Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

[Dong Zhou]

Han this will be my final word on allowance of use of circle-jerk. Given circle-jerk, though it has multiple meanings as you mention, clear reference to jerking off and the clear implication of where the mutual gratification comes from, I don't think this fits the 13+ age rating of forum. Other terms can be used without the sexual implication so I don't think it is too much to ask of anyone not to use it here.

If you wish to get that word allowed to be used, I would ask you wait till after Christmas Day (given time-zones, maybe await until some way into 26th) to contact another staffer on that particular issue

I wasn't accusing of you of not treating mental health with special care, certainly never meant to imply it.

[Han]

Doing my monthly tumblr lurking, it seems that there are many confusion in tumblr about this thread.

To clarify, here are some questions on tumblr.

Anonymous asked:

Are there any details regarding Cao Chun's capture of Liu Bei's family members at Changban? I've seen several people equating it to the Zhang Fei/Lady Xiahou situation and was hoping you could clear it up.

First of all only Elitemsh is linking the capture of Liu Bei's family to Zhang Fei kidnap(NOT RAPE) of Lady Xiahou. So its not "several people". In fact, I have been arguing throughout this thread that neither Zhang Fei nor Cao Cao forces committed sexual assault or rape. Meanwhile, I compared Cao Cao forcing Lady Du and Lady Zou into his harem, approval of Cao Pi's forced marriage with Zhenji and giving Lady Dong to Yan Pu to Zhang Fei's abduction of Lady Xiahou. Thats it. Not equating. Just a comparison. Although if someone forced me to choose, I would argue Cao Cao's actions were worse than Zhang Fei because of the scale.

"Meanwhile Xiahou Yuan massacred innocent people in Liang as a military strategy, Cao Hong forced prostitues to dance for him publicly in a performence and Cao Ren massacred a city. " Sources for those claims?

"Xiahou Yuan massacred innocent people in Liang as a military strategy, Cao Hong forced prostitues to dance for him publicly in a performence and Cao Ren massacred a city." Is it true? What are the sources?

The source for Xiahou Yuan's massacre can be found in San Guo Zhi, Zi Zhi Tong Jian and Wikipedia.

http://xuesanguo.tumblr.com/post/149823318205/92-xiàhóu-yuān-夏侯淵-miàocái-妙才

Hán Suì was at Xiǎnqīn, and Yuān wished to attack and capture him, but Suì fled. Yuān captured Suì’s army provisions, pursued to Lüèyáng city. When over twenty lǐ away from Suì, the officers wished to attack him, but some said they should first attack the Xīngguó Dī tribes. Yuān believed: “Suì’s troops are elite, and Xīngguó is fortified and defended, so attacking will not be successful. It is better to attack Zhǎnglí’s various Qiāng. Many of the various Qiāng of Zhǎnglí are in Suì’s army, and will certainly desert to rescue their families. If the Qiāng alone defend they will be isolated, and those rescuing Zhǎnglí will battle the government troops and will certainly be captured.”

Yuān therefore remained to defend the heavy supply wagons, and sent light infantry and cavalry to Zhǎnglí, attacking and burning the Qiāng camps, beheading and capturing a great many.

To Establish Peace 2 part 5

Han Sui was at Xianqin. Xiahou Yuan planned a surprise attack to capture him, but Han Sui fled. Xiahou Yuan chased after him towards Lueyang city.2 He was thirty li behind Han Sui,3 and his officers wanted to
maintain the pursuit, but then someone suggested they should attack the Di barbarians of Xingguo.4 2126 "Han Sui's troops are well-trained and Xingguo has strong walls," judged Xiahou Yuan. "Whichever we attack, we shall gain no swift success. Much better deal with the Qiang at Changli.5 Many of them have joined Han Sui's
army, but they will certainly come back to help their families. If Han Sui lets them go to look after their families, he will be left without support; but if he
accompanies them to relieve Changli, our government troops can meet him in the field, and then we are sure to take him." Leaving some officers to guard the baggage, therefore, Xiahou Yuan led light-armed troops to Changli. They attacked the camp of the Shao[dang] Qiang, and Han Sui did send help.6

