Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Orcs Were Real

treeofwoe.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 231 posts

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#221

Post by wolverine876 »

throwanem wrote: post #219
wolverine876 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't give up. Give them something positive - they really have better options in life than a world of confusion and ignorance.

I'm not wholly without hostages to fortune, or at least people I love who don't know by default to mistrust everything they hear from the goddamned Internet. I worry about them first, friends after, and randos in HN comment threads with whatever's left over, which is nothing to speak of at the moment. I'm tired. So it goes.

I understand. But I notice that the people spreading ignorance are not giving up or tiring (because, I hypothesize, they have initiative and belief that they will succeed). They've radically changed the world, which means the world can be changed. Our ideas are stronger and better.

Anyway, I'm not trying to compel you, I'm just trying to include some important points in the discussion.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#222

Post by jgilias »

wolverine876 wrote: post #220
jgilias wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really can not know this. We can only infer from cultures and religions in the relatively short timespan covered by written history. And even then, morality has changed significantly through time. A simple example - would you think that someone telling a story about someone else beating his wife to a pulp is something to laugh about? Here, check out how the audience reacts just a bit more than 50 years ago: https:…

> We really can not know this. We can only infer from cultures and religions in the relatively short timespan covered by written history. That written history covers an enormous amount of ground, with records going back 6,000 years and in diverse cultures, from Sanskrit in what is now India to cuneiform to China for thousands of years, etc., and those records including older materials. Anthropologists have been study…

Yes. 6000 years, that's 3% of the time we have been around as species. It's not important for me to push anything, let alone something that would empower evil behavior. It's just that I really, really can not see how the idea that pretty much all human societies have similar morals revolving around 'be a good person' goes together with the following facts:

1. Tens of thousands of people are part of societies where initiation into the society entails killing someone. (Various gangs).

2. Hundreds of millions of people are living in societies where honor killings is a thing.

3. Depending on how you count, there have been more than twenty genocides in the last century. That's during 0.05% of the time Homo Sapiens have been around.

4. Hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people are living in societies where a blogger can get lynched for a blasphemous post.

5. There have actually been societies in recent times ending up literally poisoning each other.

6. Just some 5 years ago around 10 million people lived in a society where people were thrown off roofs for being gay.

The list is obviously non-exhaustive. And all of the above is basically going on now, I'm not even getting into what we know went on a few centuries from now. Burning innocent women on pyres for imagined slights, anyone?

Like... Do all these people know/knew they are evil according to our 'common' and 'universal' core morals? I bet they feel pretty good about themselves when lynching the blasphemer. It's just that I refuse to accept that our core morals are similar.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#223

Post by midjji »

abakker wrote: post #132
midjji wrote: post #94

It makes for a good story to be sure, but probably little else. Much like the popular myth of the noble savage influencing academics of the time, contemporary popular disdain for the people and cultures of the past colors many contemporary academics. Another weird thing, So we have found evidence of the feathers of dinosaurs, but not the fur of something from 40k years ago? that seems rather unlikely. In this case, t…

I always personally thought descriptions of Grendel were very much that of a silverback gorilla. Fangs, Fur, Loping gait, strength. Its a pretty good image.

There is a similar idea about Conan and there is a bit of ambiguity in the collected stories of the oc. There are ancient kingdoms and fallen empires of creatures that are described like apes or furless apes, notably gorillas and similar creatures here and there. The inhabitants of these, if they are sane, sometimes call themselves, and are sometimes called either man, or superior to man or degenerate from man. Basically everything from lovecraftian space elves to goblins. Conan himself is quite often described in way that is ambiguous, but certainly includes both things like thick maned, long armed, barrel-chested, and even gorilla like. In particular by some of the people of the kingdoms he visits. Described as black maned, hairy, sometimes to the point of fur, and in his latter years, as with it falling like a coat of silver over his back. Overall its a silly idea. Leaving the racism aside, I think the author intended Armenian or persian. Black haired, golden tanned skin, sometimes with pale golden irises, certainly not white or nordic as often depicted much like some other middle eastern mythical characters of note. A simpler explanation is bad writing and gorillas commonly thought of as the epitome of strong men at the time of the early novels. The stories are mostly set in southern hyperborea i.e. middle africa also lends itself to this. I wonder if this may be why Grendel is like that as well. A popular english translation of Beowulf was made by Tolkien (who grew up in africa) written in the same era as the early Conan? A popular translation makes Grendel more akin to a nordic troll, which is more similar to a bear, weakly supported by aglæca ambiguity which sometimes seems to confuse grendel and beowulf which would make more if the name beowulf even if literally translated to bear, still meant bear hunter/killer or strong as a bear. I'd lean towards tolkien, but it shows how cultural context flavors translation. There is just not much description either, and even without the inevitable translation errors in visual descriptions of things that dont exist, ambiguity caused by bad writing is nothing new.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#224

Post by midjji »

jccooper wrote: post #148
midjji wrote: post #94

It makes for a good story to be sure, but probably little else. Much like the popular myth of the noble savage influencing academics of the time, contemporary popular disdain for the people and cultures of the past colors many contemporary academics. Another weird thing, So we have found evidence of the feathers of dinosaurs, but not the fur of something from 40k years ago? that seems rather unlikely. In this case, t…

