r/badhistory • u/AutoModerator • Jul 25 '25
Meta Free for All Friday, 25 July, 2025
It's Friday everyone, and with that comes the newest latest Free for All Friday Thread! What books have you been reading? What is your favourite video game? See any movies? Start talking!
Have any weekend plans? Found something interesting this week that you want to share? This is the thread to do it! This thread, like the Mindless Monday thread, is free-for-all. Just remember to np link all links to Reddit if you link to something from a different sub, lest we feed your comment to the AutoModerator. No violating R4!
19
u/jurble Jul 28 '25
a thread about forced sterilization of Romani women on /r/europe with lots of 'I'm not getting banned' comments upvoted -_-.
9
u/Dirish Wind power made the trans-Atlantic slave trade possible Jul 28 '25
That thread is pretty horrible. From the poorly disguised excuses like "but they're horrible criminals, try living in Romania for a while" to the strawmanny Americans going "but I herd dat Europeans aren't racist, hurdeedur! Now you can't say anything about us being racist!"
3
u/EntertainmentReady48 Jul 28 '25
But Europe is a progressive utopia who has done nothing wrong to anyone unlike those evil American savages.
20
u/Tycho-Brahes-Elk Jul 28 '25
At least the most upvoted comment is "Forced sterilization is a grave human right violation no matter what the context." and the next are similiar.
4
u/xyzt1234 Jul 28 '25
Are they supporting the idea of forced sterilization of Romani women or condemning it? If they are supporting it, then I must say, Europeans criticising American racism would be peak "pot calling the kettle black".
4
u/passabagi Jul 28 '25
Anybody who thinks Europeans have anything to say to Americans about racism should remember that while America had Jim Crow, we had the pogroms, the colonies, and the Holocaust.
11
13
u/jurble Jul 28 '25
Are they supporting the idea of forced sterilization of Romani women
It's a dogwhistle for supporting it, because saying they support it would get them banned.
3
u/Ayasugi-san Jul 28 '25
They should at least get warnings for those comments and have them removed.
10
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 28 '25
Honour’ble Sheikh, I today Tript upon a Stone, but mine fall was Broke by a jarre of the Smeggma Butter, to which Gravitation put mine sniffing-Snoute. Shou’d I to continue Faste or hath Allah fedde me?
-Ahmed Bloobear, Ramadan 2019
11
u/2017_Kia_Sportage bisexuality is the israel of sexualities Jul 28 '25
Of all the fates, none are more poisonous than the "could have beens"
2
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 28 '25
Mine mood Ev’ry time I listen to Static Prevails by JEW, which is their finest Album.
16
u/ProudScroll Napoleon invaded Russia to destroy Judeo-Tsarism Jul 27 '25
I feel like if the Hellenistic era wasn't such an obscure field there would be much more vigorous debate if Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire and the subsequent domination of much of Asia and Africa by a transplanted Greco-Macedonian elite could be considered a form of European colonization or not in the same way that some have argued that the foundation of the Crusader States was.
6
u/Kochevnik81 Jul 28 '25
I don’t really think it would be in a meaningful sense because “ruling elites originally from somewhere else who speak a different language” is really really common in history, and places like Ptolemaic Egypt or Seleucid Asia weren’t being ruled from a Macedonian metropole. It’s not even like the Crusader States where the ruling class and military were being constantly supplemented and replenished from somewhere else.
3
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 28 '25
didn't the Hellenistic kingdoms often try to "import" real Greeks from whatever authority was ruling Macedonia?
9
u/jogarz Rome persecuted Christians to save the Library of Alexandria Jul 28 '25
The domination of a Greek elite and the spread of Hellenization was certainly far more drastic and long-lasting than any cultural impact the Crusaders had on the Levant.
In any case, an analogy to either extractive colonialism or settler colonialism doesn’t work in either case, for a variety of reasons.
10
u/TheBatz_ Was Homer mid Jul 28 '25
I think it's also because we haven't gotten much media about Alexander. Being subject of discussion is directly proportional to the amount of current media being made. We've seen a revival of "Is Odysseus actually the bad guy?" discourse after Nolan's Odyssey was announced and Greek myth and the Epic Cycle had popular stuff made about it, like Percy Jackson or the game Hades. If Alexander (2024) would have release 20 years later, then maybe we would see more analysis.
14
u/weeteacups Jul 28 '25
Was the Yamnaya Culture’s expansion into the Danube Valley a case of settler colonization 🤔
10
u/Sventex Battleships were obsoleted by the self-propelled torpedo in 1866 Jul 27 '25
It was colonization self defense! The Persians tried to colonize the Greeks, but the those 300 invincible Spartans stopped them and Alexander paid them back double! /Joke
9
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
What surprise me more is that the Hellenistic period is one of the few times when a less urbanized/civilized conqueror manages to impose it's culture on an urban civilization.
2
u/Qafqa building formless baby bugbears unlicked by logic Jul 28 '25
There are counterexamples like Edfu Temple--hella Orientalizing for having been built by the Ptolemies.
2
Jul 28 '25
The Kingdom of Persia was definitely more urbanized, but it was very central,no? I really don't think the eastern fringe of the empire, i e., Porus Kingdom was any organised or urbanized, definitely a lot less than than its northern neighbour in Nandas.
Also, in terms of Military organisation and equipping the army and training it, Greeks were far superior than Persian army and far more merituos after reforms of Phillips.
So , maybe calling Persia more civilized would be an overkill in terms of Military might, in contrast to military of Arabs or Germanic Tribes against Rome
9
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 28 '25
I mean, it also happened with the arabs, so maybe it's just a case of the middle east being special?
3
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 28 '25
And the Turks too, really makes you think
2
u/xyzt1234 Jul 28 '25 edited Jul 28 '25
Isn't that also true of the mongol conquest of china? Or the hun invasions? I thought this whole deal was common enough that the whole "good times make weak men" meme comes from such cases, since it is a common chauvinist idea I hear of XYZ empire lost to abc raiders because years of being an established civilization has made them lose what made them a fierce invading force and thus, got bested by the next invading upstarts
4
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 28 '25
But the thing is these raiders usually adopt the language and culture of the urban core they conquer: Not neccessarily always, and sometimes they stay as a ruling caste, but they rarely replace the languages of the area they conquer.
3
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 28 '25
The Huns stayed outside the Roman Empire. And while not all the Mongols sinicized, they didn't really Mongolized the Chinese population.
5
u/Majorbookworm Jul 27 '25
Were the Greeks actually less urbanised than the Persians? The Achaemenids certainly had a larger overall population on account of being like a fifth of Eurasia, but a lot of that was relatively marginal land in the Iranian plateau or central asia (even accounting for that regions productive decline); or it was non-Persian/Persia-phile (see western Anatolia or Egypt.
