Current Events > Holy Cross to change 'Crusaders' school mascot due to fear of offending Muslims

(+) Yeah! (+)

TroutPaste posted...

Did anyone here watch Game Of Thrones? You know Europe was huge pieces of shit back then, right? It wasn't some black/white wholesome moral decision.

Did you just unironically reference a piece of fiction as support for your views?
---

Callixtus posted...

TroutPaste posted...

Did anyone here watch Game Of Thrones? You know Europe was huge pieces of shit back then, right? It wasn't some black/white wholesome moral decision.

Did you just unironically reference a piece of fiction as support for your views?

I wouldn't say it was unironically. I was kidding. I don't have "views" on this. Just think this topic is funny

We can look up facts about historical leaders from that time, though. They were shits
---

Also I posted a wikipedia excerpt about the cause of the crusades and people were too busy arguing about other stuff

I know wikipedia isn't canonical, but I'd like to see where these stupid views are coming from, other than a weird slanted interpretation of 2 half-related maps
---

Good. Now they should change the name "Holy Cross." It's a garbage name for a school.
---

I think the point is that they were originally repelling a single Islamic campaign, in Turkey or wherever that was... and Islamic people went around North Africa, even into Spain... but the overall motive by either side, Christian or Islamic, was pretty fucking crummy by modern standards. They did it for power and ulterior motives, not some patriotic, zealous campaign. Although whether it's more offensive than a name like "warrior" or "viking" is debatable. People have thin skin. It only takes one crazy person on Twitter and you can get a complaint about anything
---

TroutPaste posted...

Also I posted a wikipedia excerpt about the cause of the crusades and people were too busy arguing about other stuff

I know wikipedia isn't canonical, but I'd like to see where these stupid views are coming from, other than a weird slanted interpretation of 2 half-related maps

What do you think is slanted about my interpretation? The Roman Empire was the premier Christian state, and the Islamic invaders conquered the majority of it by the time of the First Crusade in wars of aggression. The lands lost included some of the heartlands of Christianity. Those are basic, easily verifiable facts.
---

I imagine the subset of people against a name change and the subset of people who have any tangible attachment to the name intersect so little as groups that it is not worth even considering the former as a meaningful stance
---

Callixtus posted...

TroutPaste posted...

Also I posted a wikipedia excerpt about the cause of the crusades and people were too busy arguing about other stuff

I know wikipedia isn't canonical, but I'd like to see where these stupid views are coming from, other than a weird slanted interpretation of 2 half-related maps

What do you think is slanted about my interpretation? The Roman Empire was the premier Christian state, and the Islamic invaders conquered the majority of it by the time of the First Crusade in wars of aggression. The lands lost included some of the heartlands of Christianity. Those are basic, easily verifiable facts.

The Roman Empire is not a moral compass . They had no more right to that land than anyone else.
---

TroutPaste posted...

Callixtus posted...

TroutPaste posted...

Also I posted a wikipedia excerpt about the cause of the crusades and people were too busy arguing about other stuff

I know wikipedia isn't canonical, but I'd like to see where these stupid views are coming from, other than a weird slanted interpretation of 2 half-related maps

What do you think is slanted about my interpretation? The Roman Empire was the premier Christian state, and the Islamic invaders conquered the majority of it by the time of the First Crusade in wars of aggression. The lands lost included some of the heartlands of Christianity. Those are basic, easily verifiable facts.

The Roman Empire is not a moral compass . They had no more right to that land than anyone else.

Yeah they do, if you believe in any sort of territorial boundaries. They held the land for hundreds of years and so they had a right to it, just like any other state. The Islamic invaders did not have a single justification for invading those lands.

Is your argument that it's perfectly fine to uproot people from their lands because the people currently living there apparently have no more right to it than anyone else?
---

The Islamic people might have been converts the same was early apostles converted natives in the region

I see what you're saying, but it's not the same as today
---

TroutPaste posted...

The Islamic people might have been converts the same was early apostles converted natives in the region

yeah, they were. there's some weird idea that those places were depopulated and then repopulated with invaders and colonists, but that wasn't the case for the vast majority of the inhabitants of those regions. most people just converted
---