Gives me stuff from months ago.

I need a proper controversial sort option. I want to know where the juice is.

I think it’s German slipping in. Thanks for feedback.

You got it, I just happen to have quite some friends from south and middle America and since it was important to them and make sense to me I took it over in my vocabulary.

Interesting, english is my third language - but I’m just bad at grammar and spelling in general. Definitely learned grammar in school - just forgot all about it.

Honestly, anyone who can speak a second language has a better grasp of what a noun and an adjective are than yer average English speaker.

Why?

I would argue that US-americans are native speakers of US-American english, which is a bit different from english spoken in england.

In English “a male” and “a female” is almost exclusively reserved for animals.

But also important to remember that quite a bunch of people are note native speakers without the feeling for finer distinctions in meaning. Like for me, since I learned english mostly in a scientific setting, those words habe little negative connotation on their own. They became negative co-notated through the use of misogynistic communities.

“Break out of frames” link

That is a memory I have suppressed.

Iframes with more iframes inside.

No I actually meant Leon Trotsky, just wrote his name from memory. He wanted more the Cambodian way of communism.

So far, yeah. I estimated two centuries for individual actions to wash out

Even if I would accept that estimation, in those two hundred years the lives of many humans are greatly impacted, which is for me all that matters in the end. Since I like to view history from human point of view this seem pretty relevant. If you take an impartial abstract point of view - than nothing really matters since the universe will disappear anyway at some point. Maybe that’s the difference in our perception.

I think this more of a perspective thing, that might be related to free will vs. determinism.

In the end the set of possible outcomes and their probabilities are the same.

Lenin or Trotkij taking power leads to rather different outcomes in my opinion.

Wait lets back up und make sure we understand each others point:

The way I see your perspective: you say that individual role in history is rather unimportant, we are all just part of some complex process wich leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control. Is it fair representation or did I miss something?

My perspective is: in the end it’s individuals/groups who make specific things that contribute to progress, while sometimes the individuals might be replaceable, they sometimes also leave their individual marks on the events or theories they create (Freund vs. Jung for example - if Jung was more influential we might have quite different psychology). And even if they are replaceable, in the end it’s still individuals that have to make things happen.

But without “heroes” who is doing the actual work? Like again: Darwin, Huxley and couple other dudes actually had to make observations, collect data, come up with an, at that time, absurd sounding idea and defend it against societal pressure. And you don’t think that they have influenced history and could be replaced by anyone else? I vehemently disagree that the data fits your perspective.

You know, when you start to think that everyone else around you is insane - maybe it’s a good moment to stop for a moment and reflect.

Woa, never met anyone who actually took Christianity that literal. That must be a wild experience to believe in literal devil and god, sin and all that stuff - that’s a trip and a half. Kind of speechless - that’s just wild.

Wait dude, I just realized - do you also believe in the literal Satan?

But every time writing was invented it had to be invented by a specific dude or a small group of dudes. It did not just come to be out of thin air, someone had to invent it and someone had to popularize it. And so with enlightenment - someone (maybe we don’t even know her name) has to come up with an idea and others, whose names we know have to popularize it.

I get that you are saying that it might have been another person (or small group), sure - but in the end it has to be someone.

What do you mean? It’s always a specific person or a specific small group that comes up with ideas that are later popularized. Like you can pinpoint evolution theory to a small group of biologists with Darwin and Huxley at their forefront.

Dude it’s a fun question from the sorts of who is stronger Superman or Goku. But even outside of that - it’s hard to deny that some individuals had more impact on the course of our society than others.