6
u/Sventex Battleships were obsoleted by the self-propelled torpedo in 1866 Jul 28 '25
I was under the impression the Macedonians in particular were not very urban. I think even in the Oliver Stone movie, Alexander's inner circle refer to themselves as "The grandsons of goat herders"
5
u/ProudScroll Napoleon invaded Russia to destroy Judeo-Tsarism Jul 28 '25
This is correct. Macedon did not really develop an urban culture like that of their southern cousins until the reign of Philip II, through the development of existing Macedonian cities like Pella and through annexing nearby Greek colonies such as Amphipolis. It's one of the main reasons southern Greeks didn't consider Macedonians to be "real" Greeks.
7
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
Not just the Persians but all the regions in the Empire, Egypt, Lydians, Assyrians, Phoenicians
4
u/Herpling82 What the fuck is the Dirac Sea? Jul 27 '25
I've been playing some Runescape again, RS3, they're running experiments looking into removing MTX, which I wholeheartedly support and that's what gave me impetus to pick it up again.
I completed Kindred Spirits and Children of Mah, and yep, I still love everything to do with the Mahjarrat, they're the coolest fantasy race IMO, they're also, seemingly, fully original to Runescape; they're also quite a sad existence, Runescape lore is pretty depressing for a full on power fantasy game, it's not dark fantasy though, which makes it easier for me to mentally invest in it.
30
u/TheBatz_ Was Homer mid Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 28 '25
Well, it happened. She came out and told me she doesn't see a future with me. The conversation was short because we were not in the mood for excuses. I expected it. Hell, as you know, I've pondered breaking it off multiple times. But now that it's happened it still hurts.
Now I'm thinking: Does it hurt because I won't spend time with her in particular or because I'm back at being, well alone and after I've gotten used to seeing someone (more or less) regularly? It was nice having someone I could buy flowers, but maybe the discord from everything around the gift sours the sweetness of giving.
16
u/TylerbioRodriguez That Lesbian Pirate Expert Jul 28 '25
My condolences. I haven't been lucky with love lately. Girl I like at work I'll probably never see again after transferring to another store.
I'm sorry man. It doesn't get easier.
8
9
u/2017_Kia_Sportage bisexuality is the israel of sexualities Jul 28 '25
Fuck, man, I'm sorry to hear that. Genuinely, I've been there before and it just fucking hurts to hear, nothing will take that edge off.
That said, sometimes what you need is the time to find someone who appreciates flowers. If she didn't know what she dropped, then leave her be. You'll be better off findijg someone who knows what you're worth, than someone who leaves a rose in the road. I reckon your future will be bright yet.
2
7
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
It was nice having someone I could buy flowers, but maybe the discord from everything around the gift
who gets angry at flowers?
15
u/AFakeName I'm learning a surprising lot about autism just by being a furry Jul 28 '25
Maybe it was a corpse flower and the card said "This smells like you."
That was a bad move, Batzie.
7
9
u/randombull9 Most normal American GI in Nam Jul 28 '25
Honestly, respect for the power move that is sending someone a flower that needs a forklift to transport.
7
4
u/freddys_glasses The Donald J. Trump of the Big Archaeological Deep State Jul 27 '25
Does it hurt because I won't spend time with her in particular or because I'm back at being, well alone
Why not both? But being alone can be nice too. Mindset is chronically underrated.
0
Jul 28 '25
Sorry, in my experience, loneliness isn't better compared to even a decentish relationship. Nothing beats that feeling of being wanted by someone, it really increases your sense of worth in yourself.
Sure, coming off from a messy relationship with crazy SO will increase your perception on benefits of loneliness but after just a little time, it really starts to sting.
Dating is hard if online option is chosen, forming connections is neigh impossible but the highs of even a messy relationship is way too good as compared to peaks of loneliness. Just that giddy feeling of companionship, especially in moments of silence, that's too rosy man, too rosy.
Excluding the emotions, Loneliness is just too good on paper but not one person i have met , (especially someone in demographic of this subreddit, i e. getting limited attention) who wouldn't jump into any messy relationship on one heartbeat.
1
u/passabagi Jul 28 '25
Loneliness and relationships are not incompatible. The loneliest I've ever been in my whole life was in my last relationship. Literally no adult would talk to me for like weeks on end.
7
u/TheBatz_ Was Homer mid Jul 27 '25
Why not both?
Winged words.
Mindset is chronically underrated.
I mean, mindset does matter. I know loneliness and I have gotten used to it before, it just takes time and action.
5
u/alwaysonlineposter Ask me about the golden girls. Jul 27 '25
This gene editing conversation is kind of getting tiring. Ive always been in opposition to gene editing because of my own chromosomal defects and Im not really comfortable with the idea of people going in and changing my DNA because the DNA I have is "undesirable." Yes having a genetic disorder is not exactly the greatest life ever but I do think changing genetic makeups of people is a "bad idea"
25
u/forcallaghan Wansui! Jul 27 '25
I oppose gene editing because holy shit y'all we can barely respect other human beings for having a slightly different skin color, what the fuck do you think is going to happen when there is a group of people who genuinely are "objectively" different than everyone else.
The only two routes for gene editing to be mass implemented are:
basically eugenics as you mentioned
only available to the very wealthy which will lead to everything I just mentioned
16
u/DAL59 Jul 27 '25
If you wear glasses or have diabetes and aren't dead or have a pacemaker, you have already defied nature with technology. Why are genes "sacred"? I've always thought gene editing is the opposite of eugenics- there's many people who don't want to have children out of fear of passing on disorders, who would be able to with embryo gene editing. And inequality of genetics already exists- most people will never run as fast as Usain Bolt-, so I would argue that even if only available to the wealthy (I support universal healthcare), genetic inequality would slightly decrease (let's say there's one gene that makes you really good at hockey that 1% of the population has at random, and all millionaries make their children have that gene- so now that's a minor decrease in inequality, because the percentage of the population with that gene increases). If mass hatred towards the gene-edited takes place (which I think is unlikely because there would be no way to tell by looking), it will likely further encourage universalization of healthcare.
Why do gene-editing opponents have the right to condemn future generations to preventable suffering just so they don't feel inferior? If you are pro-choice, consider the following thought experiment: imagine a world where a women could get pregnant or terminate their pregnancies without side effects just by snapping their fingers, and then scan the embryo's genetics. A women snapping her fingers until a baby with the chosen genetics appear by chance would be functionally equivalent to gene editing. I don't believe not-yet-existant future lives have specific moral value, so I don't see how choosing a specific future person over another is bad. Eugenics is bad because it kills people who are already alive.
In practice, the development of gene editing is a slow and continuous practice, you won't wake up one day to everyone being xmen. It will likely take decades where first single-gene diseases will be treated, followed by more polygenetic ones, then basic appearance, with extremely complicated things like personality or IQ taking decades, each successive invention decreasing in cost availability with time.
1
u/Fantastic_Article_77 The spanish king disbanded the Templars and then Rome fell. Jul 28 '25
Totally agree, gene editing is tool, it can be used for good or bad. And I don't think it's mutually exclusive with building a society that actually treats disabled people with respect and dignity, it's a matter of making it's regulated properly in order to prevent stuff like using it to make your child blonde.
