#history misquotes

[spnexploration]

So I felt like I didn't really know enough history about the Israel - Palestine situation, so I found this article which was very useful (and horrifying). Highly recommend reading it!

[advocate-of-violence]

On Friday, Jul 14, 2023, US President Joe Biden's electronic notepad was hacked, and the text was replaced. In his confusion, The President continued to read the prompts, resulting in him hesitateingly asking the interviewer if he was "baby-girl" and that he would "rizz up Putin, diplomatically."

[troublewithvampires]

@bxtsence said: ( humor )

(childhood memories - open)

humor - a joke from my muse's childhood

Salvatore grins, flashing his fangs. "You want a joke?" he drawls. "Well, I got one." He holds his hands up, clawed fingers gesturing for emphasis as he speaks.

"Ya' ever hear what the politician said when he had to make a decision?" A deliberate pause. "'I'll double-cross that bridge when I get to it!'" The joke has Salvatore snickering to himself, clearly delighted.

[emaya-chan-the-potato-headed]

"Or, I could stab YOU with a daisy!" 😆

[wanderervenom]

Shared from Bing: The last words of John Sedgwick

[pleuvoire]

regular plea for people to stop using this as a reaction image

[ID: A white man in a suit who is saying, "Now this might strike some viewers as harsh, but I believe everyone involved in this story should die". End ID]

this is a real sentence that was said by a during an snl skit by the guy in the picture (norm macdonald) in response to a real news story - specifically, the murder of brandon teena, a trans man, whose death macdonald is mocking here. this very sentence that has now been turned into a meme prompted a trans rights org to picket the nbc in absence of any apology from them (the statement here slightly misquotes the sentence, but you can find video demonstrating that the wording in the image is what he said). i've used this as a reaction image in the past when i didn't know the history behind it but i think more people should know and we should stop using it like this

[hbmmaster]

"thank you mario! but our princess is in another castle!" has got to be one of the most misunderstood quotes in video game history.

like first of all people often misquote it as "sorry" instead of "thank you", which changes the tone pretty significantly. but also there's this way people refer to the line like, as though the player has been tricked at this point in the game? like, "gotcha! this is the wrong castle, idiot! you were supposed to go somewhere else!"

and like. I can understand intellectually that at the time it would have been normal to expect a game to end after four levels. but as someone who's way too young for this game, the idea that world 1-4 qualifies even remotely as a fakeout is so bizarre to me? like obviously the game isn't over after world 1-4. why would it even be called "world 1-4" if there are only four levels? makes no sense. why would any player have that expectation?

and also, this is an extremely linear game! the idea that a player would be actively mocked for like. not using the warp zones I guess? just doesn't add up.

just like, in general, there isn't anything about the design of this game that justifies interpreting that "thank you mario!" in the insincere way people seem to interpret it. to me, it very clearly is supposed to be read as a "good job, now keep going!" not "haha, you thought that was the end but it isn't!" you know

[rachelzeglertruther]

Why You're Wrong About Rachel Zegler

This is a long post, but there's a lot of context missing from the Rachel Zegler "discourse" that I thought I could add with my history of watching this unfold from the beginning.

The Snow White Thing

You probably know this part. There's a curated video of Rachel going viral, framed to make her seem like she's never seen Snow White, she hates the story, she hates the character, she's ungrateful, and single-handedly ruined Disney's brand. The clips from these videos are not new— they were released nearly a year ago in September 2022 and nobody cared about them at the time. Why? Because all the full interviews she did that day at the Disney Exo in 2022 showed a young, charming woman who was excited and proud to be cast in an iconic role. The interviews were very well received and it was a non story. Now that it's been edited down and cut together in a malicious way, and the people sharing them are purposefully misquoting her, they've twisted the context. Normally, this would be a non controversy. Even if that video wasn't taken out of context and spliced together to make her seem like she hates the film, most people wouldn't care. The issue is the response to the video.

