>He glosses over Muslim history and al-Andalus with a "the Muslims were driven out of Spain" like Spain itself wasn't Muslim for almost 800 years.
Yes, the colonists were driven out. We should celebrate any time in history native and indigenous people defeat their colonizers and reclaim their indigenous lands.
The descendants of the Muslim colonists were defeated by the descendants of the Roman colonists, fighting under the banner of the Roman Church, and not by the native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula.
The native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula would be the Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian and Aquitanian tribes conquered, colonized, and assimilated by the Roman Republic. The land was later occupied by the Germanic peoples before entering Muslim rule.
>were defeated by the descendants of the Roman colonists
Incorrect, by native Spaniards whose ancestry is overwhelmingly indigenous:
"Modern Iberians' genetic inheritance largely derives from the pre-Roman inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula who were deeply Romanized after the conquest of the region by the ancient Romans"[0]
They are the indigenous people to Iberia, not MENA colonists nor Romans.
>fighting under the banner of the Roman Church
Not relevant, still indigenous people.
>and not by the native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula.
False as proven above.
>The native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula would be the Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian and Aquitanian tribes conquered, colonized, and assimilated by the Roman Republic.
Spaniards are Iberian, they are the indigenous, native people to Spain. They may have been assimilated into the Roman Republic and Visigothic Kingdom, but they are the indigenous people to their lands.
>The land was later occupied by the Germanic peoples before entering Muslim rule.
Germaic influences leave a smaller genetic mark than Roman in modern Iberia.
"Spaniards, or Spanish people, are an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Spain."[1]
Your original comment is flagged, as was mine, but as an exercise, think about the following:
Civilized people on the left are also pro-American. Is pro-American really a partisan issue to you?
It's only partisan if the other side is anti-American. And in that case I see no issue with taking the pro-American side.
If anything is extremist, it's painting "pro-American" as a partisan activity. That's something I only see far-left politicians do.
Why does the word "pro-American" trigger this emotion in you? You say you have no issue with a zero tolerance for pro-Americanism, but for some reason, using the "pro" word makes you upset.
That seems quite extreme to me. They are the same statement. Sure, conservative people moght be more inclined to use "pro-America" than progressives, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the phrase.
It seems you have no issue with the contents of pro-American, but only with the form of it, or perhaps the tone of it.
Calling 'calling out virtue signalling' 'virtue signalling' in 2026 is in itself a form of virtue signalling as to what kind of beliefs you hold. Frankly I think we could all do without those things breathlessly clogging up the page because people want to desperately overreach into what someone said for the sake of making an inane point.
>Level 1 networks are almost never used for user transactions: your credit card payments do not go over fedwire, etc.
Fedwire isn't a "level 1 network", it's an entirely different service with different end users and goals in mind. ACH isn't an "L2 protocol", but does orders of magnitude more transactions per second than Bitcoin.
It's like cryptobros don't understand the basics of the systems they're attempting to replace.
And that is because the right or the left moves further away in the political space? By definition it seems to be the right-wing moving more extreme rather than non right-wing all moving together towards the left.
Entryism. By definition it seems to be the left-wing moving more extreme rather than non left-wing all moving together towards the right. Democrats have shifted more to the left than Republicans to the right: https://archive.is/IILDt
BlueSky and Mastodon are both open platforms designed around the ideals of digital freedom and control of your own data and feed. It makes perfect sense for the EFF to remain on platforms which are aligned with their goals. This is like criticizing them for dropping Microsoft Word but still using Libre Office.
> It's almost like there's an ulterior motive at play...
If you actually read the article you would see the entire section they dedicated to addressing exactly this complaint. But then you wouldn't be able to whine about it here in good faith, would you?
>If you actually read the article you would see the entire section they dedicated to addressing exactly this complaint.
If you actually understood the section in question you would see it doesn't explain in any coherent manner why they're sticking with Facebook but not Twitter. But if you understood it then you wouldn't be able to whine about it here in good faith, would you?
Yes, the colonists were driven out. We should celebrate any time in history native and indigenous people defeat their colonizers and reclaim their indigenous lands.
reply