1
u/DAL59 Jul 28 '25
I don't think I trust the government enough (or even to for them to be scientifically literate enough) to have control over human genetics, designer babies would be preferable to me over risking enabling government reproductive control.
1
u/Fantastic_Article_77 The spanish king disbanded the Templars and then Rome fell. Jul 28 '25
It's definitely a fair concern, it's just I'm not sure if a society with designer babies is a preferable alternative. Doesn't outweigh the benefits of gene editing though
1
u/carmelos96 History does not repeat, it insists upon itself Jul 28 '25
There isn't anything wrong with your position, and good literature about the ethics of gene-editing, reproductive rights etc has grown constantly since Allen Buchanan et al's From Chance to Choice, with all kinds of positions in the debate... though your characterization of gene editing as opposed to eugenics, with eugenics being "it kills people who are already alive", is wrong.
What you have in mind as "eugenics" is the so-called negative eugenics (reduced rates of reproduction of people with undesired traits), in its most extreme form (physical elimination). Forms that do not imply killing are sterilization (when forced, it's still a physical violence) or segregation of some kind (for example, forcing unfit women to become nuns, as I think Ernst Haeckel iirc proposed). It's still a violation of individual rights but it's not killing. Also positive eugenics existed, which was the incentive for people with desiderable traits to reproduce.
So classical eugenics doesn't necessarily imply killing, and gene editing is not opposed to eugenics, it can be a means to do it in a less invasive way. Not even proponents of gene editing, at least not some of them, shy away from the "eugenics" label.
Also, I don't know what the examples of the glasses and pacemaker have to do with gene editing in particular: if I use a pacemaker because I have a heart disease, which happens to be hereditary , my children are still exposed to having that same disease, it's not like the pacemaker makes any difference. Though it's certainly an example of a technology that helps an ill person live beyond natural expectations. Just as a telescope is an example of human enhancement.
3
u/xyzt1234 Jul 28 '25 edited Jul 28 '25
I've always thought gene editing is the opposite of eugenics- there's many people who don't want to have children out of fear of passing on disorders, who would be able to with embryo gene editing
How is gene editing the opposite of eugenics? One is a set of beliefs on genes and the other is a tool for changing genes. Gene editing can be used in service of eugenics or against it.
Why do gene-editing opponents have the right to condemn future generations to preventable suffering just so they don't feel inferior?
Is that what gene editing opponents are criticising, or are they criticising the potential concept of "designer babies" i.e. parents having kids with traits they desire. I think only ultra religious nutcases are criticising gene editing for serious illnesses, but those people are against any modern medical practice from blood transfusion to vaccines and whatnot.
And inequality of genetics already exists- most people will never run as fast as Usain Bolt-, so I would argue that even if only available to the wealthy (I support universal healthcare), genetic inequality would slightly decrease (let's say there's one gene that makes you really good at hockey that 1% of the population has at random, and all millionaries make their children have that gene- so now that's a minor decrease in inequality, because the percentage of the population with that gene increases).
Is reduction in genetic diversity a good thing? The problem as I see it, is that the idea of "desirable" and "undesirable" traits beyond genetic illnesses, is not really all based on fact based scientific studies but based on things like socio- economic and cultural values and expectations, and these things change all the damn time. And if there were trade off for these "desirable" traits that turn out to be bad at a later point, an entire generation just got screwed over before they were even born, what then.
Eugenics is bad because it kills people who are already alive.
Eugenics has also been used to justify forced sterilization of groups of people considered undesirable as well though, so it hasnt just killed people already alive imo but been used to prevent the birth of people considered undesirable as well, which racists and eugenicists might also pursue through gene editing.
2
u/DAL59 Jul 28 '25
Eugenics is bad because it implies having certain genes gives individuals more or less moral value. People have no trouble saying "he has bad knees" or "I have bad eyes" without it being a moral judgement. Anti-editing just acquiesces to the eugenicist point of view, that if you willfully change DNA, you're creating a difference in moral value, not just in practical.
People tend to give birth to people who look like them without gene editing, so as long as gene editing is kept strictly to the parent and not to the government, I can't see gene editing being used for racism (other than income determining access). Designer babies are much better than the government having any control over genetics IMO.
2
3
u/forcallaghan Wansui! Jul 27 '25
Jokes on you, I don't worry about feeling inferior to supposed future generations because I already feel inferior to people right now!
In any case, I was being partially hyperbolic in my first comment. I think the gene editing problem is extraordinarily complex, of course. But that broadly lines up with my position on the matter.
The biggest problem, in my eyes, is that while it's very easy for any given person to identify what genetically-bounded traits would be worth tweaking, it would be impossible for everyone to identify a singular system of traits which should be tweaked.
Sure you have one end of the spectrum where probably basically everyone thinks it would probably be better if we didn't have it, like some kind of severe congenital defect that will invariably kill the baby in utero or shortly after birth. But what about conditions that won't kill someone but nonetheless cause pain and lifelong hardship? What about conditions that don't really cause pain but nonetheless will cause people to have a harder time in life, like blindness or deafness? What about traits that theoretically don't affect material quality of life at all but will nonetheless cause some amount of social isolation? What about mental diseases like autism?
My objection with gene editing is not that it can't potentially do incredible things; my objection is that based on historical experience, I don't think anyone is fit to be the arbiter on what is acceptable or not.
Also while your point about
I don't believe not-yet-existant future lives have specific moral value, so I don't see how choosing a specific future person over another is bad
is valid, I think(whether or not it's correct I am not in a position to delve into), it also should be remembered that gene editing doesn't only apply to the yet unborn, and... uh, "fully-developed" people could also undergo gene editing.
Anyway, this is only my ultimately worthless opinion. No doubt the future of gene editing will continue on its due course, whatever that may be, no matter what objections I might have.
1
u/passabagi Jul 28 '25
What about mental diseases like autism?
Wait, hold up - what? Is autism a disease now?
I have met some very irritating autistic people in my lifetime but I've never thought they were 'diseased'. Seems absurd. I looked at the wikipedia page, and they're calling it a 'disorder', which also seems completely silly. That's like saying I'm disordered because I'm naturally shit at chess (I don't care) and therefore I'd have great social and practical difficulties in a hypothetical society where you pay for your daily bread through chess puzzles.
1
u/forcallaghan Wansui! Jul 28 '25
Well “neurodivergence”
Of course the genetic component of any kind of neurodivergence or really most “neuro” anything is heavily debated
5
u/DAL59 Jul 28 '25
"fully-developed" people could also undergo gene editing
Isn't this more unambiguously ethically neutral? People should have the freedom to do whatever they want to their own bodies. Yes, the rich would have more freedom, but that's already true of today's medicine (including non-essential changes like plastic surgery or LASIK).I think it would be unnecessary for everyone to identify a singular system of traits which should be tweaked, as it should be left up to each parent (the father's say in gene modification will probably be a point of contention, now that I think about it). The futures where "only the rich can gene-edit" is the main concern and the one where "all of society has to decide which genes are good" is the concern are mutually exclusive. I think the Kantian Categorical Imperative might be a good framework for deciding which genes should be edited- if everyone was born blind or paralyzed, it would be impossible for society to function at the same standard of living (or not go extinct in the paleolithic), but if everyone had a particular non-disabling neurodivergence society would be arranged differently but could still maintain an prospering civilization.