I don't believe we have any ancient hominid integument at all, just a few strands of hair here and there. Soft tissues are extremely rare survivals (and we have very few examples of any ancient mammalian soft tissue), so it's not terribly surprising given the already scant hominid remains. That we have a little bit of dinosaur skin impressions is down to said animals being around for a long, long time, and over much…

Soft tissues and hair need not survive for its imprint to survive on the surrounding clay. I think its strange we dont have more neanderthal finds than we do, but suspect part of the reason is most aren't distinguishable from cro magnon. If an intact adult skull is found, sure. But if the fragmented remains of a neanderthal child were found in a bog, could we tell the difference?

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#225

Post by midjji »

nyolfen wrote: post #178
abakker wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always personally thought descriptions of Grendel were very much that of a silverback gorilla. Fangs, Fur, Loping gait, strength. Its a pretty good image.

grendel-as-neanderthals is actually the premise of a novel from the 1970s by michael crichton, eaters of the dead/the 13th warrior

I think the film is really good, though I suspect a film critic might disagree. I'll look up the bok, thanks for the tip:)

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#226

Post by wolverine876 »

jgilias wrote: post #222
wolverine876 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We really can not know this. We can only infer from cultures and religions in the relatively short timespan covered by written history. That written history covers an enormous amount of ground, with records going back 6,000 years and in diverse cultures, from Sanskrit in what is now India to cuneiform to China for thousands of years, etc., and those records including older materials. Anthropologists have been study…

Yes. 6000 years, that's 3% of the time we have been around as species. It's not important for me to push anything, let alone something that would empower evil behavior. It's just that I really, really can not see how the idea that pretty much all human societies have similar morals revolving around 'be a good person' goes together with the following facts: 1. Tens of thousands of people are part of societies where in…

6,000 years of evidence isn't enough? That's what makes this a discussion about philosophy, not reality.

Because people do something, it's moral? Gangs are considered moral? The existence of evil means there is no morality?

> I refuse to accept

Then the truth doesn't matter.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#227

Post by jgilias »

wolverine876 wrote: post #226
jgilias wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. 6000 years, that's 3% of the time we have been around as species. It's not important for me to push anything, let alone something that would empower evil behavior. It's just that I really, really can not see how the idea that pretty much all human societies have similar morals revolving around 'be a good person' goes together with the following facts: 1. Tens of thousands of people are part of societies where in…

6,000 years of evidence isn't enough? That's what makes this a discussion about philosophy, not reality. Because people do something, it's moral? Gangs are considered moral? The existence of evil means there is no morality? > I refuse to accept Then the truth doesn't matter.

Truth matters.

You got me quite interested in your worldview, can we please continue this discussion a bit? I hope it doesn't take too much of your time!

So, you're saying that you have the same set of core morals as a guy returning family honor by beheading his daughter[1] at night over her plans to run off with her boyfriend?

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/world/middleeast/honor-ki...

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#228

Post by projektfu »

projektfu wrote: post #169
mattkrause wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe some tarsiers have it too, but yeah...this whole part seems like evolutionary fan-fiction.

I was wrong, some lemurs also have tapeta but, oddly, tarsiers don’t, in spite of having many more adaptations to low light. What’s weird is that the advocate of the orc theory just throws in details without even considering whether they’re plausible. A full hair coat? Easy, we already have hair, and most of our “relatives” have full coats. Larger teeth? Sure. A gain of function that’s been lost to an entire phylum,…

I meant clade not phylum. Sleepy?

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#229

Post by wwtrv »

poisonarena wrote: post #214
wwtrv wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it’s true that the conquistadors had immense success in their initial encounters with the natives, the Aztecs would have adapted eventually to counter the Spanish had they not been crippled by the European diseases. This seems to have already been the case in the siege of Tenochtitlan where the Spanish suffers huge casualties despite having similar numbers (together with their allies) to the Aztecs. This was th…

How could you say that like it is a fact? How do you know the Aztec triple alliance would have countered the Spanish?

I’m not saying that they would have defeated the Spanisn in the long-term but conquering and permanently occupying all the native states in Central America would have significantly more expensive for the Spanish. Without the diseases I think it’s not unlikely the Spanish empire in the new world would have more closely resembled British India i.e. a bunch of semi independent states and directly controlled areas with the majority of population still preserving their culture and language. And in general European colonization would of the new world would have been more similar to what happened in the rest of Asia and Africa.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#230

Post by wwtrv »

poisonarena wrote: post #216
wwtrv wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cortes was an opportunistic lawyer/notary he had no military experience before the conquest of Mexico and I’m not sure there is any evidence that he had any military education.

Well he overthrew the Aztec Empire.. Also his dad was an infantry captain. And he seemed to be commanding his armies, and armies of allied tribes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Otumba

Yeah he turned out to be a fairly competent commander but it was main his diplomatic skill that allowed him to conquer Mexico. There is no way he would have won without the tens of thousands of native allies that fought alongside the Spanish.
Post reply on HN