It’s not quite the same thing (particularly because of the motivation), but, uhh…I suggest you read about Abu Simbel, if you haven’t already.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
on 22 Jun 14:11
nextcollapse
how to write lists
markdown - Why there are pyramids in Egypt? - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
renders to
> - Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
> - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.
If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.
ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com
on 22 Jun 15:31
nextcollapse
It doesn’t look like a list to me, but a riddle.
Would putting a Q: and A: in front of them satisfy you or would that send you off on a different tangent of chastising web users on their formatting?
Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech, the tech should get better at interpreting human tendencies of writing. Even today I can write in a non-structured natural language form and a decent chat bot can typically make a reasonable interpretation of it without help.
Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech
Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices: - SPACE list item.
Even aesthetically, the plain text looks atrocious without a space there & worse when rendered.
The technology is fine, there was even a button in the toolbar.
It’s not that hard to figure out to anyone trying: there’s a preview button & they can edit.
All anyone has to do is (1) follow regular convention or (2) use the technology.
Getting this wrong despite the technology & standard convention is less a technology problem & more a user problem.
Edit: I understand what you both meant now: quotation dashes.
They’re less common in English, but still correct!
Edited my comment above to reflect this.
Thanks.
I don’t have a screen reader installed so I cannot try it but I can guess how it can screw with it. However I agree with Monkey With A Shell here. It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics, this can only be solved with a better software.
While I use markdown daily, apparently there are still things I don’t know about it. Well, I mostly learn them when I need them but still. So, I could use — (speech dash) instead of -, which I assume wouldn’t cause a problem with a screen reader. There is no way for me to remember its shortcut on the keyboard, but it seems Markdown already covered this with — which ends up rendered as —.
Thanks for making me noticing about it, learned something new today.
It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics
Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong?
I don’t know guys
-first
-second
-third
looks obviously bad whereas
- first
- second
- third
looks right.
Then you see the rendered result in preview.
You also had a button in the toolbar to create a list.
I don’t think this is asking much.
If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do?
For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent.
No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.
I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.
Though, it seems speech dash is not a thing in English. So I understand the confusion.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
on 22 Jun 21:00
nextcollapse
You had me pondering…yes, quotation dash: it is a thing in English, just less common!
Please disregard what I wrote before: you had it almost correct, but use quotation dashes― as you suggested before.
Some OSes offer nice character pickers for less common punctuation: for example, Windows summons it with WindowsKey-..
Apologies.
No worries. I tried to look on my English novels first but couldn’t find anything like this. I was almost certain that I saw this in one of the Roald Dahls but nope. Well, learned the official name of it too, quotation dash. Thanks.
By the way, Meta (Windows key) + . opens emoji list in KDE.
Canadian_Cabinet@lemmy.ca
on 22 Jun 21:33
collapse
Yeah its not a thing in English. In Spanish it is as well and learning to read novels in English was a bit confusing at first. I believe the official name is en dash or em dash I forget which
Didn’t really notice until now, though it seems some English speaking people used these dashes in their books apparently but I don’t think I ever read one of them. It’s hilarious to see these cultural differences may cause problems like this. :)
Apparently there is already a separate symbol for speech dash, which is —. However its keyboard shortcut is obscure and I couldn’t remember it later, but Markdown already covered this it seems. Writing — renders as —, which I’ll do from now on, if I don’t forget about it next time.
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
on 23 Jun 00:35
collapse
It’s worse, obviously. It’s not enough to bring it into the country but it’s worse to keep it in Western Europe or the US. You could argue that once it’s in the capital it won’t travel anywhere closer to the people but when it stays in London or Berlin, it’s not moving anywhere. On the other hand, once you ship it to the country of origin, you can take the extra mile and bring it to the cultural heirs. But keeping it is the worst option.
You responded well and explained it for all.
Thank you.
BoxedFenders@hexbear.net
on 22 Jun 17:34
nextcollapse
Do you REALLY think a minority ethnic group in say, Nigeria, would rather have their artifacts locked away in London under the stewardship of Anglos rather than displayed in Lagos where they can at least visit it?
I didn’t say that, how do people read that into my comment? I was giving additional context that it is not enough to bring it anywhere into the country. Sure, keeping it in London is worse, I never said it’s better.
Many anti-colonial activists will point out that the modern day governments are the collaborators from back then and still they get the reparations and artifacts. Sure, keeping them in London is worse, I never defended that.
My bad. But you can see how your comment reads like a whataboutism, right?
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 03:47
collapse
So it’s better to keep it somewhere thousands of kilometres away where they’ll never be able to see it as compared to being able to see it albeit with difficulty?
That’s an internal problem for them to solve, not an excuse to hoard someone else’s culture.
I never said it’s better to keep it but it’s not enough to bring it somewhere in the country. Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs. Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 04:09
collapse
Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
Exactly. We agree there then.
Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs.
I think this tricky. Usually, I think the Cultural heritage belongs to the countries from where the artifacts were taken, so that’s where the artifacts should be returned to. Otherwise, How do you decide who to give an artifact to? Most inhabitants of central America share Mayan ancestry, and they no longer follow the maya religion.
I guess it’s a case to case basis. I am sure the rare cases in which there is a dispute it should be left upto the countries or institutions that claim the artifact to arbitrate.
moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub
on 22 Jun 14:16
nextcollapse
Gotta love how the first movie opens with him stealing an idol from an uncontacted Peruvian tribe, and the heroic music swells as he narrowly escapes with spears flying around them.
Granted, this takes place in 1936 and his actions were the norm for the period, but despite coming out in 1981 the movie plays this scene out rather uncritically.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
on 22 Jun 14:39
nextcollapse
He narrowly escapes with his life after having the idol stolen from him by his rival, Belloq, who works for the Nazis and actually hired that Peruvian tribe to be his little private army. Belloq then orders the Peruvians to attack Jones and he barely escapes on his hired plane.
moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub
on 23 Jun 02:17
collapse
Where do you get that he hired them?
The opening scene is them discussing that the tribe would kill them just for being in the area, and then Belloq taunts Jones saying he can’t warn them that he’s scamming them because Jones doesn’t speak Hovitos. No where does it say he hired them.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 02:41
collapse
Scamming them is even worse, no?
moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub
on 23 Jun 05:03
collapse
He didn’t know Belloq was there until after he had robbed them.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 11:01
collapse
So the entire point of my original comment was to give Indiana Jones a bit of vindication from the thinly veiled slander that he was nothing more than a tomb robber working for the colonialist west. How does your correction that Belloq was scamming the Hovitos, not paying them, make any difference to Jones’s character?
moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub
on 23 Jun 11:54
collapse
It doesn’t. You said Belloq hired them to be his personal army, which paints the Hovitos as complicit in working against their own self-interests. As in, they were the betrayers of their own people and were selling out to Belloq for some cash.
But no, the reality is both Jones and Belloq were out to screw them: Jones by directly robbing them, and Belloq by first scamming them and then robbing them. Both were being imperialist and the Hovitos were the victims.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
on 22 Jun 16:49
nextcollapse
Temple of Doom had way more questionable scenes in it with the banquet, the heroic British soldiers at the end and… Short Round. Did they really have to name him that?
Although the cultists were based on a real group and I actually saw something that looked like the heart thing in an Indian movie, so maybe that’s based on something real as well.
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 03:51
collapse
I doubt it.
There are 1.4 billion people. I think there’d be a stereotype about them doing black magic if it was an ever prevalent thing.
To be fair to the movie, it isn’t trying to say all Indians worship dark gods. It’s just depicting a cult that happens to be in India.
When I said “something real”, I just meant a preexisting idea in India. The movie was Baahubali. There was a scene where the villain was trying to reach his hand into the hero’s chest in exactly the same was as the cult leader in Temple of Doom.
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 04:23
collapse
The heart thing is not unique to India?
It’s a very common thing to take the heart out by villians everywhere.
More that the hand was open and the figures being pressed directly into the skin, as if he was going to grab the heard directly without cutting it open first. It’s not something you see often as there’s the sternum in the way. I don’t know if there’s some Indian myth it’s based off of or maybe some other piece of Indian cinema. It was a very specific scene, but it’s 5 hours to go though, so I’m not going to be able it quickly.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
on 22 Jun 23:26
collapse
Yeah, but if the tribe made those traps that still work perfectly after hundreds of years, imagine how advanced they must be by now. Dr Jones was probably within miles of a hidden techno utopia and never had a clue.
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Those relics belong to dead people.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
on 22 Jun 16:46
nextcollapse
Yeah, it’s definitely a little questionable when the people currently inhabiting the land have no direct connection to the people who made the artifacts. And then you got shit like this. Or this.Or this.
As an American, we should be shipping our arts out of the country before the current regime decides it’s subversive to the regime and burn it. Especially any art made by minorities, opposition or in places that might get bombed(any coastal city).
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 04:16
collapse
And that would be for the Individual Americans to decide, or the institutions.
It wouldn’t have been plundered.
You are assuming that the artifacts such as those held in the British museum solely represent “saving culture” but they also represent the lingering colonial mindset. They weren’t taken away to preserve, they were taken as plunder. LITERALLY.
6:40 <- mark, watch the whole thing if you have the time.
Imagine if Nigeria and other african countries invaded your country, forced you into indentured servitude, spread propoganda and took all the art/artifacts to their country and used the excuse that your president is a fascist douche turd and because of that none of you are worthy enough to handle it. You just can’t be trusted with your own art and then never returned it even after things got objectively better.
ProvableGecko@lemmy.world
on 22 Jun 18:14
nextcollapse
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Stealing this foolproof argument for when I next apply for a UK visa to go to British Museum. Thanks!
TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 22 Jun 18:24
nextcollapse
Attributing modern concepts of borders to Westphalia is a Eurocentric worldview. What, you don’t think they had the concept of statehood and sovereignty in Asia for at least a few thousand years prior to this?
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 03:38
nextcollapse
Those relics belong to dead people.
No, it belongs to a community. Does something stop belonging to a people if the original creators die? No.
That way nobody owns any land, because it belongs to the amoeba.
Returning the artifacts is meant to be a good will gesture, and a sort of a reparation (in lieu of the actual reparations) for all the horrible colonial era crimes that were propagated not more than even 100 years ago.
When I was in grad school, the philosophy of science students would egg me on with things like: “I’ll buy you a beer if you can prove the electron is real”. I’d like to think I’m carrying on their tradition in science memes.
I think I get the gist of what you’re saying but they’re very much not arbitrary. They’re a direct manifestation of a state’s ability to exert control.
Without the ability to exert control and therefore reinforce the definition, borders are as arbitrary as any other law. They are created by people, enforced by people, and if we change our mind then they can go away. It’s not some intrinsic property of the planet.
While I’m ranting, the definition of a relic or artifact is equally arbitrary. As well as the definition of a people. And ownership. At any point in history, these definitions will be different. Right now we’ve defined it in such a way that we’ve decided that it is socially acceptable to return relics to people who live inside geographic areas where the relics originated from. This is also arbitrary.
But as long as people, decide to exert force to reinforce this definitions, there is true as any other law.
kruhmaster@sh.itjust.works
on 22 Jun 14:27
nextcollapse
What’s the opinion on certain high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it’s so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
Presumably somewhere between racism and artifact protection.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
on 22 Jun 17:02
nextcollapse
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
If you run a museum in Afghanistan and are afraid that the Taliban is going to execute you unless you destroy some blasphemous statue, are you going to risk your life to send the artifact to the British Museum, or are you just going to destroy it? Yeah, some heroes will definitely risk their lives, but most won’t.
The alternative isn’t “nothing”, it’s getting precious cultural artifacts out of high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed.
MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
on 22 Jun 17:05
nextcollapse
Much like the theft of historical artifacts by the UK et al, ISIS was the result of decades of imperialist meddling by the US. Maybe just leave things be and let the locals work out what they want to do with their land, their people, and the artifacts on it. Offering assistance without strings attached is good, interventions are bad.
It’s like offering to help your neighbor with their yard: it’s acceptable to offer to lend them your mower, but it’s not acceptable to dig up everything on their property, replace it with grass sod, and spray it regularly with herbicides because you didn’t like the look of their local fauna and are afraid the dandelions and clover would spread to your lawn after your first intervention.
Who do you recognize as the authority to make that decision though? If the locals are currently ruled by a terrorist group or Nazis or whatever, do they get to decide? What about the locals that disagree with the government currently in power?
And an answer of ‘if we just didn’t needlessly meddle’ might be the ideal, but it’s ignoring the realities that we have meddled and some countries are unlikely to stop doing so. We have to accept the world we have not the one we wished we had.
Unless whatever group is in power has expressed that they wish to destroy those artifacts, I would prefer to work with whatever government there is to not only transfer the artifacts back, but help them setup whatever infrastructure is required to maintain them, including training of staff in their care.
Your bias is exactly the same on that led to those artifacts being stolen. It can be summed up as “these are savages, how can we trust them with their own things?” The West stole these artifacts and in many cases destroyed other artifacts or defaced historical sites to take them in the first place. It’s chauvinistic to continue this cycle. Give them back, try to make things right, and if things get destroyed, that’s just how it goes. It wasn’t the West’s to take in the first place. More progress is made by working with people than pearl-clutching. This is accepting the world as it is and trying to make it better all at once.
vorb0te@lemmynsfw.com
on 22 Jun 17:15
nextcollapse
What if some of the locals want it taken away for protection, but the government wants it destroyed?
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases. I think it places where it’s uncertain, then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 03:30
collapse
You will never be able to get everyone to agree on anything and you can’t hold a referendum for every artifact.
So as far as responsibility goes, barring edge cases, it should be left upto the government to decide, as they represent the people.
And tbh, this feels like an argument made in bad faith, because this is such a rare case. No government is going to ask for an artifact back and then destroy it. What happened in afganistan and Syria was a tragedy (they didn’t ask for those artifacts back, they were already there) But that only happened because the previous governments had been destabilized by Russian and American influences. (Iraq war - Isis, Afganistan war - alqaeda)
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases.
Just return it to the country where it was taken from. And I don’t think there are many cases where ownership is vague, most are pretty plain and clear.
then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
That’s not on you, that’s on their original keepers. Otherwise you are propagating colonial era crimes and justifying them by arguing in bad faith.
P.s.
Museums have a notorious record when it comes to maintaining artifacts (they aren’t shining beacons of humanity), especially the British museum.
They also do less than what’s needed to discourage artifact smuggling.
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
Which people? The government? So in Afghanistan it’s up to the Taliban? If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
And, again, which people? Is a totem pole in a museum in Canada the property of the Canadian people? Or is it something that belongs to the Haida people, and it doesn’t matter what other Canadians want? If it is up to the Haida, it is up to the Council of the Haida Nation, or is it up to the band the original artist belonged to?
What about a Tatar artifact found in Donetsk? Who gets control over that? Is it the Russians since they occupy Donetsk? The Ukrainians because they used to occupy it? Do you have to study the blood of various Ukrainian people to figure out who has the most surviving Tatar DNA?
They are my human skulls I found them fair and square
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
on 23 Jun 00:29
collapse
This is why I always donate my finished books to my local library. I don’t need them and, if I want to read them again, I can always just go check it out from the library.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
on 22 Jun 23:14
nextcollapse
Gonna play a game of comment roulette. How far do I have to scroll before I see someone say something like, “That can’t be in their museum because they can’t be trusted with it”.
Spinning the chamber now.
Edit: turns out I wasn’t prepared for what I saw. Now I sad.
I’m not saying it always is but there are a lot of very unstable places run by people who just don’t care about this stuff. And at the time it was stolen it was either the British museum, someone’s private collection, or the Vatican.
chuymatt@startrek.website
on 23 Jun 07:14
collapse
But who made them unstable?
Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
on 24 Jun 02:02
collapse
Well, in the case of Syria, decades of oppression under the Assad family combined with religious ideology.
chuymatt@startrek.website
on 24 Jun 02:37
collapse
Supported byyyyyyy……
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe
on 23 Jun 03:55
collapse
It should belong to the country of origin, but it could also be shared and tour around museums across the globe so an even greater number of people can check it out. They do this with art pieces. Why not cultural artifacts, too? Is not everyone entitled to learning about anything, including someone else’s culture?