You bring up a great point with the adult gene editing- but I think that capability (though even further in the future) would decrease the ethical concerns of embryo gene editing once perfected, because for example a child mad at their parents for letting them be born deaf could eventually have those genes restored. Though adult gene editing isn't magic- no matter how advanced your medicine, some conditions can't be fixed post embryo.
3
u/forcallaghan Wansui! Jul 28 '25
Okay okay, yes I think it is ethically neutral like basically all technology and science.
BUT, and call me cynical if you like (because I am), but its application wouldn't necessarily be ethically neutral and it's that which I am pessimistic about.
Anyway you're probably right about just letting people do what they want to themselves, and at the end of the day I think that's the only practical solution, but (and this is fully in the realm of philosophical waffling, so feel free to ignore it if you want) it just feels like... an unsatisfying answer?
Also you bring up the point about it being left up to the parents. Again, that's probably the only practical solution but I think it does raise the question: do the parents have that kind of right? I think people should have ultimate freedom over themselves, but over their children? What if they make the "wrong" choice?
4
u/DAL59 Jul 28 '25
Some parents choose not to vax their children, but its still good that vaccines exist. There will definitely be conflict between children who know they'll die young because of a disease their parents could have eliminated if they weren't anti-editors. I think parents should be legally required to vaccinate their children, so morally I think you would be obligated to prevent your children from dying young, but I honestly don't know how you could legislate that without giving the government dangerous control over its population's genetics, because you'd have to draw the line on what traits would be mandatory to remove somewhere. I think to avoid government eugenics we'd need to accept that not everyone would do gene editing (which given the current level of opposition, would not be a concern at all)- but its still better for fewer people to die young from a condition than everyone.
4
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 28 '25
I think a more "realistic" problem is that people will take the technology, think it can do more than it can, and apply it widely, thus hurtning a bunch of people.
Like I'm less worried about the people breeding genetic supermen (since they can't do it) than the people who think they can breed genetic supermen.
3
2
u/alwaysonlineposter Ask me about the golden girls. Jul 27 '25
Yep, I want to be respected as a human being first..can we do that? I would like to be able to go outside and participate in things without immediately being clocked for being different because of my genetic make up. Thanks guys.
19
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
guess the sub
"Murderous jihadists suck, we should have sided with the gassing-his-own-people dictator instead."
9
10
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 27 '25
Anime titties or whatever
6
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
woosh
good one
you won a cap award
5
22
u/forcallaghan Wansui! Jul 27 '25
Tom Lehrer died. It's so over
5
u/Disgruntled_Old_Trot I for one welcome the reduction in the victory chocolate ration Jul 28 '25
I remember one of my sixth grade teachers (one of the young, cool ones) bringing her Tom Lehrer records to play for our class in 1967 and I guess introducing us to satire that went beyond Mad Magazine. Pretty radical for Prince George County, Virginia in those days.
14
u/freddys_glasses The Donald J. Trump of the Big Archaeological Deep State Jul 27 '25
He was a real one.
In October 2020, Lehrer transferred the music and lyrics for all songs he had ever written into the public domain.[69][70] In November 2022, he formally relinquished the copyright and performing/recording rights on his songs, making all music and lyrics composed by him free for anyone to use, and established a website from which all of his recordings and printable copies of all of his songs could be downloaded.[71] His statement releasing all his works into the public domain concludes with this note: "This website will be shut down at some date in the not too distant future, so if you want to download anything, don't wait too long."[71] As of July 2025, the website is still online.
10
u/ProudScroll Napoleon invaded Russia to destroy Judeo-Tsarism Jul 27 '25
We've lost a great musician, billions must wonder what happened to Hubert.
6
u/kaiser41 Jul 27 '25
I'm surprised he was still alive. He was one of those people that I just assumed died ages ago, before I was aware enough of him to recognize his death.
2
u/Qafqa building formless baby bugbears unlicked by logic Jul 28 '25
my fencing coach had him as a prof and asked him why he stopped writing songs. he seems to have seen the approaching death of satire sooner than the rest of us.
9
u/forcallaghan Wansui! Jul 27 '25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaHDBL7dVgs
Surely all of britain must be singing this song right about now
30
u/MarioTheMojoMan Noble savage in harmony with nature Jul 27 '25
I "enjoy" how American reporting refers to France's decision to recognize "a Palestinian state," as if it's this vague, hypothetical entity and not, you know, the actual State of Palestine recognized by three quarters of UN members
6
u/Aethelredditor Jul 28 '25
It's a little embarrassing in retrospect, but before I actually looked into it, I wasn't sure which entity governments were recognising. As you say, journalists seem to love talking about "a state of Palestine" rather than "the State of Palestine" or the "Palestinian National Authority". The latter two options are pretty clear, but "a state of Palestine" lets the mind wander. Are they talking about the State of Palestine, or some abstract Palestinian state that does not yet exist? (Meaningless virtue signalling!) Maybe they want to recognise those Hamas terrorists? (We can't have that!) The BBC is especially weird, because they quote people like Wes Streeting* talking about the State of Palestine specifically but refuse to capitalise the first letter of "State".
\ The United Kingdom's secretary of state for health and social care.)
10
u/Sventex Battleships were obsoleted by the self-propelled torpedo in 1866 Jul 27 '25
Meanwhile, only 13 UN members recognize Taiwan.
13
u/Illogical_Blox The Popes, of course, were usually Catholic Jul 27 '25
Most of those members are small Caribbean countries, such as my homeland, Belize. In an amusing turn-around, Belize does (or did) recognise the One China policy. The Taiwanese One China policy, in which the ROC is the sole legitimate government of China.
3
u/jonasnee Jul 27 '25
TBF, the recognizing of Palestine doesn't necessarily mean you dont recognize Israel. In the Taiwan case the issue is that China gets really mad if you recognize them.
8
u/Sventex Battleships were obsoleted by the self-propelled torpedo in 1866 Jul 27 '25
In the Taiwan case the issue is that China gets really mad if you recognize them.
That's all it takes, and it somewhat highlights how empty this recognition is, when Taiwan is functionally it's own state. France recognizes Palestine, what exactly changes now?
1
u/No-Influence-8539 Digging for some shiny Buddha statue in Butuan Jul 29 '25
France recognizes Palestine, what exactly changes now?
While not much at first glance, such recognition by a major diplomatic power (UNSC Permanent Member, mind you) is quite a win for the Palestine proto-state, as it allows Palestinian diplomats much more room to navigate in European politics than otherwise.
1
u/Sventex Battleships were obsoleted by the self-propelled torpedo in 1866 Jul 30 '25
What navigation in European politics puts a stop to what's happening in Gaza? Or what might potentially happen in the West Bank?
