• 28 Posts
  • 531 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 15th, 2024

help-circle

  • Honestly, the best history discussions on Lemmy seem to be people explaining history memes. That’s actually fitting for the type of content that has generally maintained momentum here. The quality of discourse we get here is quite good when it happens, but we are dealing more with broad-minded amateurs who respect proper historiography, rather than than actual historians. The name of this community does it a disservice in that case.

    AH is a special case on reddit. Their moderation is unapologetically draconian and exclusive, and they’ve said on many occasions that they’re openly in it for the large preexisting audience, and find the rest of Reddit culture and admin tools to be a burden. You know exactly what you’re getting with them: either nothing, or really interesting responses from millennial historians with masters and PhDs.

    I generally love it, except for the occasional AMA with some author/well known professor who is half-assing the discussion, yet the mods don’t want to alienate them because there could be IRL professional repercussions.








  • I haven’t tried the webcam, but everything else, including WiFi, worked out of the box for me. The KDE version uses modern Plasma and is not a distro that moves hell and high water to get something working on a potato, but overall it is designed with middle-old machines like these in mind.

    I’m sure a million other distros will work as well or better, but I do like MX, and it made me smile to see a child of the Mepis LiveCDs I used 20 years ago is still around.



  • I am familiar with legal Eagle, and I generally like him, though this underlines that these are entertainment videos and not law review submissions. By the same progression, law review articles, even those about legal history, generally aren’t sophisticated academic history papers. Same goes for those that touch on other field’s nexuses with the legal system. Lawyers are arrogant and get outside their lane regularly, and law professors are arroganter. :-)

    I reckon either Devin or whoever else wrote the script was going off memory, and it all got conflated. It’s a miss, to be sure, but if I were inclined to cut him some slack, the CTEA was basically an amendment to the Copyright Act of 1976, and the whole Sonny Bono thing is more of an aside in the much longer video. Frankly, calling it Bono’s major policy accomplishment is a bit off in general, as Bono was just a co-sponsor on a similar bill, probably because the the entertainment industry backed his campaigns, and he had passed away by the time final version of the CTEA further extended 1976’s similar extension.

    I would say just be careful with Legal Eagle, and view it as informational but not unimpeachable. In the videos I’ve watched, I haven’t seen anything that makes me think he’s communicating in bad faith or regularly being sloppy in how he analyzes issues. He of course has an agenda to serve his audience and to get content out in between whatever real legal work and firm management he does. I do feel pretty smug that I was complaining about law school not putting things into historical context, and here we see that’s exactly where our friendly neighborhood popularizer drops the ball.

    Seriously, there is virtually no discussion of how language changes over the decades, how events of the day influence legislators and judges, and how all of that impacts future interpretation. The rise of “originalism” and “textualism” is specifically because law students are taught that they’re equipped to understand 250 year old texts just as well as the original drafters, and that the drafters were invariably operating with what we would consider acceptable morality. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that pretending to do so gives you the necessary cover to interpret the thing in exactly as retrograde a way as you need to satisfy conservative elites.









    1. Important context: he’s talking to Laura Loomer, so trying to communicate to a skeptical White House that supporting Ukraine is supporting the values of Trump’s base. Ukrainian propaganda is real and I don’t judge them for deploying it, but we also don’t want to presume that statements like this are not calculated. That said…

    2. I mean, he’s not wrong. You can (and I’d argue should) stop well short of confiscation when trying to keep religion from being a toxic voice in a country’s political discourse. However, raising it in this conversation, when Putin seems more interested in co-opting religion rather than suppressing it, and that in a way that MAGAs would frankly find to be a useful model, makes me think of it more as a hail mary (LOL) than anything else.

    3. The last line of the article gave me pause, so in investigating this source, it appears to be an arm of the UOC-Moscow Patriarchate, and while I am concerned by any curtailment of the free exercise of religion, the Russian Orthodox church has been largely co-opted by the Putin government, leading the ecumenical patriarch in Istanbul to cut the Ukraininan church free from Moscow, and now the UOC-MP seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it to with regard to respecting Moscow without fully toeing the line on the ROC’s pro-war rhetoric. The argument would come down to whether the Russian Church is de facto an arm of the Russian state. At any rate, the site definitely has an agenda here.