Let's get this out of the way: Rachel Zegler doesn't hate Snow White. She relayed that she was afraid of the forest scene as a child and didn't revisit it again until after she was cast in the role. She has since then watched it several times and has expressed for YEARS before that interview came out that she was incredibly honored and grateful to be playing such an iconic Disney princess. If you watch the full videos that those clips came from, this comes across immediately to anyone with their own mind. If you hate someone for being scared of something as a child, I don't know what to tell you. If the role was being given to the biggest Snow White fan, you would be correct that she doesn't deserve it. Unfortunately for you, this role requires talent and Rachel has the Golden Globe and critical acclaim from people who matter within the industry (her peers and critics).

You know who does hate their beloved characters in beloved franchises but the general public still applauds them? Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, and Robert Pattinson. They've all expressed outright contempt for the roles and the films they were part of, but nobody cared. People had fun with their quotes but they still respected them. Rachel said nothing even closely resembling their remarks, but she's being torn to shreds. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Rachel never said a single bad thing about the character or the animated film— she said that it was outdated and that set people over the edge, foaming at the mouth to have her burned at the stake. If you think it would be perfectly fine to have a movie about an abused 14 year old girl run away to play housemaid for a bunch of men, get kissed in her sleep/death by an adult man, and then wake up to fall into his arms in 2024, that's certainly a hot take. If you're against remakes, direct your ire at Disney. But if you truly think that plot would work with young girls today, you're the one who's out of touch. It would do far more harm than good to portray a young woman in that light.

She also never said that there was anything wrong with romance or love. She said that the new Snow White wasn't only dreaming of that. I can't stress enough that this wasn't her decision… she was describing the plot of the new film that was written by Greta Gerwig and approved by Disney. There's a prince in the film and he will also have a more developed personality and storyline. If you have a problem with the writing, wait until it comes out so you can write your strongly worded letter to Greta. If you have a problem with the concept in general, take it up with Disney. There's no need for you to be defensive over hurting the legacy of a multi-billion dollar company or a 87 year old cartoon written by a proud racist antisemite. This is the most confusing part of the hate campaign to me because it wasn't even her opinion— she was literally describing the plot of the film she had nothing to do with. It also isn't a new thing. Disney actors have been promoting their newer films this way for years.

It's perfectly okay to like things that are problematic. It's becoming an issue that we refuse to acknowledge that maybe some things we love are harmful. What we can't do is justify why it's not problematic, and in fact everyone who calls it out is the problem and NOT their precious cartoon. The 1937 Snow White was an amazing feat of animation. It's a classic for a reason. But it was also Hitler's favorite film and was directed by a white supremacist (the one who is "rolling in his grave" due to Rachel's existence, according to his son). Things don't exist in a vacuum and we can't ignore the bad parts.

How We Got Here:

The thing that everyone is missing is the source of this campaign. This started in September of 2020 when transphobic actor Gina Carano made fun of trans people by changing her pronouns to beep/bop.boop. Rachel indirectly called her out by coming to the defense of the trans community.

She never called out Gina by name (though she rightfully could have). Mind you, Rachel's first film hadn't come out yet. Nobody knew who she was outside of those of us who were anticipating West Side Story and were fans of her covers on YouTube. She was a "nobody" in the industry. Take this part with a grain of salt because I can't confirm it, but Gina and her fans directly blame Rachel for her being banned from Twitter. Again, I really don't think that matters as she's harmful to the trans community and shouldn't have a platform. What does matter is that fans of Gina (which, let's be real, are just fans of transphobia) have been stalking Rachel's every move since then. Unfortunately for them, there wasn't much they could use against her other than to call her woke and #snowbrown when she was cast a year later as the Disney princess. The noise has always been there, but unless you were a fan of hers, you probably didn't hear about it. It wasn't until two years after this that they had something else against her.

If you've recently seen a video of Rachel crying circulating that claims to be her reaction to the recent Snow White backlash, it's an old video. It's from a vlog from her youtube channel posted in June 2022. It was in response to these exact same transphobic anti-woke conservatives who thought that they had something when she did an interview on the red carpet of the Shazam premiere. When asked why she joined the DC universe, she responded "I needed a job." It was generally well received by most people who thought it was cute and funny, but those who were waiting in the shadows latched onto it as an excuse to send her death threats.