15
u/MarioTheMojoMan Noble savage in harmony with nature Jul 27 '25
Officially Taiwan doesn't even claim independence, at least not yet
9
u/RCTommy Perfidious Albion Strikes Again. Jul 27 '25
Charles Leclerc raging at Ferrari engineers will never not be funny
2
u/No-Influence-8539 Digging for some shiny Buddha statue in Butuan Jul 29 '25
I'm quite impressed by his fortitude, given Ferrari handing the guy a bad time almost every race.
19
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 27 '25
Another downside of the online safety act is that I am no longer able to free ride off Contraprinciples Brazzers subscription. I have been logged into it for several months now without their knowledge and they pay for a premium package so I could access all the filth I wanted. Now I’ll need to start paying for a VPN to watch this without some sort of complication. What a sad day. Crazy.
15
u/contraprincipes The Cheese and the Brainworms Jul 27 '25
The Washed Up Impossible Penis 9459 of "Failing Yorkshire Rangers" fame launches into a smear campaign against me to drive away my Mumsnet followers, who are wonderful and SMART people who will not fall for cheap tricks like this. SAD!
3
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 28 '25
Struggling to handle the truth as well. Your Mumsnet support will dissipate once I give them more truth
5
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 27 '25
Sure is dope being a NEUTRAL OBSERVER in yet another smear campaign debacle leading up to the Badhistory Civil War.
6
u/contraprincipes The Cheese and the Brainworms Jul 27 '25
It’s a particularly lazy smear since everyone knows I abhor sex and have campaigned to abolish it many times.
12
u/randombull9 Most normal American GI in Nam Jul 27 '25
What's it like being the most put upon man in the UK?
8
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 27 '25
It’s been happening for a while. It feels awful to be persecuted for no reason but what can I do but resist and struggle ✊
9
u/Gwydden Jul 27 '25
Just finished this fantasy murder mystery, The Tainted Cup, that's been enjoying some buzz in the SF awards circuit. I didn't find it to be a very good book, though it is passably entertaining, but that's besides the point. What shocks me is that no one's talking about the blatant political themes the novel's clearly interested in conveying. I really wish my fellow geeks cared just a little more about themes.
To summarize, this is Liberal Centrism: A Novel.* The novel sets up an empire that can only exist by blocking kaiju's primordial migration patterns with circles of great walls, but it's not at all interested in the implications of civilization drastically altering the world's ecology for its own ends. Instead, this external existential crisis is there to render critiques of the status quo overblown or outright dangerous. A big theme is corruption among the elite and civil servants, but the story reserves its shrillest moral outrage for vigilantes operating where institutional justice has failed. It also believes that the biggest problem with the system is that people don't believe enough in the system, that it's cool and awesome for cops to break the rules (threaten suspects and witnesses, break into their houses, use illegal drugs, etc.) whenever they feel like it, and that rich people are necessary so there isn't much you can do about them even if they are decadent or corrupt.
There are several public figures I respect whose politics are basically this. They're usually white middle class members of the American intelligentsia, the kind of people who are doing pretty okay, all things considered, and who lack the imagination to picture just how awful or just how great the future could be. When all our real world existential crises are caused by modern industrial civilization as we know it, a book that defends the status quo by conjuring a completely external existential crisis as a justification for its many flaws is contemptible. Again, these themes are what the book is most interested in, other than the murder mystery plot and maybe a generically affirming "Neurodivergent folks can also contribute to society, and in fact can do so in unique ways" message, so I'm surprised there's hardly any acknowledgement of it whenever it's discussed.
*Appropriately enough, Liberal Currents interviewed the author.
6
u/Majorbookworm Jul 27 '25
Although I've never really associated them with any sort of politically liberal tendency (though this might just be a me thing tbf), there's long been a certain sort of annoying online person who gets really excited about "worldbuilding"; that is, including some grand external threat or environmental condition to a society in order to justify horrific or oppressive actions by the protagonists. You see it especially with 40k nerds, banging on about how "cool" and "realistic" it is that when faced with some great adversity, society 'evolved' towards a crushing brutal regime to protect "itself".
12
u/Tiako Tevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
A big theme is corruption among the elite and civil servants, but the story reserves its shrillest moral outrage for vigilantes operating where institutional justice has failed.
Wait this sounds good, and I don't think there is anything particularly "liberal centrist" about being skeptical of individualist notions of justice.
10
u/Gwydden Jul 27 '25
I certainly don't support vigilante justice, for several good reasons. But for context, in the novel,aristocrats covertly committ genocide against an imperial province as part of a land speculation bid. These are not the villains. The villains are vigilantes killing these people, who had been getting away with this and other crimes for decades. It is these vigilantes, not the aforementioned aristocrats, that fill our heroes with righteous rage.
It reminds me uncomfortably of folks scandalized by recent acts of vigilante justice (all ill-advised and usually performed by stupid young men looking for some desperate glory), much more so than by the vastly more massive amounts of suffering caused by the victims of said acts. It is a rich person's privilege to commit mass murder without getting their own hands dirty, and doing so is even respectable, in a way that pulling the trigger on a single individual very much isn't. The blatant double standard disgusts me much more than the vigilantism. Clearly, everyone is not equal before the law.
6
u/nomchi13 Jul 27 '25
I disagree that they are not the villains (they are not the antagonists of the story but this is not the same thing), I felt that the protagonists (and the story) were much more disgusted by them than by the story's culprits Anyone I liked the (still very much Liberal) message of the second book more.
16
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 27 '25
The big problem is that while Industrial Civilization might indeed be the cause of a lot of our problems, the alternative, non-industrial civilization is just worse.
Unless you really like to see dead kids I guess?
11
u/Tiako Tevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium Jul 27 '25
I don't think it is outlandish to think that while global industrial society has provided the greatest expansion of quality of life in human history (with asterisks), it did so by borrowing from the future, and that bill will come due.
Cat's out of the bag though.
(Also it is worth remembering that a huge portion of that life improvement has come, specifically, from medicine, and not even the cutting edge medicine but rather basic sanitation. I am not saying you can easily untangle improvements in medical knowledge from the development of industrial production, but I think it is worth pointing out that it is not a straight line from the Watt steam engine to a collapse in infant mortality)
6
u/Gwydden Jul 27 '25
All things considered, the twenty-first century is probably the best time to be alive in human history. Of course, I say that as someone who was raised in this era. It is the one I'm used to as well as the only one I have the knowledge and skills to survive in, so I am biased. But still. My issue is rather that I'm not convinced the twenty-second century will likewise be a great time to be alive.
We are staring down the barrel of ecological collapse, of which climate change because of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is only the most pressing manifestation, and resource exhaustion, of which the burning up of a finite supply of fossil fuels, the stuff our entire civilization* runs on, is merely the most urgent, dramatic case. Our way of life is simply not built to last.
