top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In contrast, wearing a stetson and talking like a pirate does pair appropriately with a katana.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Fun fact: the British and dutch east India companies really did have katana wielding mercenaries¹ doing a shit ton of their dirty work.

    ¹former samurai who didnt go home after Tokugawa threw them at Korea, knowing Japan was no longer a place they could live their absolute-24-7-war-fucker lifestyle

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    So what kind of sword would a 19th century French noble fight a duel with and why?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't know about 19th century, but if you're a noble, you lack upper body strength, so it'll be a finesse or dextrous weapon of some type, like a fancy epee or rapier. With studs and gems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Definitely an épée or possibly a foil. Both were derived from the small sword, which was already more popular than the rapier for dueling by the 18th century. In the 19th century, sword duels were more likely to be decided by first blood than fought to the death.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But they don’t even wear fedoras. They’re a tribly. They should be in jazz clubs.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But they might see a black person there!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    If you were rude you would say see here dame. If you were a “nice guy” you would probably say ma’am or miss.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    My attempt at an actual answer is that they just generally cannot consolidate details, elements, into a broadly coherent, consistent, larger concept.

    They're all bottom up (deductive), but no top down (inferential) thinking, its why they are so often astounding hypocrites, why they are generally dysfunctional at anything other than very specific niches of well-defined tasks, why they are so obsessed with minutiae.

    They can't consolidate, harmonize, synergize, prioritize.

    And the ability to do those things is essential to the construction of a definable, coherent style.

    To them, the sum is simply equal to the sum of its parts, the idea that that sum could actually be more or less, due to complimentary or detrimental relations between ingredients to a recipe... that idea is almost nonsensical to them.

  • source