The video was also about a month after she was invited to present at the 2022 Oscars and was made to seem like she bullied the Academy (as a no name newcomer, mind you) into letting her attend. In reality, a fan left a comment on her Instagram asking what she was wearing to the event. She responded that she wasn't invited but would be rooting for everyone from her couch in her boyfriend's pajamas. It was the public who demanded she get an invite and the Oscar's must have agreed that it was very odd that the lead actress of a film that was nominated for Best Film wouldn't get an invite. Whether it was an oversight on their part or a scheduling issue with Rachel's filming, I truly think there was no malicious intent from either party. Keep in mind, she used to be very active with her fans (she's a huge fangirl of things herself and has always had a strong relationship with her fans) and she wasn't used to her comments becoming articles and national tv segments. This was the first time it happened to her. It appears she learned that she's not just a girl who posts on YouTube anymore and she's going to be put under a microscope for every move she makes. She has since shut down her Instagram comments and rarely interacts with fans outside of liking comments these days because of this.

I know this is long, but I need people to understand where this is all coming from. It didn't just happen out of nowhere. It's an orchestrated campaign built by violent conservatives, and thousands of women who saw Barbie this summer are hopping on the bandwagon to beat another woman into submission because they have a lot of internalized misogyny to deal with. She's not smug, you just hate women. It's okay to find people annoying, but it's valuable to look into why you think that. If you see a confident young woman expressing views that don't actually harm anyone and you think she needs to be "humbled" and "put in her place" by the entire internet dogpiling her, you've lost your mind. Using "body language experts" (fake job) to diagnose her as a psychopath is so vile. Everytime someone mentions her name online, the comments beneath it are full of the most violent, misogynistic, racist things I've ever seen. If you're contributing to that, you've chosen your side. Reevaluate or seek help.

I'm tired of seeing this happen to young women. We let this happen to Jennifer Lawrence, Brie Larson, Millie Bobby Brown, Halle Bailey, and Jenna Ortega. It's one thing to call out celebrities and hold them accountable when they're doing something actively harmful, but that's not what this is about. That's never been what this is about. We pick these girls to pieces and examine them and pull them apart to justify our hatred of young women who rise to success too quickly for our liking. We dogpile and try to stamp out the flame before they burn too bright. Barbie is still in theaters and you all loved it, yet you're demanding that a bright girl with a big future be small and submissive and humbled because you have issues. That's not feminism. You're just the girls who would have bullied Weird Barbie for using her hands too much when she talks.

[fideidefenswhore]

alison weir is a menace and her books have had a deleterious effect on the general public's understanding of tudor history (quoting a friend there, the illustrious @annabolinas), part 12323526:

ok, so, if you're like me, when you come across a quote from a biography that you don't recognise, you will often search the quote to see if it comes up in any others, or what is available of the bho archives by general search. as such, i found this:

"[Elizabeth] told Mrs Ashley that she [had] 'loved the Admiral too well' [...]"

except...what was in quotes showed up in nothing except weir's books, author's notes, and websites.

so. apparently. as per @theladyelizabeth ...this was, as is common with weir, a complete misquote/misattribution.

the primary source in question was thomas parry, and the quote is not that elizabeth loved thomas seymour 'too well' (or...at all), but this:

"[he] loved her but too well, and had so done a good while."

[matan4il]

Daily update post:

The IDF has entered the Shifa hospital today in Gaza, and searched it for hostages, but none were found. There was info that they had been held there, so the time the IDF has given the civilians to evacuate, was probably used by the terrorists to move the hostages. A possible scenario is that they were moved to southern Gaza.

Meanwhile, the BBC had to apologize today for "misquoting" Reuters twice. The original report said the IDF entered the hospital with medical teams and Arabic speakers. Instead of reporting this, the BBC said the IDF was targeting these groups:

Here's the original Reuters report that the BBC misquoted. Twice.