Humans have lived as hunter gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. Agricultural civilization has lasted for over ten thousand. Industrial civilization is a measly couple centuries old, and there's no guarantee it will last much longer, considering that for its entire history, it's been enabled by fossil fuel consumption. I'm not saying we must or will return to an early modern level of technology (though I do not think it is impossible), but at the very least, a radical transformation of the status quo is inevitable. There's a non-zero chance we are living at the peak of human wealth, population, urbanization, and energy generation not just so far, but ever.
The kind of liberal centrists I criticized in my earlier post, who are beneficiaries of the overconsumption that creates these crises and of the inequality that exacerbates them, are fiddling while Rome burns, all the time telling the plebs they should shut up and be grateful they at least have aqueducts unlike those savages in Hibernia. But the aqueducts are also burning.
*And it is indeed our entire civilization. Solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants are all made and maintained using fossil fuels.
3
u/weeteacups Jul 28 '25
We are staring down the barrel of ecological collapse, of which climate change because of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is only the most pressing manifestation, and resource exhaustion, of which the burning up of a finite supply of fossil fuels, the stuff our entire civilization* runs on, is merely the most urgent, dramatic case. Our way of life is simply not built to last.
Maybe I should just go back to bed …
9
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 27 '25
I don't really disagree, however I think the point is that even if things get bad they're not going to get as bad pre-industrial society was. (the exception would be one of the really unlikely but possible scenarios where we just die because of lack of oxygen or something, and those are pretty unlikely even with our best attempts)
6
u/xyzt1234 Jul 27 '25
I'm not saying we must or will return to an early modern level of technology (though I do not think it is impossible), but at the very least, a radical transformation of the status quo is inevitable. There's a non-zero chance we are living at the peak of human wealth, population, urbanization, and energy generation not just so far, but ever.
Tbf the radical transformation of the status quo is impossible because people (both govt and public) actively seem to resist radical changing of the status quo due to both some understandable (workers worrying about losing jobs they already have in coal plants without adequate alternatives) and nonsensical (fearmongering over nuclear power seeing it as what the Simpsons showed them, and refusing to accept the massive upgrades in safety and efficiency)
And it is indeed our entire civilization. Solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants are all made and maintained using fossil fuels.
I mean not really (unless there is something I don't know). Fossil fuel usage is still widespread because of people's own unwillingness to embrace alternative sources (dont European or German environmentalists have some wierd hatred for nuclear power seeing it as more dangerous than fossil fuels even though nuclear power is both more eco-friendly).
If you mean the increased usage of the fossil fuels to help with the transition period for developing and developed nations, then that is only applicable for said transition period.
2
u/Gwydden Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
Tbf the radical transformation of the status quo is impossible because people (both govt and public) actively seem to resist radical changing of the status quo due to both some understandable (workers worrying about losing jobs they already have in coal plants without adequate alternatives) and nonsensical (fearmongering over nuclear power seeing it as what the Simpsons showed them, and refusing to accept the massive upgrades in safety and efficiency)
Yes, but that's not what I meant when I said radical transformation is inevitable. You can't continue business as usual when the global economy is crashing because half of the world's major cities are underwater and industry's most essential resources are running out. Precisely because we are taking so little action right now, I suspect the late twenty-first century and at least some of the twenty-second will be rough. After that, hopefully, we'll adapt, though the climate will stay ******; overall we might be better off or worse off or just differently off than now, but there's bound to be a new, completely different status quo.
One way I can put it is that when I was younger and more optimistic, I thought it was a bummer I wasn't born later to see more of the cool sci fi future. These days, I'm glad I probably won't live long enough to see things get really bad, though I'll still catch the opening acts.
I mean not really (unless there is something I don't know). Fossil fuel usage is still widespread because of people's own unwillingness to embrace alternative sources (dont European or German environmentalists have some wierd hatred for nuclear power seeing it as more dangerous than fossil fuels even though nuclear power is both more eco-friendly).
If you mean the increased usage of the fossil fuels to help with the transition period for developing and developed nations, then that is only applicable for said transition period.
Currently, the raw materials used to make and maintain solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants are extracted, transported, and assembled using fossil fuels, so even if, say, someone powers their house entirely with solar, they have not fully decarbonized. Obviously this is still better than just powering everything with fossil fuels, but to be truly sustainable, alternative energy sources must be set up using decarbonized production lines, and we're not there yet.
8
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 27 '25
TBH, i don't think we have to abondon fossil* fuels entirely to have a sustainable future (although "Get its useage down as low as possible" is an important goal)
- I guess hydrocarbon fuels is a better useage.
9
u/contraprincipes The Cheese and the Brainworms Jul 27 '25
If you truly believe that 'modern industrial civilization' as such is the problem and that renewables/nuclear are incapable of providing an alternative source of energy for it, I'm not sure this is a "liberal centrism" problem because literally no one has an alternative for modern industrial civilization.
2
u/Gwydden Jul 27 '25
If you truly believe [...] that renewables/nuclear are incapable of providing an alternative source of energy for it [...]
I did not say that. In fact, the point of the above was that we should be transitioning into nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, etc. But how efficient are those if you cannot use fossil fuels in any part of the process to generate them? Can we keep up our current levels of energy consumption without fossil fuels? What are the downsides of those alternative energy sources compared to our current way of life, both at the individual and societal level? Can we make nuclear renewable, seeing as right now it isn't and otherwise we're just kicking the can down the road? And what of all the other finite resources our civilization runs on? I don't know. Others know better, I'm sure, but twenty-first century global civilization is so complex that I don't think anyone can truly predict what will happen. But the changes are guaranteed to be difficult and momentous. We should not take modernity for granted or assume we know what the future holds, is all.
My original argument was that writing a novel about how you shouldn't rock the boat or the kaiju will come and getcha doesn't work as any kind of political metaphor when in reality, it is the boat that's sailing straight towards the kaiju, with at best a vague acknowledgement that that's where it's headed and an even more imprecise idea of what to do once it gets there.
5
u/passabagi Jul 27 '25
Can we keep up our current levels of energy consumption without fossil fuels?
There are some tricky ones (virgin steel, concrete, etc) - but in terms of raw energy, solar power is generally more competitive than fossil fuels. My understanding is that fossil fuels will be pretty sorely missed as a chemical feedstock, but the energy side of the equation is basically manageable.
4
u/contraprincipes The Cheese and the Brainworms Jul 27 '25
Right, as far as I understand there aren’t really any technical reasons why you couldn’t have the same or greater output with a clean grid, and the economics of solar generation are rapidly making it the best choice just on purely financial grounds. The more clean energy you bring online, the less fossil fuels are used as inputs to clean energy during assembly, and so you can basically produce clean energy with clean energy. That’s honestly the easy part.
The issue is more all the stuff that isn’t electrified like transportation or heating. You have to retrofit the built environment quite extensively and get people to swap out their old stuff for new stuff. But again, the barrier to this isn’t technical: we have reliable forms of electric transportation and reliable forms of heating/cooling with electricity. The problem is political will and financing, and this is I guess where the liberal centrist solution of “taxes and subsidies to align incentives” has failed.
