see and hear what others think, can more easily engage with those collectives, become part of them.
I think that reads more accurately as:
These days we are more likely to see and hear what others think, can more easily disparage those collectives, and mock them.
"Rich people have always dodged their taxes, "
The rich have the facilities to make it look legal. Historically most of the population didn't see why they should feather the beds of the ruling elite for little apparent return. Nowadays it is those who control their own cash flow who can cook their books.
It is expected that governments will push for a cashless society so that all financial exchanges can be tracked. That will still tend to miss barter - and creative accounting allowed by convoluted tax laws.
Nowadays there is still an educational gap between people wanting public services - and yet not wanting to put enough into the public pot to provide them. The ruling snouts in the trough don't help to dispel that attitude - some demagogues actively encourage it as a means of seeking selfish future benefits for themselves.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the lazy and flighty millennials of Parkland, Florida have been doing a rather better job of holding politicians to account than my generation.
Facebook may be flawed in many ways, but something like was bound to happen. Human nature will gradually have to adapt to a world where nothing is really ever forgotten and much "news" is fabricated gossip. That's the coming generations' burden, but there is little hard indication that previous generations would have been all that much better at it, cf various actual lynching episodes.
We might yet go all Kardashian and Idiocracy but little of this is Millenial-specific.
millennials…have been doing a rather better job of holding politicians to account than my generation.
From what I've been able to tell, what has actually changed is that Boomers & Xers are a lot more likely to care what young people think (and try to change things to suit them) than the Silent Generation & Greatest Generation were. Our experience at their age was a lot more like the way the tech community has been treated by the people in charge when it tried to save Net Neutrality, create municipal broadband fiber networks, fix/eliminate the DMCA, or many other things. (Well, except for worse: if we'd refused to read books for school that made us uncomfortable or pulled other stunts they do, we would've not only not gotten our way, we would've been in big trouble.)
Ta for that. I've been reading quotes and mis-quotes and parodies of it (and done them myself) for years and yet haven't watched it through for many years. It still makes me laugh out loud. I really ought to put a link to it into an annually recurring calendar entry :)
Apparently, older peoples view of younger people is just because older people don't like change and younger people are generally more egocentric.
Anyway, here's s a talk by Adam Conover (of Adam Ruins Everything) who was asked to talk about Millenials. He explained why there's really no such thing:
I like your reasoning. I also think that long before the advent of the Internet and Facebook, people littered their head with the news that they were inspired by their politicians or someone else. I recently came across a picture, in the first half, passengers of a regular metro were photographed, most of them looked at their smartphones, and in the second picture there was a picture of 1940, just in the subway car, only most people were reading a newspaper. And what essentially changed? :) As for me, the world does not change much, the forms of representation of the same things change, the same media just change a little. In an article on https://greatpaper.co.uk/ I read an excellent essay written by my grandmother's grandson. He wanted to justify almost all of his daytime behavior, and to explain that he behaves exactly like her in his years, just the form of representation has changed a little, nothing more.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020