Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    [–] The Phillies TV broadcast JosiahWillardPibbs 1 points ago in phillies

    Can I get some info on this my guy?

    PS: Roll Tide

    [–] Maggie Rawlins JosiahWillardPibbs 2 points ago in goddesses

    Back not bent so her ass is on her shoulders

    Maggie is a 10/10 lady and that is a 10/10 comment

    [–] Barbara JosiahWillardPibbs 1 points ago in BarbaraPalvin

    No offense but this is a repost I can let slide

    [–] Carmella Rose JosiahWillardPibbs 4 points ago in NSFWfashion

    Standing ovation

    You are a saint /u/Sammy_Samuelson

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 1 points ago in todayilearned

    You need not take my word for it. For two highly readable accounts of the conquest of the Americas I recommend

    1491

    and

    American Colonies

    The historical evidence overwhelmingly shows that epidemics of smallpox, measles, etc. rapidly outpaced the encroachment of white settlement. There were complex societies, such as the Mississippi Valley culture, that completely collapsed literally centuries before white settlers began pressuring them. In the entire history of the colonization of the Americas there is really only the incident of giving blankets with smallpox to Native Americans in 1763, after which most of the natives who would die from smallpox already had and which accounts for an incredibly minuscule percentage of total deaths.

    Regarding tobacco, it probably is true that smoking it is no worse than smoking another plant, but that really isn't at issue because smoking other plants, overwhelmingly, isn't a thing. An incredibly tiny percentage of all plant species are smoked worldwide, and the key thing is that among them tobacco is extremely, and almost uniquely, addictive. Inhaling smoke from anything burning is very bad for you, but the key problem with tobacco smoking is that you are likely to become addicted to it and then consume it in the volumes needed to cause cancer and cardiovascular disease. It is immaterial whether smoking some other plant could have become a cultural practice leading to millions of deaths, but the actual history of the matter is that the New World introduced tobacco smoking to the Old, unintentionally leading to millions of deaths over time.

    Last, I'm not sure why you interpret the chronic inflammatory response to smoking as a minor injury; this description is characteristic of how all degenerative and carcinogenic processes work. None of them are acute processes. If you dismiss this as a minor chance for injury, you may as well say that any practice that doesn't result in immediate risk of death has only a minor chance of injury, e.g. chronic alcohol abuse and cirrhosis of the liver for example. It is not the way to live a healthful life.

    [–] Martin Luther King and his wife Coretta, 1964 JosiahWillardPibbs 37 points ago in OldSchoolCool

    I'm not disputing that overall Augustus accomplished an incredible amount at a young age but your math is still a touch off. The Battle of Actium, in which Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra were decisively defeated, occurred in 31 BC so Octavian, having been born in 63 BC, was about 32 at the time, not 20. He then was declared Augustus (effectively emperor) in 27 BC, when he was 36.

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 1 points ago * (lasted edited 13 hours ago) in todayilearned

    I already addressed this elsewhere so I will just copy and paste my previous response.

    The smallpox blankets were a one off, or nearly one off, event that affected only Native American tribes involved in the siege of Fort Pitt in 1763. This was 250 years after the fall of the Aztecs and Incas. Smallpox had already torn through the Americas and most of the catastrophic population decline that would happen already had. Smallpox outraced the physical encroachment of the European settlers at a phenomenal rate. Native Americans were dying left and right in the northern Great Plains in the late 1700s, for example, who had never even seen a white person. The Mississippi River valley culture collapsed in the mid 1500s under the onslaught of smallpox well over 200 years before American settlers started moving into the area. Indeed, tribes such as the Cherokee and Creek only came into being in the aftermath of this society's collapse; they were akin to the European kingdoms that arose in the Middle Ages after the fall of Rome.

    The biological warfare used at the battle in question (which is not entirely undisputed by the way) was an incredibly trivial portion of what overwhelmingly, across four centuries, was an accidental process. Even then, how significant it was even among the tribes of the Ohio Country and upstate New York is unknown, because smallpox had been tearing through those tribes since the fall of Fort William Henry in 1757, after Native Americans seized from their French allies several dozen American/English provincial prisoners of war who had been suffering from smallpox. They brought those ill soldiers back to their communities and with them smallpox. The significance of the blankets in the grand arc of the pandemics that destroyed the pre-Columbian population of the Americas isn't even a rounding error, as immoral as it was.

    The issue is not so much whether it happened (it probably did), but whether it is really characteristic of the spread of the disease through the Americas in the post-Columbian era. Frankly, it is not. Of course giving the Native Americans the blankets intentionally was deeply immoral, but the reality is that the smallpox epidemics that savaged the Americas did not begin with this incident. They had begun centuries earlier and had already killed most of the people they ever would; later deadly epidemics were also accidental. Had this incident never occurred, the overall arc of history would have been unchanged.

    EDIT: For a couple of extremely readable books packed with insights that describe the conquest of the Americas and the role (accidental) epidemic disease played, I highly recommend:

    1491

    and

    American Colonies

    Both authors have a passionately pro-Native American slant and do not hesitate to criticize the behavior of the conquerors, but the overall message of the epidemics is, again, that it was overwhelmingly an unintentional process.