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiahou_Yuan

Wikipedia has

After the victory, Xiahou Yuan prepared for an offensive against Ma Chao's ally Han Sui, who retreated when he heard of Xiahou Yuan's approach. Xiahou Yuan captured Han Sui's food supplies and pursued him to Lueyang County. Han Sui had set up a base some 20 li away from Xiahou Yuan's position, so Xiahou Yuan's subordinates urged their general to attack either Han Sui or the Di tribes in Xingguo (興國; northeast of present-day Qin'an County, Gansu). Xiahou Yuan chose neither of the two options as he knew that Han Sui's troops were well-prepared for battle and that Xingguo's fortifications were strong. Instead, he planned to attack the Qiang tribes in Changli (長離; along the Hulu River, Gansu). He pointed out that many of Han Sui's soldiers were Qiang tribesmen from Changli, so they would return to save their home if they heard that Changli was under attack. If Han Sui's troops decided to hold their current position, they would be isolated; if they came to defend Changli, Xiahou Yuan's forces would be able to engage them in battle. Xiahou Yuan then ordered his subordinates to guard their supplies and heavy equipment while he led a unit of lightly armed infantry and cavalry to raid Changli, burning down many Qiang camps and killing many people. As Xiahou Yuan expected, the Qiang tribesmen in Han Sui's army returned to Changli and encountered Xiahou Yuan's army. Xiahou Yuan's men were fearful when they saw Han Sui's larger army, so they proposed setting up camps and defensive structures before fighting the enemy. However, Xiahou Yuan said, "We've travelled over a long distance. Our troops will be worn out by the time they finish erecting these defensive structures, and won't have energy left to fight the enemy. The enemy may have superiority in numbers but they are easy to deal with." He then launched an attack on Han Sui's forces and scored a major victory over the enemy, capturing their flags and banners. After that, he returned to Lueyang County and laid siege on Xingguo. The Di chieftains in Xingguo fled to join Ma Chao while the others surrendered. Xiahou Yuan also attacked some Xiongnu encampments at Gaoping (高平; in present-day Guyuan, Ningxia), drove the Xiongnu away, and captured their supplies and livestock. The Han imperial court authorised him to oversee the affairs in the region.[15]

[15] (韓遂在顯親，淵欲襲取之，遂走。淵收遂軍糧，追至略陽城，去遂二十餘里，諸將欲攻之，或言當攻興國氐。淵以為遂兵精，興國城固，攻不可卒拔，不如擊長離諸羌。長離諸羌多在遂軍，必歸救其家。若捨羌獨守則孤，救長離則官兵得與野戰，可必虜也。淵乃留督將守輜重，輕兵步騎到長離，攻燒羌屯，斬獲甚衆。諸羌在遂軍者，各還種落。遂果救長離，與淵軍對陣。諸將見遂衆，惡之，欲結營作塹乃與戰。淵曰：「我轉鬬千里，今復作營塹，則士衆罷弊，不可乆。賊雖衆，易與耳。」乃鼔之，大破遂軍，得其旌麾，還略陽，進軍圍興國。氐王千萬逃奔馬超，餘衆降。轉擊高平屠各，皆散走，收其糧穀牛馬。乃假淵節。) Sanguozhi vol. 9.

The source for Cao Hong forcing prostitutes to dance for him in a public performence can be found in Wikipedia.

Cao Hong then threw a party to celebrate his victory. He ordered some prostitutes to dress scantily and dance on drums to entertain everyone. Yang Fu, one of Cao Cao's advisers, openly reprimanded Cao Hong for the indecency of the performance, and then stormed out. Cao Hong immediately called off the performance and invited Yang Fu to return to his seat.[23]

[23] (洪置酒大會，令女倡著羅縠之衣，蹋鼓，一坐皆笑。阜厲聲責洪曰：「男女之別，國之大節，何有於廣坐之中裸女人形體！雖桀、紂之亂，不甚於此。」遂奮衣辭出。洪立罷女樂，請阜還坐，肅然憚焉。) Sanguozhi vol. 25

The source for Cao Ren's massacre can be found in San Guo Zhi and Zi Zhi Tong Jian.

http://kongming.net/novel/sgz/caocao-2.php

In the twenty-fourth year, during the spring and in the first month, Ren massacred the people of Wan and beheaded Yin. (110)

110: The Record of Cao Man states, “At the time those within Nanyang suffered from forced labor and Yin therefore seized the Grand Administrator (Dongli Gun) and with the officials and citizenry he jointly rebelled, forming an alliance with Guan Yu. Nanyang’s distinguished officer Zong Ziqing went to speak persuasively with Yin, saying, ‘You have obeyed the heartfelt feelings of the citizenry and in carrying out this great work, far and near there are none who do not take notice. But the seizure of the commandery’s head officer is contrary and pointless, why not release him? I and my son will uphold you with all our might and then, when Duke Cao’s army comes, Guan Yu’s soldiers will also have arrived.’ Yin obeyed him and straightway set free the Grand Administrator. Ziqing because of this climbed over the city walls and fled outside, and then with the Grand Administrator rounded up the rest of the citizenry and besieged Yin. They assembled with Cao Ren’s army when he arrived and together destroyed Yin.