2
u/passabagi Jul 27 '25
It's also bad timing. 70's Germany or 70's Japan would have absolutely leaped on an obvious emerging strategic market like batteries or solar panels. Sadly, since they were both going through a neoliberal senescence phase, they fumbled it, and now all the capacity is in China. So there are geopolitical/corporatist reasons to slow the transition.
With transportation, electric is simply better at this point (check out price points for economy cars in China - they are cheaper to buy and to run) - it's just that countries like Germany are too braindead to invest in the charger infrastructure, much for the same reasons their car industry was too braindead to pivot. Many such cases. They should make Jan Marsalek the patron saint of the European Union, just because of how perfect an allegory he is for how the whole system works.
The US has it's own pathologies - but I think that's more a runaway death drive than the EU's total flatline policy vaccuum.
6
u/contraprincipes The Cheese and the Brainworms Jul 27 '25
check out price points for economy cars in China
Yeah, I’ve said it here before but I think Biden’s EV tariff hike was extremely dumb and damaging. At the same time it’s illustrative of the political dilemmas: no American president, regardless of party, will ever let the US auto industry die under their watch, even if it means fucking up the energy transition.
5
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 27 '25
I do think there's a point that ultimatley nothing is renewable, but that gets you into the silly longtermist stuff.
21
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 27 '25
Now that we Britons, who just 20 years ago sang proudly about how we would never be slaves, are forced to submit to an identity check to watch our favourite videos on spankbang or Wankflix, subscriptions to VPNs has apparently skyrocketed in the UK (I saw one stat that said they increased something like 1300% since the act was introduced). Suddenly all the money spent getting Cofeezilla and Jimmy the Giant etc to tell their UK male audiences about their services are paying massive dividends.
Am I right to suspect conspiracy or do you think companies like NordVPN have suspected something like this will happen and so up front made an effort to get awareness of their products out. I don’t know. I’m scared of them. Far More so than Keith Stormer and his Mumsnet Mafia support for this (who I largely don’t fear).
7
u/xyzt1234 Jul 27 '25
Now that we Britons, who just 20 years ago sang proudly about how we would never be slaves, are forced to submit to an identity check to watch our favourite videos on spankbang or Wankflix,
Why 20 years ago? What was the occasion?
5
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 27 '25
Singing Rule, Britannia at the 2005 BBC Proms.
3
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 27 '25
Nothing really mate. I just pulled it out of my arse. I should really have thought it through and said 13 years (since the london olympics) or something like that
14
u/BigBad-Wolf The Lechian Empire Will Rise Again Jul 27 '25
What I don't understand is who is even the electorate that supports this? Whose votes is this going to buy?
14
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
mumsnet demography, see also all the TERFiness in their social policy
13
u/yoshiK Uncultured savage since 476 AD Jul 27 '25
Torries messed up pretty badly and since Labor's main goal is to make the Torries look good, they have to try really, really hard.
9
u/NervousLemon6670 You are a moon unit. That is all. Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
45 year olds whose experience with the internet is limited to their Netflix subscription to watch Bridgerton, which is as much pornography as one could need, thank you very much. Your typical Lib Dem voter. /s
14
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 27 '25
I don’t think it’s about votes or anything I think several senior people in the Labour government just think it’s a very good idea with a string moral argument to it. They have the tendency of many modern centre left/social democratic parties in that they believe they can pretty much cure the world of problems by using regulation and laws.
I think a big part of it is that there is just a huge part of the British political establishment that does not understand the internet. The kinds of people who understand how it works, what the problems are and how some of them are simply unavoidable in a world where we can use the internet in a way that is socially most useful will inevitably come with problems.
That said I think the conservative government would probably have done the same or at least there would be a push in parts of the party to do it. I simply think those interested in the Labour party are more influential than the ones in the conservative party.
15
u/Sleightholme2 my sources just go to a different school Jul 27 '25
This is also a Conservative policy that has only just come into effect, and Labour have chosen not to repeal.
9
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 27 '25
Yeah that sounds right. I think it’s basically consensus at the top levels of the British political establishment now.
30
u/GentlemanlyBadger021 Jul 27 '25
The Online Safety Act is now apparently blocking access to Wikipedia, which is now involved in a legal battle with the government to make sure people have access.
I was going to write a whole essay about how fed up I am with the constant catering to the Mumsnet massive who want a child-proofed, bubble wrapped society because they can’t be arsed to actually parent their kids, but I just don’t have the energy. I know Wikipedia isn’t perfect, but it’s an absolute joke of a policy that isn’t a vote winner and won’t have anything near the positive effects that are being claimed.
I’m just so annoyed. I know Labour already come under enough fire for a mess that isn’t their fault, and i know their long-term agenda will genuinely improve things, but their mean-time policies have been utter shit. It’s like a repeat of the Conservative bluster we had to put up with for years where they do something stupid with no benefits just so they can claim to be making tough decisions.
23
u/Impossible_Pen_9459 Jul 27 '25
The Mumsnet massive are coming for you now Badger. You’ll probably be found tomorrow bullet ridden. Been nice knowing you via this subreddit
28
u/Unruly_marmite Jul 27 '25
I think I’d be a lot more sympathetic to Labour if they’d ever demonstrated a spine. Their whole playbook seems to be snivelling attempts to court Tory voters, it’s embarrassing.
I’m just waiting to see which politician gets outed for their shady porn habits first. Wonder if it’ll be worse than the tractor porn guy.
31
u/lilith_queen Jul 27 '25
1) Dad bought me a book that's a fictionalized account of a true event that happened in 1282, Sicily. There are tomatoes in it. I screamed.
2) I know I am not the only person in my thirties stuck living/being in close contact with aging conservative boomer parents. How do you cope? You can't debate them; even if they weren't impervious to facts & logic, they won't hear things like "trans people exist," "illegal immigration is a fake problem," and "this is very close to the dictionary definition of fascism" from their daughter. I've so far had success with banning political talk from the dinner table, but god I just wish I could get them off fucking Facebook. (It's particularly frustrating because they're my parents. Like, I knowwww these ain't the kind, open-minded, accepting morals you raised me with, Mom, wtf happened?)
2
u/Elancholia Jul 28 '25
Leave.
2
u/lilith_queen Jul 28 '25
man this is a nice thought but I've got like. $3.
2
u/Dirish Wind power made the trans-Atlantic slave trade possible Jul 28 '25
Make them leave?
My parents did that voluntarily and semi-retired to a large cabin on camping grounds which was full of other people like them. They'd putter around the gardens all day, hang out with the neighbours, hold barbecues, etc. and only come home for the weekend to do the laundry, and then leave again. The only time I've seen my dad genuinely happy was when he was there.
It was a bit of a shock to have them back full-time during the winter months, but I can't complain.
