ChairmanMeow

https://youtu.be/ISZyJ5MHApI

"The veggie-product formerly known as Burger"

IIRC Germany > Germania > Allemania > Alemanic tribes, people who lived in Germany. France calls them "Allemagne" as well, you can see where that came from.

I mean, try to do a spreadsheet on a PC without any accessories. You can't, because there's no monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc... All accessories. By this logic, only laptops can really be called PCs.

Replace any desktop tower with a Steam Deck and you'll find it's perfectly capable of doing the same job.

They calculated it should be fine, but it remained extremely experimental technology.

But yes they did it anyway.

Yes.

I'm fairly certain only a small subset of (religious) children are told that story. It's not a part of the 'normal' stories at least.

Usually it helps but not as much as most people think. Very few people actually use a privacy focused browser, so that in and of itself is surprisingly identifying.

That's a bit of a strange way of describing it.

Mont St. Michel has been built, rebuilt and restored many times in the past. Lots of buildings from 1200 don't exist anymore and collapsed over the years.

The spire isn't necessarily a new invention either. Here's an illustration from 1772 that does seem to show a (more romanesque) spire on the top as well:

It's a different spire, but a lot of things have changed over the years. Viollet le Duc restored the site in the 19th century and added a neogothic spire (the famous one we all know now). Similar spires popped up all over the world, a notable example being the Notre Dame's spire (which after the fire had to be rebuilt in the same way due to its heritage value).

The idea of a spire on the island isn't new at least, and the neogothic spire does fit the island very well, both in looks but also in spiritual meaning. I certainly wouldn't describe it as a "fake" just for tourism purposes.

Have you tried 'AAA' or a hammer?

I don't think it's downplaying or "sweeping under the rug of history" to state facts about the Nazi regime. They did not do things according to the letter of the law. They did a judiciary takeover, allowing illegal acts to happen, and they did seize absolute power, murdering political opponents.

None of these things were possible without a good amount of popular support. And a lot of the population stood by and watched it happen, or even endorsed it.

I do worry you're falling into the 'trap' that neonazis set. Neonazis like to state these things (eg "there's no written order from Hitler to start the Holocaust") to deny other historical facts. It's important you engage these arguments correctly. By arguing against these things being true, you're falling into the trap, because by and large these arguments aren't wrong. There is indeed no written order for example.

It's really important that you deny that the argument even holds any relevance in the first place. It didn't matter that there's no written order, the Nazis did it regardless. The Holocaust being illegal does not matter. You can argue the complications of a dual-state legal theory that's not explicitly codified, and you'll get lost in the weeds because there's enough arguments to be brought up there. Instead, you must argue the Nazis didn't need it to be legal in the first place. Doing so renders the legality argument useless in the context of Holocaust-denial.

The legality aspect is an interesting debate. But be careful that you don't accidentally legitimize its use in Holocaust denial.

Carter, Bush Sr./Jr., Nixon and Truman were all lower it seems.