To Establish Peace 2 part 6

In the spring, in the first month Cao Ren stormed Wan. He sacked the city, cut off the head of Hou Yin, and returned to camp at Fan.

And rereading Cao Cao's San Guo Zhi... damn... dude committed alot of massacres and pillages. Still the GOAT of the era... but urgh...

[Han]

Han this will be my final word on allowance of use of circle-jerk. Given circle-jerk, though it has multiple meanings as you mention, clear reference to jerking off and the clear implication of where the mutual gratification comes from, I don't think this fits the 13+ age rating of forum. Other terms can be used without the sexual implication so I don't think it is too much to ask of anyone not to use it here.

If you wish to get that word allowed to be used, I would ask you wait till after Christmas Day (given time-zones, maybe await until some way into 26th) to contact another staffer on that particular issue

I wasn't accusing of you of not treating mental health with special care, certainly never meant to imply it.

The mutual gratification is a reference to echo chamber not the act itself.

Ok?

Im providing context and clarification.

[Dong Zhou]

Thanks, I'll link your post in tumblr to try to ensure anon sees it

On the Christmas request: I just feel it isn't an urgent issue that needed them to be contacted on what is a special and very busy day for a lot of people, it can be left a day or two. I'm also not sure where your from and whether 25th December is important there so was giving you a heads up. Hope that provides clarity

[Han]

Naw its cool.

[James]

Hi Han (and any who are curious),

I want some proper clarifications and some consistency.

I’ve read through a lot of this discussion—surely I’ve missed some context along the way—but I’d like to extend some clarification regarding academic and general discussion in the Scholars of Shen Zhou forum.

We absolutely do appreciate an academic approach to discussion. For example, claims out to be supported by evidence, burden of proof, etc. We tend not to intervene on these points unless attempting to address a significant and ongoing problem, instead preferring to encourage members to navigate and resolve their differences as adults. This consideration applies more so to discussion pertaining to Three Kingdoms history than it does some of the topics in Current Affairs because we’re debating details about an historic topic we appreciate but which does not immediately impact our lives. The nature of what Zhang Fei may or may not have done after kidnapping a young woman is far removed, in terms of personal impact, from, say, discussion about gay marriage or immigration abuse or policy. And we also must balance into the equation the comparatively limited size of the Three Kingdoms community which is presently interested in engaging in historic or novel discussion in an English Three Kingdoms forum or community.

These academic considerations must be balanced against our primary goal for this community, which is to maintain an environment where members can enjoy participation and feel as though they can enter discussions without being attacked or belittled. These objectives can be exclusive in some regards, so in finding the balance we tend to favor community—especially in forums outside “Current Affairs,” a special case where we hope for members participating in sensitive topics to have a stomach suited to digest disagreement.

What this means in practice is that it is extremely important to us that members, in disagreement, are above all else respectful to one another. That means even in disagreement one does not lean too much into the ad hominem avenue of discussion, and certainly not ad hominem attack. Discussion being frustrating, members not reading or referencing sources to support their arguments, etc.—none are grounds to breach this consideration. I would rather maintain a community where we forge friendships and enjoy spending time, even as we disagree, than a community where people are at one another’s necks in an effort to brow-beat others into agreement (whether through academic or cruder means). There are communities where the later approach flourishes or is encouraged, and people who thrive in those environments may find themselves happier there.

Rules of engagement here might be something along the lines of: Disagree and debate as you like, and by all means lean on academic principles to do so. It’s highly appreciated. But keep in mind the significant limitations of resources available to us in doing so. When people disagree by all means seek and evaluate sources, observe debate principles such as burden of proof, but expect that sometimes sources may not be provided, may be dismissed or criticized, or that people may be attempting to navigate gray area not adequately addressed by historic reference or dismissed on account of factors such as differing cultural views or interpretation. One will invariably encounter scenarios where another disagrees, or differs in their interpretation of sources or considerations: Discussion should proceed in a respectful manner at this point (especially when the outcome of a discussion is not one which is personally harmful, such as those pertaining to Three Kingdoms history), or discussion should not continue at all. There’s no place in an exchange of this sort for hostility or personal attacks.

- - -

I’ll endeavor to provide some applied context. Zhang Fei kidnapped Lady Xiahou, a daughter was produced, they married. It may not be explicitly stated that he raped her, but you’re operating within a significant realm of unknowns in navigating this context. Any such union could very reasonably be viewed as rape as it follows kidnapping—Zhang Fei’s choice to forcefully take her as his property. “Consent” becomes a term which can no longer be credibly attributed to such a power dynamic. As is often the case with the Three Kingdoms we must necessarily fill in the blanks and therein lies a range for interpretation and disagreement or discussion. Endeavoring to shut down discussion regarding that unknown, or to dismiss the dynamic of the relationship having been founded on kidnapping, would be, I’d add, the opposite of applying academic rigor. Same applies to a prominent figure taking women against their will into their harem (again as much as “will” can apply given the power dynamic and cultural context) and how we’d define resulting production of children or sexual intercourse. Even if history does not tally consent, or account for whether consent can even be given in such a power dynamic, it is very easy to describe the broader result as rape. And this whole thing is complicated by the fact we are viewing a distant historic point in history through a modern lens. Which is all to say this is a discussion which must, from an honest perspective, take into consideration factors which are not outlined in historic text, say nothing for how we might approach the accuracy of historic text available.

And on to the discussions of “circle jerk”. You’re using the term pejoratively to dismiss collective disagreement with your subjective point of view. Please don’t do that. It’s an example of ad hominem attack, and in violation of the broader objective of creating an overall welcoming community environment I’ve attempted to describe above.

You are absolutely welcome to send me a private message if you’d like to discuss particulars.

[Han]

I agree with everything more or less.

On ad hominem, I dont see me using Ad hominem. I was accused of being biased in favour of Liu Bei even though I was trying to argue in favour of Cao Cao forces. Thats standard Ad hominem. Attacking my character instead of my stand which has nothing to do with the discussion on hand in the first place.

And also

You tend to challenge every little thing, including getting down to the exact meaning of the words, points just expand and expand, people don’t have that level of time and it can become exhausting. Your debating style comes across as aggressive, lecturing, rude which I’m sure you don’t intend, some don’t like an aggressive style at all, some can cope with that in bursts but combined with length, it doesn't encourage people to join in, to reply or give any any sense of fun if they join in. Anything you don't like and accusations come flying out, not "I disagree" but false or straw-man or other terms, it comes across as dismissive and I’m afraid even disrespectful. You proudly hold onto your admirable goal of being neutral but others don’t feel that way about you and any challenge is met badly while if they post a criticism, however careful they may be, of some figure then whatabouttery is quick to emerge.

This is standard Ad hominem. Zero context or examples to back up claims. I would actually agree with a few - specifically the aggresive, rude, and disrespectful, which I apologised for btw - But the rest was standard Ad hominem with no clarification whatsoever.

---

Actually, it was possible(and likely) that they married first AND THEN a daughter was produced if Liu Shan's age was used as an indicator. And when Zhang Fei's reasoning is taken into consideration.

The dynamic of the relationship was husband and wife not rapist and rape victim as detailed in the r/askhistorians thread and the base history.

Could be? Sure, like how Cao Cao could be a vampire? Reasonably so? No.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... confidence

Credit to u/_dk

It's true that Zhang Fei basically abducted Xiahou. However, it's not quite honest to say all their children were born out of rape. There is evidence that Lady Xiahou was actually quite well-treated for a niece of an enemy general. When Xiahou Yuan was killed on Dingjun Mountain, Lady Xiahou pled with Liu Bei to grant Xiahou Yuan a proper burial, and that was granted. Liu Bei would have no other reason to grant a request like this if she was just some woman Zhang Fei raped, but Zhang Fei had no other recorded wives - she was the only one. Even the record of her abduction used the word 妻, which meant Zhang Fei took her as a principal wife, not a concubine. When Xiahou Ba defected from Wei to Shu, Liu Shan happily brought up the fact that they were actually related (his wife is the daughter of Zhang Fei and Lady Xiahou). Certainly Liu Shan didn't think this was something shameful for the Xiahou. Also consider tangentially how Sun Shangxiang married Liu Bei but then managed to go back to Wu. Why hadn't Xiahou Yuan or the Caos arranged for Lady Xiahou to come back?

Food for thought.

Uhhh no. Thats not how rape works. Rape has a very subjective definition. Some countries constitute rape as simply molestation others(more common) constitute it as sexual assault. The kidnapping and the dynamics of their relationship is a whole another matter that cannot be confirmed as one of sexual assault. This is like saying Cao Cao was known for his pillages and so all his wealth came from banditry. Yes, there is a link, an extremely miniscule one, but not a convincing and verifiable one.

And the same more or less apply to the various Caos. Arguing that Zhang Fei or the various Caos 'raped'(again, kidnap NOT rape) when there are zero historical sources and especially when the sources implies otherwise would be going against academic vigor.

The concept of 'consent' was seldom applied in Han China. Especially among the military and gentry class where marriages were usually as a political weapon. Jia Nanfeng went into depth there.

Yes, and filling in the blanks with proper citations, logic and capable moderation was my request instead of echo chamber~ing. Btw, the job of a historian/academic is NOT to fill the blanks, but to go indepth into what is already filled with whats avaliable to us. The only moment blanks are filled is when new archeological or textual evidence pop up to fill the blanks. That is not to say filling in the blank is strictly non academic but that one must take proper care and concern when doing so, especially a sensitive topic like rape.

So now, whats avaliable to us is that, Zhang Fei kidnapped. He then married her. His reasoning was not beauty like Cao Cao but because of gentry background. Liu Bei was known to fulfill a request from his surbodinate's wife instead of say... dismissing her as a rape victim. He then arranged a marriage of his heir to their child. And finally, his child was pleased with the union.

So the scholarly consensus would be Zhang Fei KIDNAPPED. Not rape. Why? Because if so, Liu Bei would simply dismiss her, Liu Bei definitely wouldnt marry her child(a byproduct of rape) to marry the future Emperor and Liu Shan would neither be pleased with the marriage nor point it out to Xiahou Ba.

We do not know if Lady Du/ and Lady Zou were against entering Cao Cao's harem. Just saying.

Again, rape has a very subjective definition which was I requested the various users on their definition of rape in the very first place.

Anyone who studied history, especially an Ancient one would understand that their teachers/professors has specifically warned against viewing history with a modern lens. An example of this is Rafe De Crespigny 'On Loyalty' where he discussed the evolution of the various appraisals of Xun Yu by the many Ancient historians without taking a stand or putting out his views.

The rest of this paragraph I more or less am fine.

Source, that I used circlejerk to discredit?

I dismissed with the 'collective disagreement' by first requesting clarification (definition of rape), second discussing the background(Zhang Fei KIDNAP), third providing context(their relationship using the r/askhistorian user) and then fourth pointed out the fallacies and echo chamber of this thread(faulty logic like kidnapping one woman means 'like raping young girls' and 'douchebag bros')

What I used circlejerk for was to CRITICISE their structure of arguments(small talk/irrelevant/non academic). Aka an echo chamber. NOT their arguments by itself.

Its cool.

[Dong Zhou]

Thought I had done this before but apparently hadn't: I do owe an apology for using emotive language in my original pull out post, the "my spirits sunk" should never have been said so for that line I apologize.

[Live Bait]

Of the Thirty-Six Stratagems, fleeing is best.

[Han]

Thought I had done this before but apparently hadn't: I do owe an apology for using emotive language in my original pull out post, the "my spirits sunk" should never have been said so for that line I apologize.

WHAT? Im not offended by THAT post. Like you said, you were within your rights to engage and disengage however and whenever you wish. And I respect THAT now didnt I other than a bout of curiosity.

You tend to challenge every little thing, including getting down to the exact meaning of the words, points just expand and expand, people don’t have that level of time and it can become exhausting. Your debating style comes across as aggressive, lecturing, rude which I’m sure you don’t intend, some don’t like an aggressive style at all, some can cope with that in bursts but combined with length, it doesn't encourage people to join in, to reply or give any any sense of fun if they join in. Anything you don't like and accusations come flying out, not "I disagree" but false or straw-man or other terms, it comes across as dismissive and I’m afraid even disrespectful. You proudly hold onto your admirable goal of being neutral but others don’t feel that way about you and any challenge is met badly while if they post a criticism, however careful they may be, of some figure then whatabouttery is quick to emerge.

Its this adhominem attack. Filled with generalisations, accusations and backed by zero sources or proof that I was unwilling to tolerate.

Of the Thirty-Six Stratagems, fleeing is best.

Debatable.