Here's an image from a vid showing IDF soldiers bringing medical equipment into the hospital:

Yesterday in Washington DC, a pro-Israel rally drew a crowd of 290,000 people, making it the biggest Jewish rally in modern history, and the biggest pro-Israel one:

I'm sorry I didn't know I can watch it online... Something to add to this is that there's a group of 900 people from Detroit, who flew to Washington DC to participate in the rally, but were stranded in the Dulles airport, because their bus drivers refused to drive them to a pro-Israeli rally.

American congress woman Rashida Tlaib is known to have been a part of a hidden American-Palestinian facebook group since 2017. In 2019, it came to light that the founder of the group has doubted the Holocaust has happened, and a lot of criticism was aimed at Tlaib for her membership in the group, but she didn't leave it. Now, it's been shown that there were posts in this facebook group celebrating Hamas' Oct 7 massacre.

I mentioned peace activist Vivian Silver, whose body was identified yesterday, in this post. A lot of "peace activists" tweeted in mourning today. I haven't seen one who has mentioned that Hamas murdered her. One explicitly said, "We don't know who murdered her," even though there's no doubt that Hamas terrorists murdered her on Oct 7 (she was on the phone with her son until the almost last moments).

As rockets from Gaza continue to be fired at Israel, here's a small reminder that around 1,000 misfired, and killed Palestinians:

This is 37 years old Anton Gurionov.

He was at the Nova music festival on Oct 7. He managed to make it out, and also got his girlfriend out of there. But then he insisted on going back to try and get a good friend out. That's when Hamas terrorists got to him. He had a 6 year old daughter. May his memory be a blessing.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[works-of-heart]

I don't get it.

Like seriously, I honestly don't understand it.

Sjm says that Elain was someone who she and Lucien didn't see coming. She had always envisioned him with Nesta, but realized they'd tear each other apart (not in a good way, as she loves that kind of banter, but theirs would be awful). She mentions 'without getting too spoilery' that and I quote:

"there was actually a great deal of tension, growth, and healing to be found for both of them (together)"

You mean to tell me, that she says there is a great deal of tension (which we've all been seeing between them), growth and healing for them TOGETHER ONLY to have Elain break her bond with him and leave him to suffer a broken bond?

You want to tell me that SJM planned to have Elain become Lucien's mate, so they could grow and heal together, only for her to dump him and choose Azriel, and leave Lucien alone with a broken bond?

This woman, who has written Lucien as kind, patient, understanding, and truly concerned for Elain, is planning on making his mate turn away from him? This man who is said to be fiercely loyal, who could have ANY woman in Prythian he wanted but has no interest in any females, who has suffered physical and emotional trauma to help his friends. You think Sarah is just going to be like "Yeah, I'm going to put Lucien with a girl who is all around perfect for him and just take her away so she can run into the arms of another man!"

Look, I torture my precious babies too, but that?! That's INSANE to me that anyone thinks Sarah planned to set him up with a mate and said all those things if she planned for it to be a failure.

Especially since she made a comment, unprompted mind you, about an Elucien date where they go visit the gardens in London, before heading out to the countryside, stating that they're BOTH happy in nature. So she's going to talk about Feysand, Nessien modern dating, and just throw in Elucien even though she doesn't even plan for them to be together?

it simply doesn't make any sense to me.

Like take a moment, to actually sit down and think, why would this author say those kinds of things if she as some had said "planned Elriel since MAF" when she literally states the opposite. She confirmed Nessien in that same moment as well, because the series was originally supposed to finish. Az and Elain didn't have anything together, they were never planned. She didn't change from that trajectory either (as stated in her interview that I guess people want to misquote, forget, or take her words completely out of context).

SJM did say there were SMALL changes, like some characters had been added (which I suspect are Gwyn and Em), Mor's sexual orientation, but the overall arch was still the same.

Honestly, here's what I think about that.