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
on 23 Jun 00:27
nextcollapse
I would assume there would be arguments around transporting them increasing the chances of it breaking. It would really only make sense to move these back to their country of origin and have them remain there to minimize potential points of failure. The rarer the artifact itself (another rusted out sword or plain clay cup versus a one of a kind manuscript whose pages have become incredibly delicate) the less their respective owners are going to want it to be moved.
Instead, we should be allowing more people the ability to travel and take time to go explore other cultures in their country of origin instead of trying to transport priceless artifacts across the globe.
For example I’ve seen both Pompeii & King Tutt exhibits in San Diego that have since rotated. I’ve also seen other traveling exhibits in several other major cities I’ve lived in that were far more than art.
Many cities also have free admission days to museums for people that live nearby (depends on the institution but it could be for City/County/State).
With this knowledge, you too, can now learn and explore societies that predate written word.
I’ll showcase it to people I allow on my house, and say I take care of it, but what if I put then in ebay? who is going to stop me
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 14:37
collapse
If you are comparing stealing from the giftshop to the museum’s procurement process then you have to display your loot in an equal (free) manner to all members of the public, and refuse sell any items.
People in Africa/asia, have to get a visa, and spend thousands (if they manage to be super cheap might only be a few hundred) of pounds to see their own historical artifacts, and keep in mind most of the artifacts are not in display, and it is the British curators who decide what is displayed, and what will likely end up in ebay.
IE: my metaphor is correct
but I’ll tell everyone I’m more responsible than those brown/people and that’s why I get to keep them
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 16:48
collapse
You don’t have to pay for people’s transport if they come to see your giftshop loot, but you do have to show it them for free.
No. Selling on eBay is not allowed. In fact, once you have started your collection you are expected to pay for all future additions to your collection (although you may get donations).
Your shoplifting metaphor ignored the curation, storage and display responsibilities. It also assumed resale which, in the British Museum’s case, hasn’t occurred.
i see the problem, you’re assuming I’m the British museum in the metaphor, but I’m more like the UK in the metaphor.
And there are plenty of artifacts from the museum that ended up in ebay, but don’t worry, the museum promised they will investigate themselves whenever it happens.
Why is a foreign entity, gets to decide what to do with stolen artifacts?
could I rob a bank, and when they catch me I can blame the bank for low security,.and not have to return anything because I will allow some people to come to my house and show them some bank stationary I also stole? while keeping the money for myself and do with it as I please. while pinky promising to not use the money I stole, but there’s no oversight or consequences if I don’t.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 19:20
collapse
I still get to control who gets in (visa)
You don’t control country visas. Neither does the British Museum.
i see the problem, you’re assuming I’m the British museum in the metaphor, but I’m more like the UK in the metaphor.
Ah OK. Then I’m confused what the “UK giftshop” represents, and also what are you stealing from it.
Why is a foreign entity, gets to decide what to do with stolen artifacts?
A good, but different question. We are straying from the question of being morally able to steal from the British Museum giftshop.
could I rob a bank, and when they catch me I can blame the bank for low security,.and not have to return anything because I will allow some people to come to my house and show them some bank stationary I also stole?
The standard response is that you are a white hat bank robber, and you will return the bank assets once they beef up security. But the Greek bank has done this and still doesn’t have it’s assets back.
Half the issue is the British museum, and the other is the British government,
but as a result, we have stolen artifacts being kept for selfish and racist reasons.
like ,we got them, and you guys cannot be trusted with your own history.
As long as the country in question aren’t currently in a serious crisis, artifacts should be returned.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 20:05
collapse
I broadly agree. For example, the elgin marbles should be returned (after multiple copies have been made). The British Museum will never truly “own” their artifacts. The Rosetta Stone will never be British.
But remember, I was answering about stealing from the giftshop. You would never own or be able to sell anything stolen from it.
They’re too poor to have museums so by default yoink
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today
on 23 Jun 05:00
nextcollapse
Finders keepers, them’s the rules. Don’t blame me.
SpaceScotsman@startrek.website
on 23 Jun 07:54
nextcollapse
Honestly, “country of origin” will have straight lines drawn on a map that are so far removed from where the people who lived there originally considered their borders even that’s probably not pinning it down well enough.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 09:44
nextcollapse
burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world
on 23 Jun 16:26
nextcollapse
if you want to compare Indiana Jones to real life, the movies say flat out that he is an unscrupulous grave robber and he is completely aware of the hypocrisy. its part of his character arc, where he’s all about fortune and glory and doesnt believe in any of the mystical crap, until he is confronted with powers he didn’t understand and fights to stop others from exploiting them. and at the end of the day it was a movie
samus12345@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Jun 18:03
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
-Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
-Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
Imagine doing a Gate of Ishtar maneuver but with the pyramids
It’s not quite the same thing (particularly because of the motivation), but, uhh…I suggest you read about Abu Simbel, if you haven’t already.
how to write lists
markdown - Why there are pyramids in Egypt? - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.renders to > - Why there are pyramids in Egypt? > - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.
Edit: Disregard. They were trying to do quotation dashes.
Well, that’s the reason why I didn’t write it like that. I wanted it to look like a dash, just like in novels.
So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.
How is it breaking accessibility?
Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds
The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.
If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.
It doesn’t look like a list to me, but a riddle.
Would putting a Q: and A: in front of them satisfy you or would that send you off on a different tangent of chastising web users on their formatting?
Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech, the tech should get better at interpreting human tendencies of writing. Even today I can write in a non-structured natural language form and a decent chat bot can typically make a reasonable interpretation of it without help.
Then the
-weren’t needed.-SPACE list item. Even aesthetically, the plain text looks atrocious without a space there & worse when rendered.All anyone has to do is (1) follow regular convention or (2) use the technology. Getting this wrong despite the technology & standard convention is less a technology problem & more a user problem.
Edit: I understand what you both meant now: quotation dashes. They’re less common in English, but still correct! Edited my comment above to reflect this. Thanks.
I don’t have a screen reader installed so I cannot try it but I can guess how it can screw with it. However I agree with Monkey With A Shell here. It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics, this can only be solved with a better software.
While I use markdown daily, apparently there are still things I don’t know about it. Well, I mostly learn them when I need them but still. So, I could use
—(speech dash) instead of-, which I assume wouldn’t cause a problem with a screen reader. There is no way for me to remember its shortcut on the keyboard, but it seems Markdown already covered this with—which ends up rendered as—.Thanks for making me noticing about it, learned something new today.
Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys
looks obviously bad whereas
looks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview. You also had a button in the toolbar to create a list.
I don’t think this is asking much.
If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.
I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.
I definitely wasn’t trying to write a list, it was a riddle or a conversation. What I was trying to do is this:
<img alt="" src="https://i.imgur.com/ZMw5eP2.jpeg">
Though, it seems speech dash is not a thing in English. So I understand the confusion.
You had me pondering…yes, quotation dash: it is a thing in English, just less common!
Please disregard what I wrote before: you had it almost correct, but use quotation dashes
―as you suggested before. Some OSes offer nice character pickers for less common punctuation: for example, Windows summons it with WindowsKey-.. Apologies.No worries. I tried to look on my English novels first but couldn’t find anything like this. I was almost certain that I saw this in one of the Roald Dahls but nope. Well, learned the official name of it too, quotation dash. Thanks.
By the way, Meta (Windows key) +
.opens emoji list in KDE.Yeah its not a thing in English. In Spanish it is as well and learning to read novels in English was a bit confusing at first. I believe the official name is en dash or em dash I forget which
Didn’t really notice until now, though it seems some English speaking people used these dashes in their books apparently but I don’t think I ever read one of them. It’s hilarious to see these cultural differences may cause problems like this. :)
By the way, Markdown also takes escape
\, which is why sometimes the shrugging emoticon is missing left arm.- So this
- also works with space
So you don’t even necessarily have to leave out the space.
Apparently there is already a separate symbol for speech dash, which is —. However its keyboard shortcut is obscure and I couldn’t remember it later, but Markdown already covered this it seems. Writing
—renders as —, which I’ll do from now on, if I don’t forget about it next time.TIL what quotation dashes are.
To be fair. Most of the pyramids were raided far before the British took an interest and whatever they held has now been lost to time.
Eh, I meant the whole pyramids but fair enough.
scandalized stare
edit *innocent stare I meant
<img alt="" src="https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/b85d3397-6cd5-47b7-92cb-1cb29faff383.webp">
Karen Allen, the perfect example of aging naturally and radiating beauty.
Petite brunette women with green eyes have always been my thing. I realised recently that is entirely due to Karen Allen.
She isn’t even specifically my type, but her smile in this Indy 4 promo foto <img alt="Karen Allen in Indiana Jones 4 promo photo" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/80875756-a300-43db-aa34-1c8ea0fe3e27.webp"> was just absolutely captivating
She has a beautiful smile.
Many ethnic minorities complain that their cultural heritage is exhibitioned in the capital far away. Countries are a social construct
doesn’t mean crackers are off the hook for centuries of theft
Mf’kin crackahs be trippin and shit.
So a museum in Western Europe or the US is better, or just as bad?
It’s worse, obviously. It’s not enough to bring it into the country but it’s worse to keep it in Western Europe or the US. You could argue that once it’s in the capital it won’t travel anywhere closer to the people but when it stays in London or Berlin, it’s not moving anywhere. On the other hand, once you ship it to the country of origin, you can take the extra mile and bring it to the cultural heirs. But keeping it is the worst option.
You’re right, and I was being facetious.
You responded well and explained it for all. Thank you.
Do you REALLY think a minority ethnic group in say, Nigeria, would rather have their artifacts locked away in London under the stewardship of Anglos rather than displayed in Lagos where they can at least visit it?
I didn’t say that, how do people read that into my comment? I was giving additional context that it is not enough to bring it anywhere into the country. Sure, keeping it in London is worse, I never said it’s better.
Many anti-colonial activists will point out that the modern day governments are the collaborators from back then and still they get the reparations and artifacts. Sure, keeping them in London is worse, I never defended that.
My bad. But you can see how your comment reads like a whataboutism, right?
So it’s better to keep it somewhere thousands of kilometres away where they’ll never be able to see it as compared to being able to see it albeit with difficulty?
That’s an internal problem for them to solve, not an excuse to hoard someone else’s culture.
I never said it’s better to keep it but it’s not enough to bring it somewhere in the country. Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs. Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
Exactly. We agree there then.
I think this tricky. Usually, I think the Cultural heritage belongs to the countries from where the artifacts were taken, so that’s where the artifacts should be returned to. Otherwise, How do you decide who to give an artifact to? Most inhabitants of central America share Mayan ancestry, and they no longer follow the maya religion.
