What's Wrong with John Green?

How interesting. I've never thought of it that way. I also don't think that feminine elements detract from Odysseus's masculinity, either. Neat. Then again, it's been years since I've read the books, so I can't really imagine what all of your professor's points might have been.

P R O J E C T I O N

>"This machine kills fascist"
>Quoting a literal communist.

It’s a little more nuanced then I want to type out, but basically it boils down to a few elements that permeate the work.
>Odysseus is more feminine, as he’s a trickster type , is patronized by Athena and his heroic virtue is feminine-Metis, who is also a feminine anthropomorphism in addition
>All of the people who actively help Odysseus are female, Io, Arete, Athene, Circe, Calypso, Nausicaa, etc, while the men who are there just kind of supply him with stuff, like the king of the Phaekians, Alcinous?
Compare the above to Telemachus who is helped by men such as Menelaus. Also, the man who helps Odysseus the most, Tiresias, was once turned into a woman.

There’s more

Just take Dan Carlin who will talk about every perspective, cover every corner of discussion, and then take this a-hole

Lol, having sex with lots of women is a result of being a good, heroic, strong man, not the other way around.

Yeah, the fact that Odysseus is a gigantic Muscleman who can throw a spear through 7 guys in a row makes him a manly man, and that’s why women want to fuck him

what a fucking retard. Greeks are Meds anyway, not FUCKING WHITE MALES so in an ironic sense his masochism is misguidedly directed towards Greeks.

Women like dominant guys. They like guys who bully other guys and show off their social rank.

What do you want from reality? A vindication of mass delusion?

Greeks are white shitlords, despite not being phenotypically different from poor brown Muslims who need our help

This
Reminder Dan went into gruesome detail about the Red Army’s treatment of German civilians in Ghosts of the Ostfront

CONT.

Of course the women wouldn't literally see him throw a spear through 7 guys. They'd hear tales about him from other dudes, which elevates his social rank and desirability even more!

Partially it's the attraction of a dangerous man. They want someone who will actually defend them, not a nervous wreck who attempts to be placating to all people. Partially it's that other men talk of him in a good light and of him in a way where he dominated other men. And so on and son on.

Women want to fuck dominant bullies. Really.

he's a limp wristed manifestation of man's weakness

It... isn’t?

Where did you get that from?

CONT.

Remember, most humans are faggots who use social ranking algorithims in a zero-sum game of social hierarchy. You can deny this but at your own peril.

>t. My wife stated wanting to date me after I started being a well known writer

They aren't all necessarily separated. Military history can be seen through a political, social, or economic lens. Personally, I find the World Wars more interesting if I look at production figures and demographics rather than generals or military maneuvers.

>Rejects great man history
>lol Napoleon didn't matter

>Hey, you know those Ancient Greek epics from 2,800 years ago? between them and 21st century Anglo-America no alternatives to manliness in any capacity have arisen. Yep, despite all the space and time between us and them our values and norms are exactly the same as theirs.
Come on, this is painful. This guy probably couldn't survive a junior level college history course and yet he's an authority on history?

I thought women wanted to civilize and tame the wild, rough man?

youtu.be/BhPnxmw4xNA

It's even worse because women still like dominant bullies whether it was 2000 AD or 2000 BC or 20000 BC. And women still are attracted to guys who attract other women. It's like a positive feedback loop where most guys are stuck in the negative end (can't get a woman so can't attract a woman...).

Only when women actually choose "alternative masculinities" would they actually flourish!

This would be like me sitting down and attacking the values found in "A journey to the West" as though it offends me personally. Not only would it pointless, but contrived and stupid.

A man who can kill 7 other men with a spear toss ,and who is boasted about by other men, is a wild rough man who a woman wants to both tame and not tame. In keeping with their predilection for wanting their cake and eating it at the same time.

They get bored if he acts completely submissive to the trappings of "civilization".

A lot of historians reject the Great Man Theory, though guys like Ghenkis Khan are hard exceptions to social history theory (history is driven by groups and social forces instead of singular figures), as suggested by my World History II professor, bless her heart.

Well it's more "Great Man + Luck" theory. Ghengis Khan rose during a time period where rainfall on the steppes was elevated which allowed for an expansion of men and horses during most of his rule.

Great Men are bounded by how much a society is able to fuel their ambitions. A Genghis Khan trying to deal with a severe drought looks far different (historically) than the Ghengis Khan we know.

>history is driven by groups and social forces instead of singular figures
That's wrong. All of the great, reality defining moments of human history mighjt've been triggered by certain traits in humanity, it was God who caused these calamities to unfold upon humanity. He plans for reality, and no mob or market can compete with such a force. No matter how many tulips or demagouges they may have.

