I sometimes feel like Ouija board is a better source than many, nowadays

Well then they will have to slightly extend the term (until death do them part)

saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

It’s not an empire if you call it a federation /s

This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me

As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.

But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes

Thanks for the links, yeah, I think I thought about distinction of a lesser extent between the colloquial and official variants, at least in the West

Oh, I didn’t know that, neat. Then there’s no space for nit-picking

Yes, but it still is about language, not game engine.

Albeit technically, the statement is correct, since it is more specific.

Schools do teach, and once students are out of elementary school they never write a letter of cursive again. So in effect, it could’ve been not taught at all.

It feels like having a “book dialect” that is only used on TV and not quite spoken by actual people is not too uncommon. At least in Japan it is such, afaik. But to some extent in China, and I think that the UK also has newscasts in more ‘standard’ English than actual English.

This is a conundrum I can’t wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).

If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don’t need to study history, it’s not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don’t think that also helps.

And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don’t quite see what moral ground is there for it.

This looks like some kind of doom:

{“data”:{“error”:“Imgur is temporarily over capacity. Please try again later.”},“success”:false,“status”:403}

Reason people go to Tate is not because issues exist, there’s reason to people going to any liar or scammer and it’s never the issue at hand, it’s the illusion of a simple answer.

the earth pulls the ball down.

Not in Australia, though

Affecting passage of time looks like a difficult idea to come up with an analogy.

For the better gravity analogy, I think a rubber sheet that has something pulling together at a “gravity well” and lines drawn on it may work better, but I’m not sure 😅

If you use phone to carry explosive, and a separate device to direct the explosion you can cause a lot of (directed) destruction.

But maybe not crash the airplane as a result.

Next thing we’re going to do is what, not crediting Hitler?

I downvoted because the fact that issues exists doesn’t justify the proposed “solutions”. It’s like saying that bloodletting has a point because patients really were sick, those things are not causally related.

I think that even having no one talk about problems is better than having someone talk about problems to actively do harm and gain power. One part of my reasons is usually this is not the case, and some already talk about the same problems but are not heard. Another reason is that when a problem is widely spread and there is no one exploiting it or raising awareness, there exists a pressure to start doing just that. So even no one is better than Tate.