I guess it’s a case to case basis. I am sure the rare cases in which there is a dispute it should be left upto the countries or institutions that claim the artifact to arbitrate.
Gotta love how the first movie opens with him stealing an idol from an uncontacted Peruvian tribe, and the heroic music swells as he narrowly escapes with spears flying around them.
Granted, this takes place in 1936 and his actions were the norm for the period, but despite coming out in 1981 the movie plays this scene out rather uncritically.
He narrowly escapes with his life after having the idol stolen from him by his rival, Belloq, who works for the Nazis and actually hired that Peruvian tribe to be his little private army. Belloq then orders the Peruvians to attack Jones and he barely escapes on his hired plane.
Where do you get that he hired them?
The opening scene is them discussing that the tribe would kill them just for being in the area, and then Belloq taunts Jones saying he can’t warn them that he’s scamming them because Jones doesn’t speak Hovitos. No where does it say he hired them.
Scamming them is even worse, no?
He didn’t know Belloq was there until after he had robbed them.
So the entire point of my original comment was to give Indiana Jones a bit of vindication from the thinly veiled slander that he was nothing more than a tomb robber working for the colonialist west. How does your correction that Belloq was scamming the Hovitos, not paying them, make any difference to Jones’s character?
It doesn’t. You said Belloq hired them to be his personal army, which paints the Hovitos as complicit in working against their own self-interests. As in, they were the betrayers of their own people and were selling out to Belloq for some cash.
But no, the reality is both Jones and Belloq were out to screw them: Jones by directly robbing them, and Belloq by first scamming them and then robbing them. Both were being imperialist and the Hovitos were the victims.
Temple of Doom had way more questionable scenes in it with the banquet, the heroic British soldiers at the end and… Short Round. Did they really have to name him that?
Although the cultists were based on a real group and I actually saw something that looked like the heart thing in an Indian movie, so maybe that’s based on something real as well.
I doubt it.
There are 1.4 billion people. I think there’d be a stereotype about them doing black magic if it was an ever prevalent thing.
To be fair to the movie, it isn’t trying to say all Indians worship dark gods. It’s just depicting a cult that happens to be in India.
When I said “something real”, I just meant a preexisting idea in India. The movie was Baahubali. There was a scene where the villain was trying to reach his hand into the hero’s chest in exactly the same was as the cult leader in Temple of Doom.
The heart thing is not unique to India?
It’s a very common thing to take the heart out by villians everywhere.
More that the hand was open and the figures being pressed directly into the skin, as if he was going to grab the heard directly without cutting it open first. It’s not something you see often as there’s the sternum in the way. I don’t know if there’s some Indian myth it’s based off of or maybe some other piece of Indian cinema. It was a very specific scene, but it’s 5 hours to go though, so I’m not going to be able it quickly.
Yeah, but if the tribe made those traps that still work perfectly after hundreds of years, imagine how advanced they must be by now. Dr Jones was probably within miles of a hidden techno utopia and never had a clue.
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Those relics belong to dead people.
Yeah, it’s definitely a little questionable when the people currently inhabiting the land have no direct connection to the people who made the artifacts. And then you got shit like this. Or this. Or this.
Hot take: all artifacts should be located in the most geopolitically stable area possible
Hotter take: un peacekeepers should protect world heritage sites with weapons-free orders
.
As an American, we should be shipping our arts out of the country before the current regime decides it’s subversive to the regime and burn it. Especially any art made by minorities, opposition or in places that might get bombed(any coastal city).
And that would be for the Individual Americans to decide, or the institutions.
It wouldn’t have been plundered.
You are assuming that the artifacts such as those held in the British museum solely represent “saving culture” but they also represent the lingering colonial mindset. They weren’t taken away to preserve, they were taken as plunder. LITERALLY.
youtu.be/eJPLiT1kCSM
6:40 <- mark, watch the whole thing if you have the time.
Imagine if Nigeria and other african countries invaded your country, forced you into indentured servitude, spread propoganda and took all the art/artifacts to their country and used the excuse that your president is a fascist douche turd and because of that none of you are worthy enough to handle it. You just can’t be trusted with your own art and then never returned it even after things got objectively better.
Stealing this foolproof argument for when I next apply for a UK visa to go to British Museum. Thanks!
Attributing modern concepts of borders to Westphalia is a Eurocentric worldview. What, you don’t think they had the concept of statehood and sovereignty in Asia for at least a few thousand years prior to this?
No, it belongs to a community. Does something stop belonging to a people if the original creators die? No.
That way nobody owns any land, because it belongs to the amoeba.
Returning the artifacts is meant to be a good will gesture, and a sort of a reparation (in lieu of the actual reparations) for all the horrible colonial era crimes that were propagated not more than even 100 years ago.
Very Lemmy comment haha
When I was in grad school, the philosophy of science students would egg me on with things like: “I’ll buy you a beer if you can prove the electron is real”. I’d like to think I’m carrying on their tradition in science memes.
I think I get the gist of what you’re saying but they’re very much not arbitrary. They’re a direct manifestation of a state’s ability to exert control.
We agree entirely.
Without the ability to exert control and therefore reinforce the definition, borders are as arbitrary as any other law. They are created by people, enforced by people, and if we change our mind then they can go away. It’s not some intrinsic property of the planet.
While I’m ranting, the definition of a relic or artifact is equally arbitrary. As well as the definition of a people. And ownership. At any point in history, these definitions will be different. Right now we’ve defined it in such a way that we’ve decided that it is socially acceptable to return relics to people who live inside geographic areas where the relics originated from. This is also arbitrary.