The problem with God: What does God's intervention in reality look like?

Does he vibrate in such a way that all of phenomenal reality is dependent on him?

If phenomenal reality is dependent on him...wouldn't that include the very processes of thought that describe God as such?

How can one pin down the intention of an entity that has a theoretical time preference of negative infinity?

How does one bound the intentions of God to human aims despite being the creator of Leviathan and Behemoth, the ward and creator of the dark places and dark consequences of the world?

A lot of historians are wrong. Individual character traits of men in charge have set colossal events in motion that would not have otherwise happened. Deterministic worldviews have nothing to back them up and only exist because a few important contrarians had better sticking memes a few decades back.

krauts deserved it

Thing is, the Great Man is fundamentally a product of his circumstances. It is the groups and social forces that result in the singular figures who then give shape to their states, people, or epoch. How people think it's one or the other is beyond my understanding.

Hes a faggot who judges history based on his soyboy neo-liberal morality

Yeah, but you need a Great Man to take advantage of the forces.
Also, as stated before, Genghis Kahn completely disproves that, since there were no great trends going for him.

It's an ego thing. They want him to be dangerous to everyone but them, and sometimes even them too. It's immensely gratifying to feel that someone who can fuck everyone else within a 10 mile radius doesn't do the same to you because you're just that great.

They want to be the one to beat them. They want the most powerful man, but they want to have the power over him.

Women would rather be 5th place to a Chad than a Beta's #1

And their actions speak far louder than any outraged, accusatory, or faux-bewildered words they try to string and justify their actions in a completely different moral universe than most men.

...

it's because he's a numale who can't grasp military tactics, weapons, motivations, etc.

Oh wow you pointed me to the /r9k/ board that totally proves most women wouldn't be panting sluts for a Chad's attention. I kneel before your superior powers of observation when it comes to how women act, not what they say.

>if you're against Great Man theory you're deterministic
If Gavrilo Princip had picked a different cafe WW1 might never have happened. Is he therefore a Great Man?

back to incels with you

I'm getting married. To a woman I met while going to a coworkers party and taking the piss out of him in front of her and now divorced. Women like bullies, it's one of the unpleasant facts for retards who consume mass culture and mass propaganda about how life is and how it's supposed to be structured.

>Dan "I'm gonna shove this 12 hour podcast down your throat" Carlin

I love his hardcore history work despite the edgy name and the occasional misinformation about assassins grabbing a sandwich before shooting an arch Duke.

taking the piss out of her husband (coworker) in front of her*

Incels are a weird lot. Always making up stories and pretending that under their girl push-ups they're actually an alpha held back by a receding chin.

People who don't see, what women actually are, are a weird lot. Always making idealistic excuses and half-assed historical attempts at explaining why women act the way they do. All I'm saying is: Pay attention to how they act, where they look during a conversation, and the change in their gaze and facial expression as the party goes on.

You can ignore women as pragmatic beings, who pretend to be idealistic, at your own peril.

you are really autistic

CONT

I'm only saying this as a fat kid who graduated high school at 320 and now is down to 230 with a lot more muscle and a lot less fat.

It's a horror growing up with justifying lies about how people act and why they act. Nobody gives you good information! It took the internet to get something that reflected the reality of human sociality.

>getting married to a woman
Congrats on being a literal retard.

Girls like good looking, charismatic guys. Just like guys like hot girls. But there isn't only ONE type of guy girls like.

California has communal property laws and she makes A LOT of money and has her own house. If we divorced, she would be paying me spousal support and she would give me equity on half the house (from the point we married)!

Of course.

EX: In the military, the most "successful" ladiesmen were

1. A neanderthal who literally has test levels in the top 5%.
2. A premature skinny liberal (with a vore fetish). He got women to take him vacationing to fucking Maui!

>Commiefornia divorce laws

Good luck getting a single cent out of that divorce.

Fuck the Germans, they deserve it, honestly I’m surprised Germany as a nation still exist if I was Stalin and seeing what they have done I would have done everything to return the favor (complete whipping of German people and splitting the land for political reasons and subjectating it’s people to death/slavery as reparations)

You'd be right most of the time. But she makes more than I do by a large factor. I wouldn't be on the hook for child or spousal support unless she turned into a stay-at-home mom and I got some executive position.

Commiefornia is so commie they go by income and wealth, not gender.

>California
Man I wanted to insult you but now I just feel sorry for you. Good luck and move away from that shithole please.

Norcal is a lot less shitty than Los Angeles. You can wake up in the morning and not hear a fucking ambulance go down Sunset Blvd. at 4 fucking 30 in the morning. And when you wake up, you're greeted with shit people and shit buildings.

