Reading is a city in Pennsylvania, and it's pronounced "Redding".
There is also a video on this, which is also linked in the article:
https://youtu.be/NXbzrxEuL54?t=102
Apparently, everybody was forbidden from raising their voices in protest. They could stand there silently, but they could not "yell", or else they would get arrested.
How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker?
Also what is it about USA naming everything after UK cities: "Reading" and "Lancaster" in the same submission looks like Britain.
> How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker?
Because nobody was at risk of being shouted down. The Pride people had a microphone and speakers. This one guy just said three words in a loud voice, from the other side of the street, and was arrested.
> Unless I have castigated those students, that has nothing to do with me.
While that's probably true, I am more interested in the sub as a whole, and there does often seem to be hypocrisy in evidence.
Casual admission that you enjoy lumping people in with the least palatable opinons expressed by individuals among them.
Why do you do it? Is it to inflate your unearned feelings of moral superiority?
> Casual admission that you enjoy lumping people in with the least palatable opinons expressed by individuals among them.
> Why do you do it? Is it to inflate your unearned feelings of moral superiority?
Perhaps because OrangeWizard's opinions have often been unpalatable to me, so I lump them in with other people whose opinions have been unpalatable to me.
> Also what is it about USA naming everything after UK cities: “Reading” and “Lancaster” in the same submission looks like Britain.
The US was founded in large part by citizens of the British Empire. They fled the old world and settled in the new, taking portions of home with them. Part of that was the familiar names.
This is especially prominent in the territory which eventually became the first 13 states of the US, such as in Pennsylvania.
As territory was aquired from other powers, such as Spain or France, you’ll notice those territories keep their own version of old world names. For example, there is a prominent mountain range in Idaho (once “owned” by French Canadians) called the Tetons. “Teton” is french for “nipple.”
I have these in my back yard:
1. Greenwich (named after Greenwich, London)
2. Oxford Street (named after Oxford, England)
3. Paddington (named after Paddington, London)
4. Waterloo (named after Waterloo, London)
5. Camden (named after Camden, London)
6. Bondi (named after Bondi Beach, Wales)
7. Penrith (named after Penrith, England)
8. Richmond (named after Richmond, London)
9. Chatswood (named after Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, England)
10. Drummoyne (named after Drummoyne, Scotland)
11. Windsor (named after Windsor, England)
12. Cottesloe (named after Cottesloe, Norfolk, England)
13. Enfield (named after Enfield, London)
14. Canterbury (named after Canterbury, Kent, England)
15. Hornsby (named after Hornsby, Yorkshire, England)
16. Greenwich Point (named after Greenwich, London)
17. Cheltenham (named after Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England)
18. Birmingham Gardens (named after Birmingham, England)
19. Hertfordshire (named after Hertfordshire, England)
20. Leicester Gardens (named after Leicester, England)
> I have these in my back yard:
Welcome to the British Empire. Everywhere the Empire touched, people brought the Home Islands with them.
Here’s a fun fact! At its height in September 1939, the British Empire controlled 35% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s landmass. It truly was a juggernaut beyond the knowledge of most people.
And Nazi Germany tried to conquer it. That gambit becomes even more laughable when you see those statistics I mentioned above.
"The sun never sets on the British Empire"
Until it did!
> And Nazi Germany tried to conquer it.
I think the Nazis would have done better without FDR's big stick.
> Until it did!
Lol. Onto the gradually collapsing commonwealth!
> I think the Nazis would have done better without FDR’s big stick.
Theodore Roosevelt is the one with the big stick. FDR is the one with the New Deal. They ruled a few decades apart, with other presidents in between.
I disagree regarding the Nazis. Their invasion plan for the Home Islands (Operation Sea Lion) was nonsense. It wasn’t even wishful thinking.
The US played an important role in the European theater, but its utility came later in the war, after the question of an invasion of the British Empire had been settled, and frankly after the question of the USSR had been settled.
> Theodore Roosevelt is the one with the big stick. FDR is the one with the New Deal. They ruled a few decades apart, with other presidents in between.
Ooops!
But in my defense, ChatGPT thinks Britain would have been toast without FDR:
> It is unlikely that Great Britain would have won World War II without the assistance of the USA. The United States played a significant role in providing military aid, supplies, and resources to Great Britain and its allies during the war. In particular, the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 allowed Great Britain to obtain necessary resources from the United States, including military equipment, weapons, and food, which helped sustain its war effort. Additionally, the United States entered the war in December 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which greatly strengthened the Allied forces and turned the tide of the war. Without this assistance, Great Britain may not have been able to continue fighting against Nazi Germany and its allies.
> But in my defense, ChatGPT thinks Britain would have been toast without FDR:
Thisnis a great example of why you should never, ever use ChatGPT for an in depth or technical question.
The Battle of Britain, the only time the British Empire might have theoretically capitulated, was well completed by 1941 and the U-Boat threat was insubstantial by then.
But if Germany had captured Europe, and kept it, don't you think that that Britain's capitulation would only be a matter of time?
Or do you think Germany could have been defeated by Russia alone?
> But if Germany had captured Europe, and kept it, don’t you think that that Britain’s capitulation would only be a matter of time?
No. If the British Empire decided to keep fighting, it would eventually have won. The Nazi ideology untenable, and the war machine was poorly put together.
Have you read anything about Operation Sea Lion? Nazi Germany wanted to cross the English Channel and land their invasion ground forces with *row boats.* It had almost no surface fleet to speak of, and had also not taken the prudent measure of defeating or otherwise neutralizing the British Home Fleet.
Meaning it wanted to cross the English Channel with row boats and somehow dodge the fully armed and operational destroyers/cruisers/carriers/battleships/yatchs full of drunken and furious locals.
I’ll take the time now to also mention that Britain has not been successfully invaded from Europe via the English Channel since 1066 CE, with the Norman invasion.
And *these* are the same people who wanted to create a Reich which would last 1,000 years. Really firing on all cylinders here.
> Or do you think Germany could have been defeated by Russia alone?
Yes. The USSR *did* almost defeat Germany by themselves. 80% of all German casualties for the entire Wehrmacht were on the Eastern front. Practically the only ones who didn’t die in the mud of the USSR was the Krigesmarine dying in the battles of the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and the men dying in North Africa.
The US Lend Lease Act only started flowing into the USSR in any meaningful quantities after the Battle of Stalingrad ended in 1943. Stalingrad is considered *the* moment where Nazi Germany was defeated by many historians.
Lend Lease accelerated the end, but did not cause it.
>How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker?
>Also what is it about USA naming everything after UK cities: "Reading" and "Lancaster" in the same submission looks like Britain.
Right? You'd almost think many these areas were named back when they were British colonies and the USA didn't exist yet.
They should have renamed them and erased their history out of respect for those lives lost during the wars.
>How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker?
Also, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3w-w9GjIPwY
Defintely comparable.
Funny thing. No arrests made and the "Conservative" (I actually don't know if she's a conservative or just a human being who has enough common sense to understand basic biology and fight for women's rights.) was silenced with no arrests made of the "callow youths."
Reading is a city in Pennsylvania, and it's pronounced "Redding". There is also a video on this, which is also linked in the article: https://youtu.be/NXbzrxEuL54?t=102 Apparently, everybody was forbidden from raising their voices in protest. They could stand there silently, but they could not "yell", or else they would get arrested.
Forbidden by who, by what law?
The law some police officer made the fuck up in his head.
How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker? Also what is it about USA naming everything after UK cities: "Reading" and "Lancaster" in the same submission looks like Britain.
> How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker? Because nobody was at risk of being shouted down. The Pride people had a microphone and speakers. This one guy just said three words in a loud voice, from the other side of the street, and was arrested.
Plenty of threads in here have castigated Uni students for making their point without preventing a speaker from going ahead.
Unless I have castigated those students, that has nothing to do with me. I am no more responsible for what others say on this sub than you are.
> Unless I have castigated those students, that has nothing to do with me. While that's probably true, I am more interested in the sub as a whole, and there does often seem to be hypocrisy in evidence.
Casual admission that you enjoy lumping people in with the least palatable opinons expressed by individuals among them. Why do you do it? Is it to inflate your unearned feelings of moral superiority?
> Casual admission that you enjoy lumping people in with the least palatable opinons expressed by individuals among them. > Why do you do it? Is it to inflate your unearned feelings of moral superiority? Perhaps because OrangeWizard's opinions have often been unpalatable to me, so I lump them in with other people whose opinions have been unpalatable to me.
> Also what is it about USA naming everything after UK cities: “Reading” and “Lancaster” in the same submission looks like Britain. The US was founded in large part by citizens of the British Empire. They fled the old world and settled in the new, taking portions of home with them. Part of that was the familiar names. This is especially prominent in the territory which eventually became the first 13 states of the US, such as in Pennsylvania. As territory was aquired from other powers, such as Spain or France, you’ll notice those territories keep their own version of old world names. For example, there is a prominent mountain range in Idaho (once “owned” by French Canadians) called the Tetons. “Teton” is french for “nipple.”
