Do we know what the rate of execution in medieval Europe was, concretely? Although, I suppose the Aztecs would have had secular executions going on as well.

There’s also not a lot of clarity about what this new monarchy would be like, besides involving Reza Pahlavi somehow, and there’s no corresponding paramilitary force to set him up, even if every major cleric vanished overnight.

The majority (although not overwhelmingly the majority) of Iranians hate the regime, and it seems likely it will either moderate or be replaced over time, but who knows if he’ll still be around by then?

Really? I think I’d take the Aztec thing without hesitation, between the two.

Cool, thanks.

Thanks!

Rome once again ends up feeling kind of modern, although not right across the board.

Uhh, Pakistan still has a bunch of nukes, Kazakhstan gave theirs up at the same time as the other two, and South Africa had them and gave them up. Also there’s no war in Pakistan, and only war at a low level in Belarus (and they’re the aggressor).

Prior to that the winter just wasn’t counted as an official period where things could happen, I guess.

Although everything recorded from the monarchy era should be taken with a grain of salt.

TBF lots of countries think everyone having nukes is a bad idea. It’s just so nice to be one of the few that does…

I mean, not literally.

It’s a joke. Please laugh. /s

and witchcraft (yes, an actual charge - though infamously difficult to prosecute under Roman law).

Oooh interesting. Why was that?

I mean, monks in general aren’t supposed to be. I guess he could have changed that doctrine, since it was his religion, but he didn’t, and who knows if it would have caught on the same.

I’m pretty sure the actual front line bit was motorised, though. It wouldn’t be very blitzy otherwise.

I had an ancenstor who went blind from diabetes, but still got around because he had one who remembered where everything was, and he just had to tell it the destination.

IIRC the laughing buddha also had the fuckboy thing down.

And yet, everybody smashed upvote on this rage bait without reading it. Education and wealth only gets you so far.

TBF they didn’t really make direct factual claims here, they just quoted the sources, so even if it’s not true it’s not a lie. I’m not sure how often Fox News just straight up lies either.

X to doubt.

The analyst in “says analyst” was a guy on Twitter.

It is mentioned that PCHR recorded similar testimony from a Palestinian source later on.

Again, maybe, maybe not.

“Source I’ve never seen claims someone on Twitter heard something outrageous from an anonymous source”

Did this happen? Maybe. Is this upvoted solely because of people’s pre-existing biases? Yup.

If only it was a live modern person he would have gotten away with it.