Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Ukrainian Ranger]

LOL.  Thanks for the link. Had a good laugh

IMO, argument that having fewer Diminutive suffixes in language = heartless nation is not the funniest part of the article, the most hilarious example is that example with "I go home"

Author of the article says  "In Russian you can omit I from "I go home" In English you can't. That means that Westerners have higher level of individualism* unlike us Russians who care about others"

*Read egoism

[XXSockXX]

I wonder what Russians would think about that. Are we implying that Russians were less civilised than the Turkic Khanates, Uralic tribes and Caucasian Kings?

No. It's like the Chairman said, a question of cultural superiority, but numbers are also an important factor. Russia proper was never really conquered by foreigners, they just paid tribute to the Khans, so assimilation doesn't even apply.
In the "Mongols conquering China" example, China was clearly more advanced culturally than the Mongols plus the Chinese were outnumbering the Mongols by far. Same for the Mongol conquest of Persia or later on the Arab conquest of Persia, huge populations with advanced cultures always absorb more primitive conquerors while big populations with less advanced cultures often adapt to the conquest culture.
That's why Gaul was heavily romanized after the Roman conquest - Roman culture offered a lot of opportunities to the Gallic nobility -, but not germanized after the Frankish invasion - Frankish rulers were just a small elite in an otherwise more advanced territory and adopted the Romance language and culture of the people they conquered.
The Anglo-Saxon invaders left a huge impact on the British isles because there were large scale migrations and culturally they were about even with the celtic inhabitants (Roman influence on Britain had diminished at the time). The Norman conquest left a big impact on language and culture because the Norman culture was more advanced, but it ultimately didn't change culture that much, because the Normans were only a small ruling caste.

According to Russian patriotic websites and books, Westerners have always regarded Russians as uncivilized barbarians that should be exterminated because they occupy territories full of natural resources. Also, Russian patriotic websites and books describe all Westerners as degenerate uncivilized barbarians that have no culture and any morality whatsoever. They often provide somewhat strange examples to prove their words - for instance, an article that I've read once claimed that the fact that Western languages (especially English) don't have as much diminutive suffixes denoting affection as the Russian language proves that Westerners are culturally inferior to Russians (source).

I can't read the article, but the argument seems pretty stupid. In German you can also use lots of diminutives if you want, but I'm sure the authors don't have a kind view of Germans either. Though it's not entirely wrong that western people historically have looked down on Slavic people as less civilized and - when racial theories came into fashion - as inferior. Which is why I find the very active Russian Neo-Nazi movement (the Polish one too) so ridiculous, in Nazi racial ideology Slavs are ranking pretty low, beyond the blonde ones that could potentially be germanized, they were thought of as potential forced labourers at best.

[Loud Whispers]

In the "Mongols conquering China" example, China was clearly more advanced culturally than the Mongols plus the Chinese were outnumbering the Mongols by far.

In the Mongol invasions of the Jin Dynasty, the Jin Dynasty initially fielded an army of 1,000,000 soldiers against the Mongolians. They fielded the equivalent of the entire population of Norman England against an army of 100,000.
And the Mongols won.
Bloody pesky Mongols indeed.

[XXSockXX]

Sure, but you can never have enough Mongols to conquer China without becoming absorbed.

In fact the only places were Mongol conquerors retained their own culture was in thinly populated steppe regions, where they could live as nomads like before. That's why the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate survived that long, while the Ilkhanate, that managed to conquer the Muslim world as far as Turkey and Jerusalem was culturally absorbed in a few decades.

[Loud Whispers]

It's also why Athenian culture won the Peloponnesian war despite the Spartans being the victors. They needed way more Spartans to not get assimilated the fuck out of Greece.

[XXSockXX]

Yeah, it's also about what opportunites, economically and politically, a culture offers to the individual. Spartan culture was very hierarchic and only allowed for the rule of a small elite, while Athenian culture - while not exactly egalitarian by our standards - brought opportunities in trade and political participation for a much broader group of people. That's also how much of western Europe was thoroughly romanized, the Romans offered up possibilities for many. The later germanic conquerors, Langobards and Goths in Italy, Franks in Gaul, Goths and Suebi in Spain, didn't, so they didn't really make that much of a cultural impact despite being militarily more successful at the time.

[Max White]

So I hear Scotland is looking for 100% renewable energy by 2020. Is this true? More importantly, is it feasible? Will our Scottish friends become world leaders on action against climate change?

[Sergarr]

This depends on what kind of renewable energy they're going to obtain. If it's solar energy, then cool. If it's tidal or wind, then not that cool.

[Max White]

Whats wrong with wind?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As much as I love solar, you're wrong. There is no way in hell any nation will be able to build that much solar in six years. Solar hasn't even hit it's takeoff point yet.

[kaijyuu]

Whats wrong with wind?

Murders birds, iirc.

[Loud Whispers]

This depends on what kind of renewable energy they're going to obtain. If it's solar energy, then cool. If it's tidal or wind, then not that cool.

Scotland. Solar.

Do you see the problem here?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Whats wrong with wind?

Murders birds, iirc.

They've gotten much better at preventing this, mostly by putting stripes of bright color on the blades and speed regulation.

To answer the inevitable next question, Wind Turbine Syndrome is not a real thing, it is a nocebo-fueled hysteria that burns on because of major conservative media outlets never shutting up about it and mindfucking people.

[Max White]

Yea, the risk to birds is somewhat minimal. While you do see the occasional death, they are nothing next to a population of feral cats.
Also, the cure for wind turbine syndrome apparently seems to be money. When it is on somebodies land and they get paid for having the turbine there, they never contract these strange physics defying illnesses, but everybody else who doesn't get a slice of the pie seems to.

[Sheb]

What about hydro? Anyway, ain't Costa Rica already at 100% renewable? Sure, they got it easy, with all their hydro power but still.