That video is smug and annoying but he's right about military history. Military history only attracts sad larper virgins

Well, how about you stop lying to yourself and actually do those push-ups and running?

KEK
U
C
K

It's usually the epilogue of constant bullshit that happened previously

also he didn't say that

Not really.

Most of Green's videos are too politicized for a crash course in history. He does a poor job of separating the facts we know from his own (or his teacher's) opinion. If you're introducing someone to a new topic, you should try to be as apolitical as possible.

Apoliticism doesnt exist, the very act of telling someone one fact involves not telling them all the other facts you could have told them and hence wil influence their opinion in some way. Nevermind situations when we have no real certianty about what happened.

The only way to achieve anything close to apolitical communication is actually to detail all the different opinions on the topic so people can choose

Yeah, it may not exist, but you should strive to be as apolitical as possible, where Green is openly politically hostile on occasion, which is enough to write him off entirely.
Kahn academy is better

>Hardcore History
>Edgy name

You know, I actually actively avoided his podcasts for years because of the edgy name and the video game-like images on his website. I thought, it's one of those "The Hidden Truth of..." shows.

I disagree, striving to be apolitical is just hiding your bias and hence being more devious than those who are open about their predjudices. People who are smart enough should be able to absorb the opinions and views of others with a sufficently subjective attitude not to be easily swayed by them.

I do however agree that green does put foreward certian narratives particularly strongly while condemning others without really explaining why, and using an air of objectivity clearly intended to sway the less knowledgable

yeah but what if they aren't "smart enough"?

Remember we're trying to discuss Green as an intro to history. Meaning the intended audience is extremely swayed and impressionable. While being 100% apolitical may be impossible, that doesn't mean we should strive to be it. While everyone has a bias in the way they tell a story, one might have a much more neutral and passive bias then Green's blatant political pandering.

history has different ways to approach you it. You can be neutral and easily present positive and negative interpretations of both sides with as little as your own opinion as possible. Green does the opposite.

*shouldn't
fuck me

Why is he in a recliner for no reason

I guess my argument would be that what your opinion is beneath you attempt at being apolitical, it will rub off on those your communicating history to but will see it as objective, and this is essentially inevitable no matter how hard you strive towards apoliticism (is that a word?), the closer you get just makes your biases more discreet. I agree about green though, he massivley criticizes the bias of others but only uses this to try and put forward his own opinion as more objective, though at least he awknoledges that there are differing opinions.

I agree with the positive and negative aspects of both sides bit but again, i disagree with trying to come off as neutral, better to just admit beforehand how you see history and how it affects your perception of evens, while also awknoledging and explaining how others see it differently

Beneath your*

Stalin did literally all of that tho

>Genghis Khan completely disproves that, since there were no great trends going for him
>Genghis Khan
>son of the last man who led a mongol confederation
>descendant of the last few times mongols had unified
>leader of most powerful mongol clan
>Mongols, a people with a syncretistic culture that periodically combined to invade settled civilisations
>one of many such syncretistic nomadic cultures that had combined in the past
>lived during the most fertile years in centuries
>lived in a fashion that inadvertently produced the most efficient fighting force available at the time
>no great trends going for him

He was basically Finnish Alexander the Great

I got legitimately pissed when he contrived a feminist narrative from Frankenstein.

You know, because women only write about feminism.

Natural born cuck

This is why people need to believe in god. Religious people might shill for their doctrine, but atheists will shill for fashion

He's meant to be shown as an episode a week in a high school classroom. Arguing about him is like grown men arguing about shounen manga.

John Green is religious, a Christian even.

he isnt an actual historian, kind of a disgrace to the profession

The wishful thinking is strong in this one.

While I don't think military history is useless, I believe people need to calm down this guy. I think John Green is trying to shed light on other parts of history that usually don't get that much attention. I mean seriously, how many youtube channels are focused on military battles and wars and compare them to non-military history one? While he isn't always good, John provides a different perspective that few channels focus one. It's a same that he presents it with such a bias though.

>Should we really admire someone like Alexander the Great for essentially conquering his way across the civilised world and causing innumerable deaths?
>Le funny Mongol gag

Getting some mixed signals John.

>how many youtube channels
hundreds of thousands and they're all garbage.

Only thing he did was split the land.

This always annoyed me.

I don't hate crash course, even despite his obvious bias in certain areas but not covering military history ruffles my feathers

when I think about military historians in the states I think about alot of old retired Lt. colonels, pretty chill guys.

The social turn was a mistake. Now we get to have a whole generation of soycourse history undergrads who watched this because their social studies teachers were too lazy to lecture.

>its hard to be unbiased so unbiased media isn't real

>women
>civilize