Azriel was always meant to have a mate. A lot of people pointed out that in MAF there was a lot of Moriel hints and they were meant to be endgame. When she got backlash for lack of LGBT representation, she just decided to have Mor's preference shift. I think it left Az without a mate, but by the time SF came around she began to leave breadcrumbs for who he'd end up with. That being Gwyn.

I personally think SJM wants Gwynriel so much so, that she retconned Az's backstory so he was the one at Sangravah. That he killed everyone in site, leaving none left alive (completely OOC for Az, yet fitting with mate behavior). Like if she had no intention for Az to be connected to her in such a way, why actively make HIM the one to save her? Why make it so that Az killed everyone and left not a single person alive?

Why did she have his shadows react to her in a very specific way, a way that's calm and happy? The way they sing and dance to her, reaching out to her in a playful way. Why would she change history and put attention on these things, if there was never any future for them? What, so we can see Az fall for Elain? You mean Sarah went out of her way to change parts of Az's story and how his shadows react specifically to Gwyn, just so he can turn from her and rush into the arms of Elain? Why bother?

And before anyone says "lightsinger" and Gwyn's 'evil powers' are causing Az's shadows to dance and sing... there's a whole bonus chapter where Az's shadows dance to Azriel's singing. Gwyn isn't even there, so that's debunked.

That's all, I just had to get that off my chest. I keep seeing so many people rant and say that SJM's old editor pushed for Elucien and her new one is pushing Elriel because it's more 'popular' and she's going in this new direction now. I have no idea where that came from when she said that nothing's changed from her drunken rant, so we'll see I guess.

[ladiesoftheages]

Okay we laugh and whine about Alison Weir but what Weir does actually undermines real historians

Blatantly making things up, willfully misinteroreting/misquoting, not citing sources properly (or at all) are actually serious issues

She (and others like her) are part of the reason why so many people don’t take history seriously. If you can just make things up and say whatever you want with reckless abandon, then history and historical study doesn’t matter—it makes it gimicky and click-baity

History is a legitimate academic discipline that matters and is important and willfully misinterpreting history has real-word implications and consequences

Tudor history might not be the most important in the grand scheme, but take what Weir does and imagine if she was writing about World War II history or American history or Russian history etc…wars have been fought and people have died over those in positions of power and/or influence not giving a damn and just saying whatever they want about history

[creature-wizard]

I have a question that if you cannot answer, I understand. I’ve been lurking on your page for quite a bit and I’ve read most of your FAQ + Newbie orientation and I’ve come to the realisation that a lot of my beliefs, both as a witch who used to believe in manifestation and starseeds and as a former extreme evangelical Christian (now agnostic) who grew up in that environment and is still in it, were actually extremely antisemitic.

From the manifestation and starseeds shit to the way my family and other evangelicals were taught about and thought about Jewish people, culture, and religion (as if Jewish folk are people that need to be “saved” and converted into Christianity and are basically pawns to ship to Israel in order to bring on the rapture/revelations, the concept of Messianic Jews, viewing Jewish people as simultaneously superior as well as inferior, superior in the sense that they are the true people of Jesus, inferior in the sense that they didn’t/don’t believe in and accept Jesus Christ as a messiah and aren’t Christian, viewing Jewish people as the “elites”, etc), I’m very deeply disgusted with these beliefs and values, but they’ve been instilled in me since I was born, I don’t even know how to get rid of them.

Is it even possible to rid yourself of an implicit bias? How would one even go about that? I don’t wanna think this way forever. I don’t want to hurt anyone.

You gotta learn critical thinking skills, and study and learn from reliable sources as much as you can. It won't stop you from fucking up all the time, but it'll make it less like you fuck up. Here's some posts that might help:

Recognizing the difference between real history and pseudohistory

Beginner Witch Tip: Remember The Five W’s!

Critical thinking in witchy spaces, using the fae as an example

Vetting Witchcraft Books: a Brief Guide

How to talk about cultural appropriation in an effective way

List of red flags and safety tips

Another post about red flags

Beyond dogwhistles – racists have a new rhetorical trick

Learn to moderate your assumptions

How conspiracy peddlers and cult recruiters make you feel like you're "thinking for yourself" when you're actually not.

