asdjk482

You have to go into these stories with the tacit assumption of large quantities of extra-legal chemicals in the vehicle and participants, I think

This feels worrisomely prescient. The criminalization of healthy digital activities is imminent.

Surreal and insane? I'd expect to feel super-real and uncannily sane.

Here's my question: You mentioned the overwhelming level of inequality in Qatar (and the world, to no less a degree than that microcosm of it), and you must be intimately aware of the inhumanity and injustice it engenders. Do you feel at all... selfish? or at least somewhat guilty for operating on a framework that places dolls and the luxuries of your family above other concerns?

I'm not trying to guilt-trip you, I'm genuinely asking for your perspective.

Making 400k USD per year puts you well in the top global 1%. You have advantages and power that most of humanity can only dream of.

I'm inquiring because I am much, much poorer than you by US standards - below the poverty line, even - and yet I'm still in the top 5% of worldwide wealth. I feel immensely responsible for the suffering and exploitation of countless people who have been victimized, disenfranchised, and treated without the slightest human regard by an economic system that I am directly complicit in - an economic system for which the only raison d'etre is the ever-increasing accumulation of power and wealth (and greed!) in the hands of very few, at the expense of the very many, facilitated by the indifference (or myopia) and hard work (or begrudged acceptance) of people like you and me. I feel like I should do something differently. Don't you?

He asked why m classical greeks didn't practice gay marriage, and stated that tgeir disallow must not have been grounded on prejudice. Historically, that's almost incoherently anachronistic. Greek "marriage" barely resembles our idea of the concept, and they most certainly did not have the same type of framework about sexual orientation that we do. It's also simplistic to assume that they had no prejudices against homosexuality just because they were generally permissive towards some male-male sociosexual interactions.

The level of historical awareness exhibited in that dialogue was honestly depressing...

Sources aren't required, it's just that being knowledgeable is required, and demonstrating the source of your information is typically the most convenient proof of that.

I'm getting kind of sick of reddit's shallow fixation on "sources".

And the mods of AskHistorians are mostly lovely!