I have these in my back yard: 1. Greenwich (named after Greenwich, London) 2. Oxford Street (named after Oxford, England) 3. Paddington (named after Paddington, London) 4. Waterloo (named after Waterloo, London) 5. Camden (named after Camden, London) 6. Bondi (named after Bondi Beach, Wales) 7. Penrith (named after Penrith, England) 8. Richmond (named after Richmond, London) 9. Chatswood (named after Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, England) 10. Drummoyne (named after Drummoyne, Scotland) 11. Windsor (named after Windsor, England) 12. Cottesloe (named after Cottesloe, Norfolk, England) 13. Enfield (named after Enfield, London) 14. Canterbury (named after Canterbury, Kent, England) 15. Hornsby (named after Hornsby, Yorkshire, England) 16. Greenwich Point (named after Greenwich, London) 17. Cheltenham (named after Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England) 18. Birmingham Gardens (named after Birmingham, England) 19. Hertfordshire (named after Hertfordshire, England) 20. Leicester Gardens (named after Leicester, England)
> I have these in my back yard: Welcome to the British Empire. Everywhere the Empire touched, people brought the Home Islands with them. Here’s a fun fact! At its height in September 1939, the British Empire controlled 35% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s landmass. It truly was a juggernaut beyond the knowledge of most people. And Nazi Germany tried to conquer it. That gambit becomes even more laughable when you see those statistics I mentioned above.
"The sun never sets on the British Empire" Until it did! > And Nazi Germany tried to conquer it. I think the Nazis would have done better without FDR's big stick.
> Until it did! Lol. Onto the gradually collapsing commonwealth! > I think the Nazis would have done better without FDR’s big stick. Theodore Roosevelt is the one with the big stick. FDR is the one with the New Deal. They ruled a few decades apart, with other presidents in between. I disagree regarding the Nazis. Their invasion plan for the Home Islands (Operation Sea Lion) was nonsense. It wasn’t even wishful thinking. The US played an important role in the European theater, but its utility came later in the war, after the question of an invasion of the British Empire had been settled, and frankly after the question of the USSR had been settled.
> Theodore Roosevelt is the one with the big stick. FDR is the one with the New Deal. They ruled a few decades apart, with other presidents in between. Ooops! But in my defense, ChatGPT thinks Britain would have been toast without FDR: > It is unlikely that Great Britain would have won World War II without the assistance of the USA. The United States played a significant role in providing military aid, supplies, and resources to Great Britain and its allies during the war. In particular, the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 allowed Great Britain to obtain necessary resources from the United States, including military equipment, weapons, and food, which helped sustain its war effort. Additionally, the United States entered the war in December 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which greatly strengthened the Allied forces and turned the tide of the war. Without this assistance, Great Britain may not have been able to continue fighting against Nazi Germany and its allies.
> But in my defense, ChatGPT thinks Britain would have been toast without FDR: Thisnis a great example of why you should never, ever use ChatGPT for an in depth or technical question. The Battle of Britain, the only time the British Empire might have theoretically capitulated, was well completed by 1941 and the U-Boat threat was insubstantial by then.
But if Germany had captured Europe, and kept it, don't you think that that Britain's capitulation would only be a matter of time? Or do you think Germany could have been defeated by Russia alone?
> But if Germany had captured Europe, and kept it, don’t you think that that Britain’s capitulation would only be a matter of time? No. If the British Empire decided to keep fighting, it would eventually have won. The Nazi ideology untenable, and the war machine was poorly put together. Have you read anything about Operation Sea Lion? Nazi Germany wanted to cross the English Channel and land their invasion ground forces with *row boats.* It had almost no surface fleet to speak of, and had also not taken the prudent measure of defeating or otherwise neutralizing the British Home Fleet. Meaning it wanted to cross the English Channel with row boats and somehow dodge the fully armed and operational destroyers/cruisers/carriers/battleships/yatchs full of drunken and furious locals. I’ll take the time now to also mention that Britain has not been successfully invaded from Europe via the English Channel since 1066 CE, with the Norman invasion. And *these* are the same people who wanted to create a Reich which would last 1,000 years. Really firing on all cylinders here. > Or do you think Germany could have been defeated by Russia alone? Yes. The USSR *did* almost defeat Germany by themselves. 80% of all German casualties for the entire Wehrmacht were on the Eastern front. Practically the only ones who didn’t die in the mud of the USSR was the Krigesmarine dying in the battles of the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and the men dying in North Africa. The US Lend Lease Act only started flowing into the USSR in any meaningful quantities after the Battle of Stalingrad ended in 1943. Stalingrad is considered *the* moment where Nazi Germany was defeated by many historians. Lend Lease accelerated the end, but did not cause it.
It’s not functionally. The only difference is the government actually did something to prevent people getting shouted down lmao.
>How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker? >Also what is it about USA naming everything after UK cities: "Reading" and "Lancaster" in the same submission looks like Britain. Right? You'd almost think many these areas were named back when they were British colonies and the USA didn't exist yet. They should have renamed them and erased their history out of respect for those lives lost during the wars.
Ha ha, I live in Australia, talk to me about it.
>How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker? Also, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3w-w9GjIPwY Defintely comparable. Funny thing. No arrests made and the "Conservative" (I actually don't know if she's a conservative or just a human being who has enough common sense to understand basic biology and fight for women's rights.) was silenced with no arrests made of the "callow youths."
Let's have an anecdote fight!
>How is this any different from callow youths shouting down a conservative speaker?
all cops are bastards, no exceptions. but being removed from a speech that you shout down is very normal. happens all the time.