But as long as people, decide to exert force to reinforce this definitions, there is true as any other law.
Forgot the zoom on the bottom panels.
What’s the opinion on certain high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it’s so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
That’s the question. Where is the line between racism and artifact protection?
Presumably somewhere between racism and artifact protection.
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
If you run a museum in Afghanistan and are afraid that the Taliban is going to execute you unless you destroy some blasphemous statue, are you going to risk your life to send the artifact to the British Museum, or are you just going to destroy it? Yeah, some heroes will definitely risk their lives, but most won’t.
Better than nothing
The alternative isn’t “nothing”, it’s getting precious cultural artifacts out of high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed.
How do you think consent works?
If they are consenting then that’s just my suggestion already
Who’s consenting?
lemmy.ca/post/46606223/17326690
Much like the theft of historical artifacts by the UK et al, ISIS was the result of decades of imperialist meddling by the US. Maybe just leave things be and let the locals work out what they want to do with their land, their people, and the artifacts on it. Offering assistance without strings attached is good, interventions are bad.
It’s like offering to help your neighbor with their yard: it’s acceptable to offer to lend them your mower, but it’s not acceptable to dig up everything on their property, replace it with grass sod, and spray it regularly with herbicides because you didn’t like the look of their local fauna and are afraid the dandelions and clover would spread to your lawn after your first intervention.
Who do you recognize as the authority to make that decision though? If the locals are currently ruled by a terrorist group or Nazis or whatever, do they get to decide? What about the locals that disagree with the government currently in power?
And an answer of ‘if we just didn’t needlessly meddle’ might be the ideal, but it’s ignoring the realities that we have meddled and some countries are unlikely to stop doing so. We have to accept the world we have not the one we wished we had.
Unless whatever group is in power has expressed that they wish to destroy those artifacts, I would prefer to work with whatever government there is to not only transfer the artifacts back, but help them setup whatever infrastructure is required to maintain them, including training of staff in their care.
Your bias is exactly the same on that led to those artifacts being stolen. It can be summed up as “these are savages, how can we trust them with their own things?” The West stole these artifacts and in many cases destroyed other artifacts or defaced historical sites to take them in the first place. It’s chauvinistic to continue this cycle. Give them back, try to make things right, and if things get destroyed, that’s just how it goes. It wasn’t the West’s to take in the first place. More progress is made by working with people than pearl-clutching. This is accepting the world as it is and trying to make it better all at once.
Adults have the right to make their own mistakes?
At the expense of everyone else?
Sadly yes. It’s difficult to accept it. But yes. Like a brother who can make his descisions. Offering help is always an option.
ISIS works for usa, so, the answer is kill all yanks
If you’re suggesting a daring heist at the Smithsonian, I’m in!
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
“It’s safer with us” is an excuse that’s been abused by colonizers and raiders for too long.
.
What if some of the locals want it taken away for protection, but the government wants it destroyed?
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases. I think it places where it’s uncertain, then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
You will never be able to get everyone to agree on anything and you can’t hold a referendum for every artifact.
So as far as responsibility goes, barring edge cases, it should be left upto the government to decide, as they represent the people.
And tbh, this feels like an argument made in bad faith, because this is such a rare case. No government is going to ask for an artifact back and then destroy it. What happened in afganistan and Syria was a tragedy (they didn’t ask for those artifacts back, they were already there) But that only happened because the previous governments had been destabilized by Russian and American influences. (Iraq war - Isis, Afganistan war - alqaeda)
Just return it to the country where it was taken from. And I don’t think there are many cases where ownership is vague, most are pretty plain and clear.
That’s not on you, that’s on their original keepers. Otherwise you are propagating colonial era crimes and justifying them by arguing in bad faith.
P.s.
In many cases there is no owner, they’re from a completely separate culture that happened to occupy the same region in the past.
Which people? The government? So in Afghanistan it’s up to the Taliban? If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
And, again, which people? Is a totem pole in a museum in Canada the property of the Canadian people? Or is it something that belongs to the Haida people, and it doesn’t matter what other Canadians want? If it is up to the Haida, it is up to the Council of the Haida Nation, or is it up to the band the original artist belonged to?
What about a Tatar artifact found in Donetsk? Who gets control over that? Is it the Russians since they occupy Donetsk? The Ukrainians because they used to occupy it? Do you have to study the blood of various Ukrainian people to figure out who has the most surviving Tatar DNA?
You mean most governments?
Well I’m British so… fuuuck that!
Britannia Jones and the stolen museum artifacts.
Marion, this is a movie made in the 1980s and set in the 1930s, what the hell are you even talking about?
“I liked you better when you were a child I was grooming!”
Marion, you knew when you met me that I came from the mind of George Lucas. It’s not my fault I’m a little fucked up!
That attitude gets retconed in the great circle.
where he explicitly says that it belongs in a museum and helps locals get their relics to keep safe in their museums. ie, it belongs in their museums.
good game overall
better a museum than on a shelf in someone’s living room (no I won’t be donating it)
They are my human skulls I found them fair and square
This is why I always donate my finished books to my local library. I don’t need them and, if I want to read them again, I can always just go check it out from the library.
Gonna play a game of comment roulette. How far do I have to scroll before I see someone say something like, “That can’t be in their museum because they can’t be trusted with it”.
Spinning the chamber now.
Edit: turns out I wasn’t prepared for what I saw. Now I sad.
on the other hand how often things go missing in the British museum?
Eurotrash gonna eurotrash.
There are occasions when it’s useful.
…wikipedia.org/…/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage…
I’m not saying it always is but there are a lot of very unstable places run by people who just don’t care about this stuff. And at the time it was stolen it was either the British museum, someone’s private collection, or the Vatican.
But who made them unstable?
Well, in the case of Syria, decades of oppression under the Assad family combined with religious ideology.
Supported byyyyyyy……
youtu.be/eJPLiT1kCSM
It should belong to the country of origin, but it could also be shared and tour around museums across the globe so an even greater number of people can check it out. They do this with art pieces. Why not cultural artifacts, too? Is not everyone entitled to learning about anything, including someone else’s culture?
I would assume there would be arguments around transporting them increasing the chances of it breaking. It would really only make sense to move these back to their country of origin and have them remain there to minimize potential points of failure. The rarer the artifact itself (another rusted out sword or plain clay cup versus a one of a kind manuscript whose pages have become incredibly delicate) the less their respective owners are going to want it to be moved.
Instead, we should be allowing more people the ability to travel and take time to go explore other cultures in their country of origin instead of trying to transport priceless artifacts across the globe.
Fun fact: Many cultural artificats do go on tour!
For example I’ve seen both Pompeii & King Tutt exhibits in San Diego that have since rotated. I’ve also seen other traveling exhibits in several other major cities I’ve lived in that were far more than art.
Many cities also have free admission days to museums for people that live nearby (depends on the institution but it could be for City/County/State).
With this knowledge, you too, can now learn and explore societies that predate written word.
i need someone to convince me why it is wrong to steal from the British museum gift shop
Will you display for free all your stolen giftshop loot for everyone to see, and promise never to damage it, sell it or dispose of it in any way.
I’ll showcase it to people I allow on my house, and say I take care of it, but what if I put then in ebay? who is going to stop me
If you are comparing stealing from the giftshop to the museum’s procurement process then you have to display your loot in an equal (free) manner to all members of the public, and refuse sell any items.
Is it free to the public?
People in Africa/asia, have to get a visa, and spend thousands (if they manage to be super cheap might only be a few hundred) of pounds to see their own historical artifacts, and keep in mind most of the artifacts are not in display, and it is the British curators who decide what is displayed, and what will likely end up in ebay.
IE: my metaphor is correct
but I’ll tell everyone I’m more responsible than those brown/people and that’s why I get to keep them
You don’t have to pay for people’s transport if they come to see your giftshop loot, but you do have to show it them for free.
No. Selling on eBay is not allowed. In fact, once you have started your collection you are expected to pay for all future additions to your collection (although you may get donations).
Your shoplifting metaphor ignored the curation, storage and display responsibilities. It also assumed resale which, in the British Museum’s case, hasn’t occurred.
I still get to control who gets in (visa)
i see the problem, you’re assuming I’m the British museum in the metaphor, but I’m more like the UK in the metaphor.
And there are plenty of artifacts from the museum that ended up in ebay, but don’t worry, the museum promised they will investigate themselves whenever it happens.
Why is a foreign entity, gets to decide what to do with stolen artifacts?
could I rob a bank, and when they catch me I can blame the bank for low security,.and not have to return anything because I will allow some people to come to my house and show them some bank stationary I also stole? while keeping the money for myself and do with it as I please. while pinky promising to not use the money I stole, but there’s no oversight or consequences if I don’t.
You don’t control country visas. Neither does the British Museum.
Ah OK. Then I’m confused what the “UK giftshop” represents, and also what are you stealing from it.
A good, but different question. We are straying from the question of being morally able to steal from the British Museum giftshop.
The standard response is that you are a white hat bank robber, and you will return the bank assets once they beef up security. But the Greek bank has done this and still doesn’t have it’s assets back.
Half the issue is the British museum, and the other is the British government,
but as a result, we have stolen artifacts being kept for selfish and racist reasons.
like ,we got them, and you guys cannot be trusted with your own history.
As long as the country in question aren’t currently in a serious crisis, artifacts should be returned.
I broadly agree. For example, the elgin marbles should be returned (after multiple copies have been made). The British Museum will never truly “own” their artifacts. The Rosetta Stone will never be British.
But remember, I was answering about stealing from the giftshop. You would never own or be able to sell anything stolen from it.
about that,
was referring to this:
Item Stolen From British Museum Worth $63K Listed on eBay for $51 share.google/Bihwd2rnwaGTk5JFs
just stating that they aren’t as responsible as they claim, and their items ended up in eBay.
That’s theft rather than policy.
But it certainly does damage the argument that items are safer in the museum.
The museum could pay rent per item to the country the artifacts originate from? Bad idea?
They’re too poor to have museums so by default yoink
Finders keepers, them’s the rules. Don’t blame me.
Honestly, “country of origin” will have straight lines drawn on a map that are so far removed from where the people who lived there originally considered their borders even that’s probably not pinning it down well enough.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/733555c4-5c09-4846-8f3a-6d39e091b58e.png">
if you want to compare Indiana Jones to real life, the movies say flat out that he is an unscrupulous grave robber and he is completely aware of the hypocrisy. its part of his character arc, where he’s all about fortune and glory and doesnt believe in any of the mystical crap, until he is confronted with powers he didn’t understand and fights to stop others from exploiting them. and at the end of the day it was a movie
<img alt="" src="https://media1.tenor.com/m/3fRA4ebjVyMAAAAd/so-do.gif">
Laughs in British
Why are there pyramids in egypt?
Because they were too big for the british museum.