How to be properly critical of science rather than anti-science

How to think critically about a scientific report

For deconstructing Christian beliefs in particular, I recommend Bart D. Ehrman. He's got published books, and you can also find him on the Misquoting Jesus podcast. Justin Sledge, who runs ESOTERICA on YouTube, is a great source of esoteric and religious history in general.

[beevean]

Hey now how could you say such nasty things about the show? Don't you realise how important it is for lgbt representation? I bet you're some bigoted neckbeard!

Go back to your jumping pixels on the ps2 and leave us alone you gatekeeper!>:(

I know you joke and all, but it's honestly baffling to me how NFCV (and esp Nocturne) got the reputation of being woke because of one (1) bi threesome, when it's shockingly bigoted itself.

Wallachians are depicted as backward hillibillies brainwashed by the Church and engaging in bestiality: classism and xenophobia due to them being Eastern European, plus a general shallow caricature of history.

Alucard mocks the Belmonts by accusing them of being "mentally ill hoarders" and engaging in pagan rituals such as sacrificing chickens and mummifying cats: ableism and xenophobia, not helped by the fact that he's technically a nobleman looking down on common people (so classism).

Trevor is an alcoholic because of genuine childhood trauma. He's constantly mocked by other characters (and even the fucking music sometimes), he's pushed aside in favor of Alucard who is the first person who disrespects him, and eventually ditched by his own story.

Carmilla, the quintessential lesbian vampire in popular culture, jokes about being willing to fuck Godbrand only if all the men, half of the women and some of the animals dropped dead: equates having sex with women with having sex with animals.

Isaac's backstory is being a slave owned by a Catholic priest, so historically inaccurate that it can only come from the preconception that black people can only exist in Europe as slaves.

Isaac is a self-professed Muslim man who gleefully worships a demonic creature and agrees with his idea of killing "impure" people for a superior mission, justifying his sins by misquoting the Quran. His hypocrisy is never pointed out, and we're meant to admire him all the way through. I cannot make this shit up.

The generals in Dracula's court come from all over the world, with prominent Indian and Chinese vampires, but they are literally props only there to pretend the world is bigger than it actually is: the focus is given to two white Northern European vampires, Godbrand and especially Carmilla.

Striga and Morana are the laziest form of lesbian representation you could possibly have, literally Disney level of "seventh first gay character".

Alucard got "revealed" as bi in a tweet as if to reassure us that no, he wasn't raped, he enjoyed it! Pure biphobia.

Hector's whole story in S3 and 4 is disgusting rape apologism stemming from sexism, both against men (men are inherently horny and they cannot get sexually traumatized) and against women (women are never a threat and everything they do is inherently titillating).

Vampires, unholy creatures who can only exist by causing harm to humans, are treated as if they were their own separate race, and as if the Belmonts are committing ethnic cleansing against them. Case in point, Alucard being such a cunt to Trevor because oh no, his ancestors killed vampire children and kept their skulls in their hold! As if "vampire children" would be anything else than a cursed existence. (and never forget about the "cabal of vampires" controlling the slave trade in Nocturne, or how in that show vampires are the literal ruling class to be crushed by the revolution.)

oh but game isaac is offensive because he looks like a bdsm stripper or stuff. sure whatever.

At least Nocturne had the decency of fleshing out its gay couple. Yay, progress.

[ftl-faster-than-life]

struck by a horrible need to make fake screenshots for a fake documentary from the 25th century ala History Channel where Eobard is being interviewed for the film. It no longer exists and neither do the people who edited and misquoted him to misrepresent the facts.

[apocrypals]

Hiya! Ive listened to almost all of Apocrypals and Data Over Dogma and I was wondering if you had any recommendations for further podcasts about Biblical history?

Follow up question, do you have any recommendations for books on the basics of biblical history? :) thanks!!

For podcasts, definitely check out Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman and The Bible for Normal People.

As for books, we have an ever-growing list of recommendations from our guest experts that you can check out on our wiki: