Export thread

Holy shit! Check the news guys. This is seriously bad.

Nooooo!
That’s, like, the stereotype for what a cultural landmark is.

—Patrick

Shame to see a 700 year old building go up in smoke.

Damn. Hope it's not a total loss. Water damage can sometimes be worse than the fire.

I doubt it will be total loss. But sounds like it will take a very long time to replace the roof.

They originally tried to put it out without water, but it got out of control too quick. Now, of course, they are using water but is it too late?

Sounds like it's too late.

Far said:

Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of later in the film:

(though I was worried it would be in poor taste.)

Still, for a historical building, it's a damn shame. Did they say what started it?

Probably something having to do with the renovations ongoing. A lot of people and stuff inside trying to work on it.

And of course, Trump is being Trump. (Yes the tweet is real)

Holy shit.

They will rebuild it. We Europeans are pretty good in rebuilding historical buildings succumbed to flames.

chris said:

They will rebuild it. We Europeans are pretty good in rebuilding historical buildings succumbed to flames.

Click to expand...

Is roughly what I said to my fiancee, considering what we put back up again after the war in germany...
But at least some people were prepared back then and the stained windows, medieval carvings etc. were mostly saved.

It really hurts me inside seeing the flames.

It's okay to feel sad about this.

Only problem with Lindsay's points are: the old original windows were replaced with white glass windows in 1728. During the french revolution a few years later everything made from metal were melted down and the Cathedral turned into a wine depot. The following years weren't so keen to Notre Dame too. Only after Victor Hugo's famous book, Paris invested in the restoration of the building replacing everything damaged. Like the roof that got destroyed today.

I know it's only silver lining, but a Notre Dame priest said all the artwork has been saved.

So tragic

I swear, this is, like, the shitiest timeline...

Apparently most of the fire is now contained. The towers are safe, and the fire is cooling. Around 2/3 of the roof is burned and there's a ton of damage to the interior, but a majority of the building will probably be saved.

The spire of the cathedral - not the towers - collapsed in the fire. The towers were apparently saved, but boy it's going to take a long while to repair.

Dei said:

And of course, Trump is being Trump. (Yes the tweet is real)

Click to expand...

The first thing you see when you mouseover the Fox News YouTube link on the fire is Trump. Why?

Allegedly a photo from inside the cathedral after the fire, (source is some random person on Reddit, but it looks real enough):

DarkAudit said:

The first thing you see when you mouseover the Fox News YouTube link on the fire is Trump. Why?

Click to expand...

Why would you want information or reactions from anyone else than the Glorious Leader? His opinion and thoughts are True and Good, and whatever anyone else says can only be a reflection of His greatness, or false, and therefore useless.
Oh, I'm sorry, is this thread in the Politics subforum?

What has been confirmed to have survived the fire:
• The Crown of Thorns, which some believe was placed on the head of Jesus and which the cathedral calls its "most precious and most venerated relic," was rescued from the fire, according to Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.
• Hidalgo confirmed the Tunic of Saint Louis and other "major" works were also saved.
• The facade and twin bell towers, the tallest structures in Paris until the completion of the Eiffel Tower in the late 19th century, survived the blaze.
• The Rose windows are a trio of immense round stained-glass windows over the cathedral's three main portals that date back to the 13th century. The Archbishop of Paris said all three have been saved, reports CNN affiliate BFM TV.
• The original Great Organ, one of the world's most famous musical instruments, dates back to medieval times. The Archbishop of Paris confirmed the organ is safe, reports CNN affiliate BFM TV.
(CNN)

One of the Rose Windows today:

(Reddit)

Man, this is all wonderful news. But at least we have videos, pictures, etc. of everything. In the past if something burned down that history was just gone.

I am sure glad they were able to save a bunch of stuff. It was such a surreal story.

Dave said:

Man, this is all wonderful news. But at least we have videos, pictures, etc. of everything. In the past if something burned down that history was just gone.

Click to expand...

Stuff like this has been done already, of course.
This project is one I know, it's about the reconstruction of burned german synagogues and it is about 20 years old, by now they'd probably do VR walk-through models.
http://www.cad.architektur.tu-darmstadt.de/synagogen/inter/start_de.html

evilmike said:

What has been confirmed to have survived the fire:
• The Crown of Thorns, which some believe was placed on the head of Jesus and which the cathedral calls its "most precious and most venerated relic," was rescued from the fire, according to Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.
• Hidalgo confirmed the Tunic of Saint Louis and other "major" works were also saved.
• The facade and twin bell towers, the tallest structures in Paris until the completion of the Eiffel Tower in the late 19th century, survived the blaze.
• The Rose windows are a trio of immense round stained-glass windows over the cathedral's three main portals that date back to the 13th century. The Archbishop of Paris said all three have been saved, reports CNN affiliate BFM TV.
• The original Great Organ, one of the world's most famous musical instruments, dates back to medieval times. The Archbishop of Paris confirmed the organ is safe, reports CNN affiliate BFM TV.
(CNN)

One of the Rose Windows today:

(Reddit)

Click to expand...

I also read yesterday that the copper statues that were on the roof were removed a few days before the fire due to the renovations and were unaffected.

An interesting thing to come out of this terrible event is that people sort of used it to draw attention to the fires at 3 historically black churches that were started by an arsonist (a "suspected" racist who is most definitely racist.) Someone on Twitter made the point that, while nothing of the same historical significance was lost in these churches, they don't have the resources that the Catholic church has to restore their places of worship.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...urned-arson-fires-raise-more-1m-after-n995536

Also, while I'm happy that someone on Twitter got a little attention for a tragedy in my state, it's starting to annoy me that people are also angrily comparing the Notre Dame fire to other awful events and losses of history, as if it's a contest. For example, that Brazilian museum where some indigenous language records were lost. I get that a lot of people hate Catholicism, and I don't like it either, but you can't deny that this is a significant and sad event. Why waste time comparing and trying to diminish it? I'm really happy they saved that window.

Cajungal said:

Why waste time comparing and trying to diminish it? I'm really happy they saved that window.

Click to expand...

It's reached masturbatory levels on my feeds, people are desperate to dunk on it. Donation whataboutism (specially coming from people that are not usually into charitable giving) is annoying at best.

They aren't diminishing the event, they are shining a light on the fact that there were over a billion dollars donated for the restoration. And since this is the catholic church it's like donating money to one of the Koch brothers because his house burned down.

Dave said:

They aren't diminishing the event, they are shining a light on the fact that there were over a billion dollars donated for the restoration. And since this is the catholic church it's like donating money to one of the Koch brothers because his house burned down.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that Notre Dame was owned by France.

Whoever the person was who used the Notre Dame fire to bring attention to Louisiana, they seemed to do it in a kind and gentle way--not criticizing people for caring, but just trying to nudge people towards a cause that is similar and also caused a great amount of loss and suffering (with less backing).

Denbrought said:

I was under the impression that Notre Dame was owned by France.

Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. IIRC France owns the building and leases it to the Church.

As for donations, my opinion may be unpopular, but I believe a person should be allowed to donate HIS/HER OWN MONEY to any cause they want, so long as they don’t exceed any sort of official limit AND they do it publicly. Want to donate to Norte Dame instead of Flint’s recovery? That’s fine, that’s your choice. Go nuts. Maybe you like buildings more than people. But then that’d be part of the public record and everyone will know where it came from.

—Patrick

My feeds are all covered with that sort of crap and frankly, it pisses me off. Rich people give money to a good cause, and the reaction is whataboutism, recriminations, insults, and a whole lot of emotional blackmail. If I was one of those rich people, the message I'd take away was "it'll never be enough so I might as well not".
Also, solving world hunger would take an estimated 30-40 billion a year, in perpetuity. That's a cathedral per week. Yeah, good luck with that. People really aren't capable of comparing and understanding bigger numbers.

Cajungal said:

Whoever the person was who used the Notre Dame fire to bring attention to Louisiana, they seemed to do it in a kind and gentle way--not criticizing people for caring, but just trying to nudge people towards a cause that is similar and also caused a great amount of loss and suffering (with less backing).

Click to expand...

Agreed, the original call-to-arms about it was good. The ensuing hot takes and faffing were not.

PatrThom said:

As for donations, my opinion may be unpopular, but I believe a person should be allowed to donate HIS/HER OWN MONEY to any cause they want, so long as they don’t exceed any sort of official limit AND they do it publicly. Want to donate to a first-world country's water system instead of cheaply saving and improving lives in the developing world via effective giving? That’s fine, that’s your choice. Go nuts. Maybe you value western QALY above human ones. But then that’d be part of the public record and everyone will know where it came from.

Click to expand...

FTFY to make an unrelated point, but why do you think the good outweighs the bad on donations having to be on the record? I personally don't want my neighbors to know where my money goes. I can imagine a pretty chilling effect whenever someone may not match their surroundings' groupthink. For anyone that tithes this would effectively broadcast their religion, regardless of their wishes. Ditto for political donations, or ones to controversial orgs ("Oh sweet, we have a list of every Planned Parenthood donor in the neighbourhood!").

Denbrought said:

why do you think the good outweighs the bad on donations having to be on the record?

Click to expand...

Because the only two “just” options I see are either “All personal donations must be sealed” or “All personal donations must be public,” and personally the second one scares me less than the first.
Trying to set up a system with qualified exemptions also means opening up the temptation for abuse.

—Patrick

PatrThom said:

Because the only two “just” options I see are either “All personal donations must be sealed” or “All personal donations must be public,” and personally the second one scares me less than the first.

—Patrick

Click to expand...

Why is the status quo unjust?

Denbrought said:

I was under the impression that Notre Dame was owned by France.

Click to expand...

It is, it is not owned by the vatican

Denbrought said:

Why is the status quo unjust?

Click to expand...

I feel like the current system too easily allows influence to be granted without accountability, that it is too easy to support and supply a proxy without suffering any negative effects, and that this is an overall bigger problem than being able to anonymously support a controversial cause.

—Patrick

PatrThom said:

I feel like the current system too easily allows influence to be granted without accountability, that it is too easy to support and supply a proxy without suffering any negative effects, and that this is an overall bigger problem than being able to anonymously support a controversial cause.

—Patrick

Click to expand...

I feel like going against things like lobbying would be a more worthy way to fight against Capital = Power without creating really obvious harms.

It occurred to me after making my last post that it may seem like my issue with donations is one of wanting to strip privacy from donations. This could not be further from the truth. Personally, I WANT all donations to be private, but the ability to donate anonymously is a double-edged sword, a tool which is supposed to be used ethically and responsibly to protect donors from repercussions just like those you describe.

I made my statement solely based on my personal belief that the shield meant to protect vulnerable donors is being abused to hide unethical activities on a scale large enough to more than negate its benefit. I would LOVE to be wrong about this particular supposition, but I know of no proof.

—Patrick

Denbrought said:

I was under the impression that Notre Dame was owned by France.

Click to expand...

I believe you are correct now, but it's still a symbol of the institution of the catholic church as well as France. Maybe they should sell some of the golden thrones from the Vatican to help pay for it.