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 1 points ago * (lasted edited 13 hours ago) in todayilearned

    I already addressed this elsewhere so I will just copy and paste my previous response.

    The smallpox blankets were a one off, or nearly one off, event that affected only Native American tribes involved in the siege of Fort Pitt in 1763. This was 250 years after the fall of the Aztecs and Incas. Smallpox had already torn through the Americas and most of the catastrophic population decline that would happen already had. Smallpox outraced the physical encroachment of the European settlers at a phenomenal rate. Native Americans were dying left and right in the northern Great Plains in the late 1700s, for example, who had never even seen a white person. The Mississippi River valley culture collapsed in the mid 1500s under the onslaught of smallpox well over 200 years before American settlers started moving into the area. Indeed, tribes such as the Cherokee and Creek only came into being in the aftermath of this society's collapse; they were akin to the European kingdoms that arose in the Middle Ages after the fall of Rome.

    The biological warfare used at the battle in question (which is not entirely undisputed by the way) was an incredibly trivial portion of what overwhelmingly, across four centuries, was an accidental process. Even then, how significant it was even among the tribes of the Ohio Country and upstate New York is unknown, because smallpox had been tearing through those tribes since the fall of Fort William Henry in 1757, after Native Americans seized from their French allies several dozen American/English provincial prisoners of war who had been suffering from smallpox. They brought those ill soldiers back to their communities and with them smallpox. The significance of the blankets in the grand arc of the pandemics that destroyed the pre-Columbian population of the Americas isn't even a rounding error, as immoral as it was.

    The issue is not so much whether it happened (it probably did), but whether it is really characteristic of the spread of the disease through the Americas in the post-Columbian era. Frankly, it is not. Of course giving the Native Americans the blankets intentionally was deeply immoral, but the reality is that the smallpox epidemics that savaged the Americas did not begin with this incident. They had begun centuries earlier and had already killed most of the people they ever would; later deadly epidemics were also accidental. Had this incident never occurred, the overall arc of history would have been unchanged.

    EDIT: For a couple of extremely readable books packed with insights that describe the conquest of the Americas and the role (accidental) epidemic disease played, I highly recommend:

    1491

    and

    American Colonies

    Both authors have a passionately pro-Native American slant and do not hesitate to criticize the behavior of the conquerors, but the overall message of the epidemics is, again, that it was overwhelmingly an unintentional process.

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 2 points ago in todayilearned

    1. Do you dispute the importance of intentionality in judging moral acts?

    2. You are mistaken regarding the health effects of tobacco products. Smoking is carcinogenic for three independent reasons, each of which is unrelated to additives. First, upon the incomplete combustion of any organic material, hundreds of different carcinogenic organic (organic in the chemistry sense, not health food sense) compounds are produced, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, acrolein, and nitrosamines. This is true of any smoke. Second, tobacco leaves tend to bioaccumulate radioactive lead 210 and polonium 210, which deposit in the lung tissue of smokers and emit alpha radiation (the most damaging kind at such short range) directly into the lung epithelium. Third, the chronic inflammatory response of the lung epithelium to the injury from smoking causes increased cell turnover and more opportunities for DNA damage to accumulate during cell divisions; moreover, there is evidence that the pro-inflammatory cytokine milieu produced under these conditions also up-regulates dysplastic growth patterns in the tissue that may lead to outright malignancy.

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 5 points ago in todayilearned

    In my post I was critiquing the original poster's description of the Native American deaths from accidentally introduced diseases as genocide. Of course the Indian Removal Act was intentional and abominable. I should add though that while ethically reprehensible I would not consider it genocide per se since the goal was simply to move them somewhere else, not exterminate them as a people as Hitler wanted to do to the Jews in the Holocaust.

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 16 points ago in todayilearned

    You have to have a very shortsighted view back into history to think this. Europe only really became a net exporter of imperialism after 1492. In the grand scheme of civilization this is a very short period of time. Before that, for example, Europe had been the punching bag for the imperialist ambitions of the Islamic world for almost a millenium; indeed, the tide would not begin to turn on that front until 1683 (in 1565 and 1683 the Austrians turned back the Ottomans at Vienna). Imperialism is what happens, historically, when societies are in a position of strength--they exploit and subjugate those who are weaker than them. It's not ok but it's equally not a uniquely European thing. What was unique about the European period of imperialism was that Europe achieved such vastly superior technology to everywhere else in the world that their imperial ambitions were just exceptionally successful by historical standards. The whole story of European imperialism was bringing guns to knife fights. If you really think about it, many, perhaps most, of the most famous victims of European imperialism were in their own time as aggressive imperialists as the Europeans were or worse, e.g. the Aztecs or the Ottomans.

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 34 points ago * (lasted edited a day ago) in todayilearned

    The smallpox blankets were a one off, or nearly one off, event that affected only Native American tribes at the siege of Fort Pitt in 1763. This is 250 years after the fall of the Aztecs. Smallpox had already torn through the Americas and most of the catastrophic population decline that would happen already had. Smallpox outraced the physical encroachment of the European settlers at a phenomenal rate. Native Americans were dying left and right in the northern Great Plains in the late 1700s, for example, who had never even seen a white person. The Mississippi River valley culture collapsed under the onslaught of smallpox over 200 years before American settlers started moving into the area.

    The biological warfare used at the battle in question (which is not entirely undisputed by the way) was an incredibly trivial portion of what overwhelmingly, across centuries, was an accidental process. Even then, how significant it was even among the tribes of the Ohio Country and upstate New York is unknown, because smallpox had been tearing through those tribes since the fall of Fort William Henry in 1757, after Native Americans seized from their French allies several dozen American/English provincial prisoners of war who had been suffering from smallpox. They brought those ill soldiers back to their communities and with them smallpox. The significance of the blankets in the grand arc of the pandemics that destroyed the pre-Columbian population of the Americas isn't even a rounding error, as immoral as it was.

    EDIT: Added paragraph break

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 62 points ago in todayilearned

    Case in point. There is no more classic, tragic story of the Native Americans being subjugated to imperialism than the fall of the Sioux. They fought tooth and nail against white settlers and the US military to keep their sacred home, the Black Hills. But here's a hard truth. The Sioux weren't from the Black Hills. They had lived for centuries hundreds of miles east in Minnesota. They acquired guns from the Europeans and learned how to ride and domesticate horses before the tribes that lived in the Black Hills area, the Blackfoot and Pawnee and Shoshones. And guess what? The Sioux showed up and conquered them. They killed them, enslaved them, made refugees of anyone who could escape, and took the Black Hills for themselves. This process was complete less than a century before they lost that land to the whites--it was practically still within living memory. The Sioux didn't start living in the Black Hills until the late 1700s. Live by the sword, die by the sword; what goes around comes around. Imperialism is not ok, it's some bad shit, and this doesn't make our conquest of the Sioux acceptable ethically, but the reality is that many of imperialism's most famous victims were also its notorious perpetrators when they were in a position of strength.

    [–] Post Game Thread: New England Patriots (11-5) at Kansas City Chiefs (12-4) JosiahWillardPibbs 1 points ago in nfl

    Breaking news--Tony Romo flying to KC to interview for the Chiefs' soon-to-be-vacant defensive coordinator position

    [–] TIL in 1973 Chippewa chief Adam Fortunate Eagle flew from California to Italy, "discovering" it and claiming it for his tribe on the same basis as Christopher Columbus's claims to Native American lands JosiahWillardPibbs 51 points ago in todayilearned

    I mean there was a genocide, even if it was largely an accidental transfer of pathogens

    That's not how genocide works. It requires intentionality. Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews and moved hell and high water to make it happen. The depopulation of the Americas due to disease was one of the greatest tragedies of all time but it was accidental. The Europeans and the Native Americans knew equally jack shit about how disease worked.

    I'm not going to sit here and say that Columbus was a good guy. He wasn't. Long story short imperialism is some bad shit. But by your reasoning you should call the Native Americans introducing white people to tobacco smoking a genocide too. They didn't know it was harmful but guess what: fast forward a few centuries and smoking has killed more white people than smallpox killed Native Americans by a comfortable margin.

    [–] Torn JosiahWillardPibbs 3 points ago in NSFWfashion

    Even by the very high standards of this sub, I'm impressed

    [–] Control your hormones JosiahWillardPibbs 2 points ago in blackpeoplegifs

    Just tryin to make clear for people not from the area my guy

    [–] Control your hormones JosiahWillardPibbs 15 points ago in blackpeoplegifs

    Bruh Chester is more the hood than Philly is.

    [–] Rare day to see Mt. McKinley completely visible with a reflection! [OC][OS][3600x2400] JosiahWillardPibbs 6 points ago in EarthPorn

    Don't know why you're being downvoted--it's a reasonable convention. I also think there is a misconception among many people that calling a mountain or place something different from what the indigenous people in the area call it must be offensive or some kind of imperialistic holdover. In general I don't think there would be anything wrong with most Americans saying Mount McKinley and Alaskan Natives saying Denali. The same thing is done with place names between different white/European peoples all the time. In English-speaking countries we say Rome, Florence, Milan, and Venice, but of course in Italy they're really Roma, Firenze, Milano, and Venezia. What we call Germany the Germans themselves would call Deutschland. No harm no foul.

    But, all that said, in this particular case Denali is definitely preferable and I think it's a good thing that they changed the name back. In both sound and meaning it evokes the majesty of the mountain ("the great one").The reality is that the name Mount McKinley made zero sense whatsoever. William McKinley never climbed Denali or ever set eyes on it and it's likely he didn't even know the mountain existed. In fact he never even set foot in Alaska in his life.

    [–] Emily in a ... shirt JosiahWillardPibbs -1 points ago in EmilyRatajkowski

    Emily has no real understanding of what counts as clothing and I love it

    [–] Nude on a Beach JosiahWillardPibbs 6 points ago in SarahStephens

    Saggy

    You don't know what boobs look like