you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 5 months ago* (19 children)

Cinco de mayo is purely a United Statesian holiday. Mexicans have no idea what it is. (I guess United Statesians dont either lol, but it is a US holiday.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Fun history lesson, Cinco de Mayo was first celebrated in the Mexican communities of California. It celebrates the Mexican victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. It was widely popularized by the Chicano movement in the 1950s.

    Battle of Puebla Day was and sort of still is a holiday in Mexico, but it's not on any official observances list, but school children do get the day off nationwide, and there's reenactments and parades in Puebla. Widespread celebration fell off after the dictator who was fond of the holiday was deposed in 1911.

    More fun history, the French won the Second Battle of Puebla a year later and then occupied Mexico City in their attempt to found a new Empire out of Mexico, because Napoleon the 3rd wanted one, but was way too incompetent to war with the rest of Europe. (He did some fighting in the Crimean War, but forgot to bring the artillery, the first Napoleon was an Artillery commander)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    And St Patrick's Day is more of an America and Ireland thing. It's certainly not British.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    I never said it was British. What the fuck?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Op said British Day or Mexican Day parade and you responded with St Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    OP also asked if there were any other country-focused parades out there. That's the part I was responding to.

    Latching onto the wrong part of the comment to miscontextualize my response is a bad faith argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    It's not bad faith, you just made an unfortunate choice of example. It's ok you can just say that wasn't your intention and everyone moves on. Oops lol hehe etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    What? There have been a couple users who responded with good faith arguments, and I engaged with them in good faith.

    There were also some who didn't, and why would I waste my time trying with those?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    It's good faith to notice you chose the same country for example A and two neighboring countries for example B, unless you're saying you chose the objectively two best possible examples or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    I wouldn't call it the objectively best, just the first two fitting examples that came to mind.

    In fact, I'd phrase it more like this:

    OP also asked if there were any other country-focused parades out there. That's the part I was responding to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Okay but a lot of people were confused meaning your comment was unclear, you can just admit that instead of doubling down because you feel you can't be criticized. Yes, they were the first two fitting examples in YOUR mind, that doesn't mean others can't reasonably in good faith decide they were poor examples.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I engaged in good faith with people who engaged in good faith. And I kicked back the comments that weren't in good faith.

    You're the one doubling down. I responded to a comment, and you took it out of context by cherry-picking the comment I responded to for the part that wasn't relevant to my response. In academia, that's called an uncharitable interpretation at best.

    Simply telling you which part I responded to, and restating the part that makes it obvious from context (which you ignored) is not the same thing as "doubling down because you feel you can't be criticized."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    In academia

    Lmao

    Anyway, people were confused by your comment and it wasn't in bad faith. You might think you pointed out the parts that made it obvious, but again obvious to you, not obvious to other real human beings.

    You must be deep into your phd program or something to actually use "in academia" as some kind of relevant analogy to whatever this is, so some good advice is to really accept your advisors critiques as valid, even if it doesn't make sense to you. You can of course get a second opinion, but ultimately you want your work to be accessible to your intended audience, people like your advisor. Whether or not you think it's clear enough already, what matters is if in fact it is clear enough to your audience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment