Ruins her reputation as an historian just to defend some shitty cartoon

>retarded revisionist cartoon comes out
>Paul joseph watson of all people calls out the historical inaccuracies, mary beard flips out and actually defends the cartoon as accurate
>gets proven wrong
>cries about misogyny on twitter
>"YOURE NOT ALLOWED TO MOCK SHITTY HISTORIANS IF THEY SHILL MUH IDEOLOGY!"

>BTFO by fucking paul joseph watson

Who? Literally, who? Is this person a respected historian? Why should anyone care what this non-entity with ZERO published articles has to think?

She's seen as a hero for punching nazis through the internet and destroying their fantasy of an racially pure past

>Who? Literally, who?

Thats the point, this nobody completely #rekt Beard and you have NO actual argument other than "muh appeal to authority!" as if Beard is even a respected historian in the first place instead of the basic bitch europoor socialist hack she is.

The only "Paul Joseph Watson" I can find online is a blogger who writes for infowars. Is this SERIOUSLY, the person you claim "btfo" of a respected historian? Wow, even for a polturd you're a pathetic dope.

yes you fucking retard, thats the point. She lost to a guy from infowars, thats how retarded she is. Again, notice how you have no actual argument other than this tumblr tier "I cant even" shit

Except he was wrong and didn't rekt anything.

HAHAHA you really DID mean this literal idiot! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

>its a "Mary Beard says america deserved 9/11 a week after it happens, yet continues to cry about internet trolls saying mean things to her on twitter every time she goes on tv to shill some retarded leftist political propaganda" episode

So wait, were the historical inaccuracies she was defending the multiracial medieval world? Or were there more grievous inaccuracies like Nero being an evil cunt

>Except he was wrong

how so?

I was just thinking that. I cant abide creepy right yt cekebs, but the distinct lack of 'look at all these black ancient britons' type comments kinda tells me they ve jumped off the deep end.

>Painting title
>A baker and his wife

B-but I thought that the Roman Empire was a racially pure white ethnostate?

>empire

t. poltard

They still just look like mediteraneans to me.

Her "sin" was in saying that, in fact, Roman Britain DID have diversity. You know, from all the non-Britons the Romans brought to the islands. But thankfully, /pol/ tells me some literal assclown conspiracy retard "btfo" of her by claiming that, in fact, her years of experience on the subject didn't match his fee-fees, and that he felt in his soul that there were NO non-Britons in Britain before 1987.

>Roman Britain
>an average family
>implying that guy is black

seriously, why are leftist shilling WEWUZIAN shit?

The video was about an average family in roman britain and had a black dude. This is not even close to what the average roman britain family would look like. Stop pretending to be retarded because we wuz not britain or romans user.

again, notice how you have no actual argument and are just getting overly emotional?

>redditors care more about social appearance than thought
Typical herd mentality tools.
SHES RESPECTED THAT MEANS SHES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALWAYS RIGHT UNLESS SOMEBODY WITH MORE SOCIAL AUTHORITY SAYS OTHERWISE

>average family in roman britain

No, it wasn't. Wait was that your whole argument? Wow, you're a real moron.

>years of experience
Nobody cares about your appeal to authority

>>redditors care more about social appearance than thought

Yes because when I think "thought", my first impression is of a literal moron who writes for a literal conspiracy theory website. Clearly, the views of this dope should be taken at face value and the words of an actual academic should be dismissed.

>No, it wasn't.

yes it was. The video that all of this is about was about an average family in roman britain.

you really have no place to call anyone else a moron when you have done nothing but post "ugh, I cant even!" and are so stupid yourself, you dont even know what you are getting this angry defending. Seriously, why are you getting this mad because we wuzian history is wrong user?

>HURR who cares that shes spent literally decades studying this shit? What a nerd lmao!
>DURR look, this halfwitted simpleton conspiracy retard disagrees with her! Wow, he has, like, ZERO knowledge of the subject, clearly we should take his views over hers because LOL APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and EWWW SMELLY VAGINA amirite gius???

Why do you keep shitposting instead of explaing what exactly Paul got factually wrong user? Why do you keep avoiding this question and instead just keep throwing out the ad homs?

Show me where it describes them as an average family you cretinous faggot.

>HE DOESNT WRITE ON A WEBSITE THAT I APPROVE OF SO EEEEEVERYTHING HE SAYS IS WRONG
>actual academic
As if that has ever had any merit. Academics are fucking idiots. You're demanding that when a 'nobody' challenges an academic, that the academic's word be taken as 'fact', that is, at face value, without actually dealing with the argument at hand.

You're a fucking tool.

cool strawman, but this isnt an argument. Are you Mary Beard?

>Roman Britons

Farfetched but not completely impossible because of how many different races and peoples were under Roman rule.

>Celts

Yeah no. The best I could imagine is a swathy med since they settled as far as anatolia,

>English Noblemen

English? Sure, again farfetched, but not impossible. Nobleman? No way.

>Iron age blacksmiths

The most believable of the bunch, virtually all developed civilizations used iron.

>Norman priests

Lolwut.

Paul got NOTHING right, his lack of knowledge on the subject is absolute. But he believes in chemtrails and reptilian aliens secretly running the world, so clearly he's a smart, evidence-led guy who should just be given the benefit of the doubt at all times, no matter what he says.

in the description for the video.

youtube.com/watch?v=wtPZhDH4QU8

why do you keep avoiding my question of point out exactly what Paul got wrong user? Why are you just getting mad over nothing and shitposting?

Strawman.
Is this what you INTELLIGENT AND LOGICAL academics call 'rigour'?
People can spend years studying and be wrong. Somebody can guess and be right. I doubt you believe in astrology despite that being a field that survived for millennia.

>Paul got NOTHING right

like what? What specifically did he get wrong user? Try taking a few deep breaths before responding. Also, please form an actual argument instead of just shitposting.

>evidence
Doesn't exist, suckoff.

>HURR his moronic opinion is every bit as valid as all the academic research ever done in the field!
>DURR I hate those evildumb academics, this actual idiot who writes for infowars is obviously much better informed than those evildumb academics!

Wow you're so smart, you must eat lead EVERY DAY!

>academic research is right because i sed so
Stop strawmanning, undergrad.

Not him, but an academic's word is much more valuable at face value than a journalist's, the academic has universities that can vouch for their education and competence on the subject.

Just saying that you stating that academics are idiots is silly.

Holy shit you're dumb. Yes, I'm sure your moron made this claim, I was asking where the BBC made this claim. Or, you know, don't bother, because it's painfully obvious what a moron you are. Look, it says you're a moron right here in my post! That proves it, right?

>academic research is wrong because a moron on the internet says so!

Good goy. How about you buy some water filters?

>I was asking where the BBC made this claim.

its literally in the first 10 seconds of the video. Its hilarious that you are getting THIS mad over something you clearly know nothing about. Also, please stop shitposting

Why?
>universities are correct becuz i sed so
Consensus isn't always, or even ever, correct or relevant or accurate, you idiot democrat.

>how are you going to own me when you cant accept the fact their your hairline has receded back to roman times

Today I will remind them

>Brits are forced to watch
It's on an obscure corner of the internet, fuck off.

I never said that universities are the truth of the world, but universities have access to historical texts you can't just get at your local library, and academics devote their work to furthering their knowledge on these subjects. For fucks sake, she's a professor of Classics and Ancient Literature, the second half life went entirely to studying, why wouldn't her word be taken more seriously than some literal who who's job is to write for a political news outlet?

also

>idiot democrat

ad hominem, the go to defense mechanism of the /pol/ack when losing an argument. Im not even a democrat.

>dopey conspiracy theorists are right because i sed so

This is literally your argument you retard.

>why wouldn't her word be taken more seriously than some literal who who's job is to write for a political news outlet?

because you have NO argument other than this. Who gives a shit about anything other than the argument itself?

>historical texts
Not reliable.
>s-s-s-s-she spent her ENTIRE life on it! It MUST be true!

I'm not from /pol/, that is the actual adhom you fucking tool. I call you a democrat because you believe in democratic principles, including that of consensus.
I never said he was right. Consider reading a post before posting.
Academicbabblers like him do, because they care about social image, not actual merit.
People like them are why slapping a made-up, ridiculous quote on an image of Confucius gives that quote merit.

>facts don't count, what about my fee-fees?
>idiots who write for a literal conspiracy theory website are more reliable sources about the past than evildumb academics who actually study the past!
>why are you so close-minded bro? Academics are wrong literally all the time, but who ever heard of a moron blogger who writes for infowars being wrong?

I'm not saying she's right. In fact I disagree with her, her claims grasp at straws, what I am saying is that it isn't completely retarded to take her word for things, shes probably read more about history than most of Veeky Forums, and has more credibility than whatshisface

Facts don't exist.
You're the one obsessed with social image.
Can't you read? I never claimed the poltard was correct.
>study the past
There is no past to study.

>omg she dedicated her WHOLE life! she MUST be right!
History is a garbage field for STEM rejects. As if that bullshit factory could reject bullshitters.

so uhh, who is this lady and how did she rile you all up?

>not reliable

then according to you, nothing is reliable, and this conversation is pointless.

>It MUST be true!

I never said that, read my posts, I'm saying she's more credible than Paul Joseph.

>STEMspergs think a conclusion must be obtainable for there to be conversation
Cancer, once again.
Why is she more credible? How is credibility relevant? It's glorified social image.

>History is a garbage field for STEM rejects.
lol why are you so upset - did you get bullied in your undergrad studies

BBC did the same thing with this documentary.

youtube.com/watch?v=4rhLlzmUTkc

You keep bringing up facts, yet you're such a coward that you won't even attempt to disprove PJW, instead using your fee fees to get yourself all butthurt over something you clearly know dick about

Once again, an appeal to social image.

Shes more credible because she has degrees from academic institutions that account to her credibility. The credibility is relevant because of the subject matter.

>It's glorified social image

SO i'm guessing you've never had to write a thesis for a masters. Becoming a professor in any field is taxing work, it takes intelligence and vast knowledge on the subject.

Another quality thread guys, good job.

>its hard work
Not an argument, still.
Yes, astrology was also very hard work. Still, I doubt you believe that before it became no more than vague statements.
Academic institutions are also a joke.
Again, all you care about is social image.

Why would I need to "disprove" this moron? What has he published? Blogs on a conspiracy website? Sounds like he's done a fine job debunking himself.

HOW

IS

PAUL

JOSEPH

WATSON

WRONG

Thanks for admitting you're a retard with no argument user. Also, thanks for shitposting the thread into oblivion because you're butthurt over something you don't even know

the thing he's replying to is also an appeal to social image

>"However tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming. That is, of course, what many people openly or privately think." Her argument was far from a vicious gloat, she has claimed, and she merely wanted to point out that bullies "even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price".
I hope a refugee gives her what she has coming.

I thought it was retarded of her to do but she is just a pop historian

But legitimately keep /pol/-threads in /pol/

Is this about 9/11?

>Veeky Forums on countries they don't belong to
LOL GERMANY HAD IT COMING DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS RAPE THEM AGAIN RAPER GYORGY
>Veeky Forums on countries they belong to
HOW DARE THAT FUCKING SLUT SAY WE DESERVE IT SHE MUST FUCK MUSLIMS OR SOMETHING OR BE A FUCKING SHILL TO THE JEW MEDIA

That's because Britain gave the world the Industrial Revolution and the Westminster parliamentary system, and Germany gave the world communism and two world wars.

Not an argument, burgerfat.
Industrialism and parliament are infinitely worse than communism and war.

Yes

Then go move to North Korea you square-headed vermin.

>Industrialism and parliament are infinitely worse than communism and war.

If not trolling, please consider suicide.

Jesus fuck contain your autism /pol/

Not an argument.
>anything i dont like is le fish meme

le pol boogieman

Huh. Learned something today. I too thought that Roman Briton was almost entirely if not entirely white, but turns out that wasn't true. After seeing this thread I thought "weird. I wonder what historical precident there is to corroborate this" so I used the internet to find scholarly articles unrelated to this lady or the schools shes affiliated with, and found studies that went into great detail about Roman skulls found in graves all over the UK, and how African or Arab people represented a significant minority of the Roman population there. Nuts!

See, that's what sane people do. When confronted with information that contradicts what they believe, they look for evidence that corroborates or discredits this information and are free to change their opinion should new information oblige them to do so. Pic related is about half of this thread

And since I'm sure I will be asked, here's one such source

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21104/full

shadilay fellow kekistani

Thanks for making a kindly, measured post here. About what % of the population appears to be of African or Arab origin, from what you've found?

>how African or Arab people represented a significant minority of the Roman population there
>significant minority
What did you mean by this?

>The results of the craniometric analysis indicated that the majority of the York population had European origins, but that 11% of the Trentholme Drive and 12% of The Railway study samples were likely of African decent.

>Previous anthropological investigations at Trentholme Drive, in Roman York identified an unusual amount of cranial variation amongst the inhabitants, with some individuals suggested as having originated from the Middle East or North Africa.

in other words, not black people

> The results of the craniometric analysis indicated that the majority of the York population had European origins, but that 11% of the Trentholme Drive and 12% of The Railway study samples were likely of African decent.

so 90% of the population was European, with about 10% being some middle easterners.

in other words, the cartoon was bullshit and PJW was right. This is literally what he argued.

guys there's a 14th century grave of an Italian woman in western China

this surely means that there were hundreds of Swedish and Irish commanders in the Chinese army deployed in Xinjiang

Isn't that only from a sampling of 43 people in a small area though?

Evidence doesn't exist.

It is. But the article talks about the rather small sample size as being indicative if not definitive of the norm in the area, because there was no evidence to suggest it was especially segregated or special.in other words, "it isn't perfect but it's the best we're likely to get"

He literally posted sources.

The demented wingbat didn't.

Kys cucky