Krista MilburnLatest answers
i wanted to become a patron on your patreon and noticed the link is gone on your YT. where can i donate to you? i can't give much but i like your posts and shares and would like to. and don't worry about that 'but u don't have to' modesty shit. everyone and their uncle takes donations now fam. LMK.
If you truly do wish to donate, you can do so here:
I greatly appreciate it, either way!
As an aside, my Patreon is gone because they deleted my account abruptly for reasons unknown a few months ago (they didn't reply when I emailed them).
Due to that, I didn't bother to make a new one.
You know in Rob Zombie's 2007 Halloween remake, the Dr. says. black is " the absence of color." and "In the spectrum of colors, you go from black, which is no color, all the way through to white, which is every color. " But shouldn't it be the other way around?
The color spectrum arises from breaking up white light.
That is, white is what happens when all or most light is reflected.
Black is what transpires when all light is absorbed.
The colors that we see are based on what light is absorbed and reflected.
It's only "inverse" in painting; or, that's largely why people think this, anyway.
you indicated the chinese got rekt a lot in ancient history. what about byzantine? also what about like, who would win between the spartans vs. the byzantine empire? :)
The Byzantines spent most of their history figuratively spilling Greek fire on themselves. And, as for the Spartans versus the Byzantine Empire, well, they're both Greek, but Byzantine would almost certainly have won. Byzantine would have had a massive technological advantage, militarily.
Of course, when the Byzantine Empire was faced with enemies of similar technological status, they lost often.
Their immense, absurdly awful losses were largely deep in the desert (where they didn't have their technological advantages: siege weaponry, naval tech, Greek fire, et cetera), and their quintessential loss was a scandal.
As I recall, a gate got opened that shouldn't have been able to be (or should not have been) opened, and to this day, we don't know who opened it.
Was it left open by accident?
Was it opened by a spy?
They were Greeks, after all.
It doesn't even matter!
It's essentially the true test of an empire:
"How best can we squander all of our massive advantages?"
Do you think misogyny (as in actual hatred/contempt for women, not the feminist "he doesn't give women unearned special treatment" definition) is ever justifiable? What would your reaction to a person who thinks this way be?
Bigotry is irrational and never justifiable, whether it is misogyny or misandry or any other kind. It may be useful in some instances, depending on your aims, but your aims are probably not justifiable, or very loosely so, in such cases.
I think that all forms of bigotry are founded in misguided maleducation (read as mal-education), and/or are a reaction to one's own feelings of repression, bitterness, or inadequacy, and so I would view anyone who believes that their bigotry is justified within the parameters of these generally irrational emotional states.
(I would likely ignore most, as there is little that I could do to help them.)
you always give good history answers so i was curious for your take on this. who do you think would win in a battle between: 1. roman legionnaires vs. greek spartans, 2. legion vs. spartans vs. han dynasty of China, 3. roman legion vs. a medieval army. looking forward to your reply!
1) Betwixt the Roman Legionnaires and the Greek Spartans, the Romans.
They had better armor and weapons and larger militaries.
2) Between the legion, Spartans, and the Han Dynasty, likely the Chinese.
Again, they would've had the best armor and weapons and the biggest army.
Although, this is assuming that the leadership would be equal, as well. Ancient Chinese history is filled with tales of incompetent fools losing gigantic armies in the face of much smaller, more determined, more clever foes. As long as the Romans weren't led by Quinctilius Varus (or, say, Crassus), they could have had a fair chance against the oriental menace.
Most Chinese commanders weren't fools, though. If it were the ancient Chinese, more broadly, I would contend that it would depend on the era. The Chinese had a period of prosperity under the Han Dynasty and lost a great deal of their warrior ethic, but it came back during the succeeding era of strife. Yet, the Han still had some decent commanders, particularly in its later years.
For instance, during the Yellow Turban Rebellion, which was essentially at the end of the Han period, antecedent to the country severing into several kingdoms, and when many of the greatest generals of the Three Kingdoms period were all assembled on one side, they crushed the rebels. Yuan Shao, Sun Jian, Liu Bei, Guan Yu, and Cao Cao, each, were a part of that campaign.
3) Betwixt Rome and a medieval army, I would say probably the latter.
That is, unless they were at a great numerical disadvantage.
The chief weakness of the Romans was their over-reliance on heavy infantry. Their best bet of beating a medieval army would have been the not-unlikely chance that the medievals would charge their ranks of disciplined infantry with their heavy cavalry, in which case, the medievals could very well get laughably annihilated.
(It'd also depend on the years of Rome, generally. Roman technology in 0 CE was vastly inferior to technology ~500 years later. After all, not all steel is equal. And, the "Roman Legionnaire," as in, the emblematic, elite heavy infantryman, started with the Marian reforms, 100 BCE, and it is not clear to me how long they went on in that exact form. The legion itself, however, as a method of organization, dates back to around 500 BCE. So, this aspect might be contingent on your meaning; that is, whether you mean the organization or the stereotypical Italian fellow with the lorica segmentata, the rectangular shield, and the Roman helmet.)
I loved this question, but I am running out of character space, so I must end here!
What is your beef with Lauren Southern, if any?S
I shall be polite in this case and summarize my current opinion of her as follows:
I think of Lauren more as a purveyor of perspective than as a source of information.
When she's not playing her character, she is far easier to get along with.
But, she is ostensibly prohibited from interacting with me, so I suppose it doesn't matter either way. I could criticize her all day and she may never defend herself.
In other words, I might rethink bothering to admonish her.
It is not worthwhile if she can't do anything about it.
Why do you continue to ignore if not downplay the consistent pattern of Jews holding disproportionate corporate, legal, governmental, and academic power in the US?
Because I don't think that they do, and have seen little evidence of this beyond conspiracy "theories" (a misnomer) which stem from apophenia, paranoia, and long-standing, deep-rooted antisemitism (e.g., pogroms, the Holocaust, in decades prior, "No Jews Neighborhoods" in the U.S., usury laws in medieval Europe).
Nearly all of this persecution arises from a simple human defect: it is easier to blame one's society's problems on a scapegoat, and ignore or shun responsibility for the problems one helped to create. That issue persists to this day, across the planet.
Besides, even the volk who think that the Jews are subhumans believe that they rule the world, puppeteering the entire globe (as you indicated in your question, as well); by Nazi logic, that makes Jews the true master race.
I mean, look at most "Aryan" skinheads. They're generally fat, slovenly, balding, red-faced degenerates (and probably interracial cuckolding fantasists, which is why they go around projecting these labels and concepts unto others), ugly as sin, and they, unfortunately, don't have a genetic flaw to excuse them, other than being "Aryan."
Not only that, but skinheads are likewise frequently poor and trash-classed.
Now, compare these attributes with the modern Jew; urbane, refined, can afford gym trainers and perfect hygiene. More attractive. Essentially, superior in every fashion.
Plus, they're God's chosen people.
Therefore, it is an arduous task to deny that the Jews are the real Herrenrasse.
As an aside, I care little about racial politics, overall.
My interests are, principally, more internal.
i read you say once (paraphrasing) you don't think people are inherently 'good' or 'bad' but inherently 'needful' and being 'good' happens to fulfill needs more often. which i think is a great way to summarize it. but would you also say then that people are naturally self-interested in general?
Class and self-interest must be amongst the principal expressions of human nature because their supremacy cannot be nullified except in cases, or under circumstances, where their pursuit brings no rewards.
What are your thoughts on convivencia in Spain from 741-1492? Do you think it was commonplace, overly romanticized, or a little of both?
My boy Maimonides "may have prompted his bitter statement that Islam had inflicted more pain on the Jewish people than any other 'nation.'"
Anyway, I think that it was likely a gallimaufry or mixed bag, if you will, similar to modern day cultural "melting pots." That is to say, a bit of each; there probably were incidents of both great strife and perfect cooperation, depending on the specific folk involved and the overall or totality of the circumstances.
It is arduous to imagine that it was always one way or another.
For YT Q&A: It may seem trivial compared to other issues, but what do you think of the way arts and entertainment media have been whipped into obedience to certain ideologies, like feminism, that has lead to the subordination of creative freedom to ideology, especially ideological falsehoods?
I don't think that it is generally subordination as much as it is often vapid pandering; and, said vapid pandering can make it arduous to distinguish when there is genuine support for an issue by developers, while on the other hand, there are developers who are dumbfastedly anvil-handed about their issues.
Our "progressive" culture enables the latter category of hacks.
What do you regard as Humanity's greatest invention so far??
Why, the internet, of course.
Other contenders, in my opinion, might include nuclear power.
Surprise picks that I disagree with because ancapistani scum:
Did you, elizabeth hobson or any other so-called FeMRA/antifeminist/non-feminist do anything to help Gregg Elliott (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX37YsFJvR0)? If so, what?
I posted on it, but that's about all that I was able to do.
I wouldn't know what Elizabeth Hobson did, as I rarely talk to her.
I'd say in the past couple years, she and I have only spoken around a dozen times, briefly, and I don't follow her daily postings. So, ask her what she did, instead.
Lauren Southern posted on Gregory's case a number of times, as well.
In fact, she made it a focus of hers around that time.
I've talked to him since he began using Twitter again; he seems to be a nice man!
I don't know what anyone else did beyond this.
I have long been largely out of the loop.
I don't keep up with many content creators.
I'm taking a class on history from the 1500s to 1800s. What do you know about the french revolution? This isn't for homework specifically I just wanted some notes for the topic because it's coming up. No problem if you can't help!
You are in luck, as that falls within the realm of my interests.
Some of what you will probably want to know is as follows:
Louis XVI called the Estates General in 1789.
This representative body had not met since 1614.
The Third Estate, a group of merchants and professionals, met and took the Tennis Court Oath; they remained in session until they were granted a constitution.
Following riots in Paris and the storming of the Bastille, Louis condoned the forming of a National Assembly. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen became the French constitution.
It stated that: "Men are born and remain free in equal rights," and guaranteed: "Inalienable Rights of liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression."
(That law would be the expression of the general will.)
Moreover, it was argued that, while a common tax was indispensable, society must be equally taxed, and freedom of thought, religion, petition, and due process under the law were considered imperative.
The Reign of Terror began when the Jacobin Convention voted to remove the king and queen after a failed escape attempt in 1791. In 1792, Austria attempted to invade France to rescue them, and afterwards, the radicals within the Assembly called for their execution on the grounds of "treason against the Revolution."
The Assembly voted 361-359 in favor of execution.
Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, were sent to the guillotine.
Jacobin leader, Maximilien Robespierre, then formed the Committee for Public Safety and began to execute many nobles, priests, and anyone that disagreed with himself or the Jacobin dominated assembly.
40,000 people were killed from 1793-1794.
This time ended when Robespierre and his group were overthrown and guillotined.
These events brought about the rule of the Directory (1794-1799), who, as a backlash, began to root out political radicals and have them executed or imprisoned.
Napoleon Bonaparte then led a coup in 1799 which deposed the Directory and gave him control of France under the title of "first consul." In 1804, he crowned himself emperor and began a quest to conquer the world.
Anyway, great question. Thank you.
Who are some of your favorite philosophers to read?
John S. Mills, Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre, Spinoza, and Simone de Beauvoir.
Mills and Kant, in particular.
Utilitarianism is terrific, and Kant's fairly canonical, basic philosophy.
(I'm something of a Kantian in principle, and a utilitarian in practice. ;])
I chiefly enjoy readings in the realms of utilitarianism and existentialism.
Semi-related, if it interests you:
Really curious as to what your engagement with it was like as a teen now, as it's generally been my experience that highschoolers aren't transparently taught much feminist theory. It's cool if you don't want to go into it, though.
It’s not especially interesting, but:
I never had any real exposure to outright feminist theory in (high) school, aside from whatever might have been ingrained in the general culture then (feminist views are, overall, less apparent in the South, but their basic forms still permeate the culture to some degree, as they do in most Western societies).
Around 2007, I began spending a great deal of time perusing articles online, which eventually drew me to reading about sex issues, which led me to reviewing the works of feminists, and the cognitive dissonance I saw in their inconsistent or contradictory expressions and ideas led to me sort of tinkering with some of the fundamental concepts, so that absurdities of self-contradiction or category error might be forefended.
(Mostly in my spare moments.)
From then until around 2011, I largely just lurked on conversations. I had my first direct online contact with members of a “radical feminist” collective near the end of 2011, which provided me the motivation to read more radical feminist literature to see whether their claims, which they appeared to constrict and make more extreme over time, held up. I then kept my own notes of passages I found incongruous with other passages; variations and external contexts did not help, and commentaries by feminists often ignored both.
Then, in early 2012, I had an argument with a feminist on the internet, who I think was named Jasmine, and we delved into the topic of fathers, and I started telling her about what my father went through (who had died a few years prior), and she was exceptionally dismissive and hostile in response, which vexed me.
A few days subsequent to that, I decided to make my character.
The objections I found during all those years when I was merely an observer have not waned or weakened over the 4-5 years that I have been in active debates with feminists. As I stated in a previous answer, as I learn more, my objections strengthen.
As an aside, I didn’t learn about what MRAs were until a few weeks after I started my character, when they began responding to it and to me.
So, I had a fair amount of new reading to do after that.
What makes you think so highly of shoe0nhead? I don't see much of what she does as having much substance, and she has something of a bully's mentality in how she only really criticizes people she can dismiss as low status in some way, and aggrandizes herself and her "inner circle".
Well, I may not agree with everything that June says or does, but I have talked to her privately on more than one occasion, and she has always been extremely kind and thoughtful, so my private experiences of her have led me to like her.
She has also criticized people who might otherwise be considered her allies if she were to say nothing for reasons that I thought were usually reasonable, and I favor that sort of activity (on any side of a debate). I enjoy self-scrutiny amongst groups.
I didn't say she was a perfect person, but I'm not going to pretend not to like her when I do. Yet, our association doesn't go beyond being friendly acquaintances, and as I just stated on Twitter tonight, I am going to begin attempting to shy away from commenting on other e-personalities too often (at least negatively), so I am unlikely to go about scolding her for her behavior.
I suppose if she says or does something particularly egregious, I may notice and might feel compelled to remark on it, but I don't follow her activity every day, and I have yet to see her do much that I considered especially fiendish.
I haven't even seen more than a few minutes of one of her videos, ever, if that puts my knowledge of how she is outside of my own experiences of her into perspective.
My apologies if you've covered this somewhere already, but did you ever consider yourself a feminist in the past? If so, when did you "convert" and why? I saw your satire stuff way back when, but your sincere online presence is relatively new to me, so I'm curious, if you care to share.HighlightingMisandry
I've never been particularly "feminist," in all honesty.
As a teenager, I had a sort of broiling hatred of feminism, which is partially what led me to begin my character in the first place. I'd say that my animosity toward the subject has actually decreased as I've aged, but that is largely because my "anger" in life toward most things that might have vexed me has generally decreased.
My fundamental disagreements with much of the theory which comes from the feminisms, however, still remain and even increase as I know more.
Why did you quit making YT videos? Your content is awesome. You would reach a lot more people who miss all the ask posts and tweets and shit if you started again.
1) I don't really have the means to do so, as I am currently impoverished.
2) I don't have the time or energy.
3) I dislike the YouTube community, in general.
4) I dislike YouTube itself, overall.
5) I don't enjoy making videos anymore.
6) Too many people there are perpetually fixated on the past and petty bickering.
You are correct that I could reach more people through YouTube. If I had been as constant on YouTube with what I post as I have been on Twitter and other sites, I would be far more "popular" than I am presently. Folk ask me this regularly via other mediums, as well, and I always provide the answers above.
I may make occasional videos in the future, but probably not often.
I hate recording and editing content.
Thank you for your interest, nonetheless!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4LVQjoWYAAh8aP.jpg Isn't that the grip, not the pommel?
Aye, the pommel is on the bottom. Occasionally, the pommel is large and fits over the tang to form a grip, but typically you have the pommel on the bottom holding a cord or wrapping in place around the tang.
I liked your take on part of the fall of Rome. What do you think contributed to the fall of the Greek city states?
I believe that it was the rise of empires that brought down the city-states of Greece.
How much is Soros paying you?
I know this is in jest, but if he were, it would have to be a lot; enough to make me forget my principles, but not so much that I would worry about being targeted.
That is, assuming that he wanted me to be extremely far-left or far-right.
Contact me before you shuffle off this mortal coil, George. We'll reach an accord!
https://ask.fm/Femitheist/answers/140843960043 Impressive. Now, can you provide some insight why the Laplace transform works? (This is not a homework question, I promise you; diff-eq teachers will introduce the Laplace transform but never explain what it exploits or why it does what it does)
All I know about anyone named Laplace is concerned with distension of the heart; or, more generally, distension of a sphere and how it relates to wall tension.
"Now, can you provide some insight why the Laplace transform works?"
If I recall correctly, it's changing the function set between domains from time domain to frequency domain, or the reverse for inverse Laplace transform. Why it does what it does is that Pierre-Simon Laplace found that there is a mathematical, formulaic connection between frequency (as in, electromagnetic frequency) and time signals (as in, temporal frequency) in electronic circuitry. Moreover, it can be extrapolated to all sorts of function sets; it's one of those mathematical formulæ that "works because it does," similar to how Pi is a "magical number."
In practice, the Laplace transform is, as far as I know, largely exclusive to the work of engineers. I've not heard of much use of it outside of circuit or electrical engineering. (That's not to say that there isn't, but simply that I am not familiar with such.)
saw your post on jousting armor so i thought i'd ask, shat is the advantage of leather armor to full plate mail armor? and if you had two people fighting, one wearing each, who would have the advantage?
It depends, as there are a wide variety of types of both leather and metal armor.
It also depends on what kind of weapon you're facing.
Leather armor is fairly effective at stopping slashing weapons and has some slight effectiveness against blunt and piercing weapons, but ultimately, it's not great against something like a broadaxe or a spear.
If your enemy is using a sword, or you are mostly wearing the armor for protection from improvised or riot weapons, leather is probably sufficient. Metal is still, however, superior. There's a chance that leather could save your life in a pinch, but metal armor will nearly always save your life.
(Unless you're swimming in a fast river; rest in peace, Barbarossa.)
Anyway, if you were to compare the effectiveness of, say, leather cuir bouilli—a leather breastplate, essentially—versus a cuirass made of, let's say, iron. The cuir bouilli would likely protect you from up to several blows from weapons such as a wooden spear, a quarterstaff, a dull handaxe, et cetera (low-tier peasant weapons).
Against a knight's sword, though, it might only require 2-3 blows before your armor is done for, and against a serious battlefield weapon such as a Zweihänder or polehammer, it'd be useless. Metal pikes would pierce it as well. The metal armor, on the other hand, would basically protect you from any number of blows from peasant weaponry. It would probably protect you from any number of blows from a sword, as well. Against a battlefield bludgeon or axe, or a spear, it would protect you still, although not for very long. I could see it being effective at stopping a spear, assuming the spear-wielder doesn't poke through the gabs in your armor. Blows from an iron mace or axe would probably be strong enough to cave the armor in.
Now, if it was full Gothic plate armor, which was made of high-quality tempered steel, it could likely shrug off blows from anything other than a polearm or ranged weapon such as a gun or crossbow.
But, that kind of armor was fairly rare. Polearms, however, were absurdly strong. A squad of halberdiers or polehammermen could annihilate both heavy cavalry and men-at-arms or knights. Additionally, a solid blow from a poleaxe or halberd could pierce nearly any armor except for full, high quality plate.
And, that's what polehammers were for. One solid headshot, and they're finished; one solid leg shot, and they're on the ground getting dogpiled.
Thank ya for the fun question!
How would you describe the differences of the religions of ancient Greece and Rome?
Roman religion was a state church. Before the emperor was pontifex, the pontifex was selected from the senatorial class.
Greece was, as I described in a prior answer, a number of different cults, each one revolving around a particular god in the pantheon.
"Read about the Greek Mysteries. The worship of each individual god in the Greek pantheon was essentially an entirely different religion with different rites, texts, and beliefs. People had to join a mystery before they knew the actual rites and texts. You didn't go in knowing nothing. You knew the god that was being worshiped, and probably a lot on beliefs concerning them. If you, say, worshiped the goddess of fertility, others might have thought that you were likely a nymphomaniac."
And, as a secondary, only semi-related aside:
In my opinion, the fall of Rome probably had more to do with promoting Christianity than Rome's declaration of it as their official religion, as some claim, as the patriarchs outside of Constantinople were freed from the emperor's thumb post-fall. This was also likely far more significant a later cause, or an element of the later cause(s), of Christianity's rise than the Roman Empire's simple aforementioned claiming of it.
Converts would submit to God, and his vicar, be he in Rome or Antioch or Baghdad, but only in a religious sense, whereas submitting to an imperially-ordained organization might have been considered placing themselves (metaphorically) at the emperor's feet.
The West around the time of the fall converted the conquerors of the Roman Empire's territories, and beyond, while Orthodox Christendom, under Constantinople's command, chiefly converted people who were already, at least nominally, tied to the empire (e.g., the Georgians, Slavs [Varangians], and Bulgars).
Imperial control of the Church was helpful in suppressing heresy and schismatics, but only so long as those schismatic forces remained politically minor. Joining Church and State is risky business; nearly every empire in history has discovered this eventually.
Christianity was additionally, for lack of better terms, more “glamorous" and “welcoming,” in general, than a lot of other religions at the time.
Can you help me with these calc problems plz?? :) (1) If f(x) = x^3, find an expression for d/dx [f(g(x))]. (2) Find the area of the region bounded by the curve y^2 -x-2y+2=0 and x-5=0. (3) What is the slope of the line tangent to y=x^1/3 ; x=8. (4) lim ---> 5 (x^2+25)/(x+5) thx!
d(f(g(x)))/dx = f'(g(x)) g'(x) = 3g(x)²g'(x)
y² - x - 2y + 2=0 and x=5.
y² - 2y + 1 - x + 1=0 and x=5.
(y-1)² - x + 1=0 and x=5.
(y-1)² = x - 1 and x=5.
y = 1+√(x-1) and y = 1-√(x-1) from x=1 to x=5.
Area = ∫∫dA = ∫[(1+√(x-1)) - (1-√(x-1))]dx [1 5]
= 2∫√(x-1)dx [1 5]
= 2[2/3 (x-1)^(3/2)] [1 5]
= 2[2/3 (5-1)^(3/2)] - 2[2/3 (1-1)^(3/2)]
= 2[2/3 (4)^(3/2)]
= 2[2/3 (2)^3]
Differentiate with the power rule.
Plug in 8 to find f prime of 8.
(5^2 +25)/(10) = 50 /10 = 5
You should do your own homework.
You could do some of this, sans calculator.