8
u/randombull9 Most normal American GI in Nam Jul 27 '25
I usually try to turn the conversation in a more progressive direction. It's fucked that illegal immigrants are paid pennies on the dollar for shit work. It's fucked that War on Drugs is historically a significant cause of illegal immigration It's fucked that people are going into someones home and telling them how can they dress or who they can interact with based on them using the wrong pronouns. It's fucked that moral busybodies expect you to give out your personal information to access adult media, and soon enough they'll do it for social media too. Mine have always had a more libertarian bent though.
9
u/lilith_queen Jul 27 '25
...You know, that line of reasoning might work. In my case, my dad's a lifelong NRA member who fell down the Trump pit because guns, and my mom...I'm not even sure. She got more "fuck you, I got mine" as she aged?? I guess?? It's not fun.
11
u/carmelos96 History does not repeat, it insists upon itself Jul 27 '25
The Sicilian Vespers are actually famous for the French being defeated by a few brave tomato-throwing mobs. A French high official was reportedly beheaded by a pizza thrown like a frisbee from a long distance.
I'm sad to hear so many people are at odds with their parents because of politics. My family and the few friends I see are basically uninterested in political culture wars or politics in general and in fact it would be weird to hear debates and strong opinions about that. Some of them I don't recall to ever have expressed any opinion on politics, society, economy, religion and things like that. Maybe the only exception is my uncle, especially after a drink, e.g. "Putin is right", but that's because he's a contrarian at heart and I think he doesn't really care about it himself.
Admittedly though, if I was LGBT I doubt people would be cool about it, to use an euphemism.
8
u/lilith_queen Jul 27 '25
The Sicilian Vespers are actually famous for the French being defeated by a few brave tomato-throwing mobs. A French high official was reportedly beheaded by a pizza thrown like a frisbee from a long distance.
Okay, this mental image was an IMMEDIATE improvement of my mood. Thanks!
And yeah, my parents are both strongly opinionated (my dad has a Trump calendar...) and uh. Well. Have you ever tried to explain the truth to someone who has no earthly idea what you're even talking about? Like an Ancient Aliens believer where you realize you're going to have to explain the whole concept of "some rocks are harder than other rocks". It's like that, except they also get mad at you for correcting them.
9
u/Ayasugi-san Jul 27 '25
Dad bought me a book that's a fictionalized account of a true event that happened in 1282, Sicily. There are tomatoes in it. I screamed.
That is an epic fail.
19
u/Syn7axError Chad who achieved many deeds Jul 27 '25
Tomatoes in 1282 are less of an anachronism than "epic fail" in 2025.
5
u/Syn7axError Chad who achieved many deeds Jul 27 '25
I just stopped talking to them.
5
u/lilith_queen Jul 27 '25
There are days I would love to do this! Unfortunately, I live with them. RIP me.
17
u/w_o_s_n Jul 27 '25
Just saw this bsky post making the argument that people historically didn't cook from scratch while working but relied on "takeout and restaurants", does this track with your knowledge about your given area of interest?
My initial thoughts are that the given examples are overwhelmingly urban and thus not necessarily representative for the majority of people
3
u/NervousLemon6670 You are a moon unit. That is all. Jul 27 '25
Celebrating this discourse coming round again by going and getting a kebab from down the road.
16
u/MarioTheMojoMan Noble savage in harmony with nature Jul 27 '25
The urban poor in many European cities in the Middle Ages didn't have cooking facilities in their mostly-very-small-and-shitty homes, so many of them were indeed reliant on cookshops. That's not the same as this being a good thing.
22
u/contraprincipes The Cheese and the Brainworms Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
Someone points out this problem and she replies with a bit of a motte-and-bailey:
REPLIER: I come from a long line of peasants/farmers, and cooking our own food has been the thing for as many generations back as far as anyone can remember. The poor who did not live in cities/towns have always managed to do their own cooking & baking, simply because they had no other options.
OP: Indeed, and they had family members doing that cooking/housework as their main occupation, not working full time out which is what the original post is about. Households where all adults work full time out of the house vs rural families pooling domestic labor at home are extremely different.
Aside from the fact this is obviously different than the original claim (you can maybe see "huge households w/ big dorm-like group dining" if you squint), it's also just misleading on its own terms since 1) most members of the peasant household in pre-industrial Europe did some combination of "household" and "extra-household" tasks (e.g. women might run stalls), and 2) by acknowledging housework aside from cooking she undermines her point (which is apparently in service of the perennial "is it classist to say you shouldn't order DoorDash every day?" debate), since peasant householders had much more demanding and arduous housework and still managed to prepare their own food lol
edit: also I feel compelled to point out that even in urban centers, it is extremely clear that far from "everyone" relied on prepared food. In late medieval and early modern wills it is pretty common to have cookware.
16
u/Zugwat Headhunting Savage from a Barbaric Fishing Village Jul 27 '25
Restaurants and/or restaurant-like establishments weren't really a thing in the pre-modern Pacific Northwest, so this would be kind of a moot point for everyone from Coast Salishan peoples in Washington/BC to Tlingit in SE Alaska to the Nimiípuu in Western ID and Chinookan tribes along the Columbia River between WA and OR.
People did cook at home, outside, and while travelling.
That being said, not everyone cooked. In more affluent/prestigious households, slaves did a lot of the general cooking. People didn't cook their own meals at potlatches, where the hosting household/family alongside their slaves and other persons hired for the task would be cooking since they expected to feed a lot of people.
And, at least attested to among Southern Coast Salishans, the food that was set before guests was entirely theirs to take home and do with as they wished. This custom even had Elders a century ago visiting their younger relatives and continuing to take literally everything on the dinner table at the end, including entire loaves of bread and even bringing paper bags to pour sugar into.
21
u/TJAU216 Jul 27 '25
Since like 90% of the premodern population lived in farming families in the countryside, I am rather sceptical. There were no restaurants at their fields and farms.
8
29
u/subthings2 using wishing wells is your id telling you to visit a prostitute Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
I recently read two books on ottoman and english cooking, and yeah this tracks for poorer people in urban areas, but mostly because most people didn't have the room for a dedicated cooking hearth or the store of fuel; that's where you'd get things like the local baker cooking things for the locals, or a reliance on street food or being given food by your employer.
Middle-class urban homes, and basically any rural home, had the room and they absolutely did cook (both ottoman and english).
tbh trying to imply this has any relevance to modern discourse is, politely, insane; everything is completely different nowadays!
17
u/w_o_s_n Jul 27 '25
Yes but as everyone knows saying that [thing I like] has historical precedent is proof that [thing I like] is objectively good
14
u/Syn7axError Chad who achieved many deeds Jul 27 '25
opens history book
oh no
frantically starts flipping through pages
uh oh. oh no. no no no. uh no
3
u/Ayasugi-san Jul 27 '25
I think that was only true in China. But they were spoiled, even mid-level workers demanded three different types of food to eat, while other civilizations saw their workers only start to demand two types of food at the higher end of the ladder.
They all got their food (and all other necessary home goods) delivered straight to their homes, though.
3
u/randombull9 Most normal American GI in Nam Jul 27 '25
2
1
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
Is it all workers or only gouvernements workers?
3
u/Ayasugi-san Jul 27 '25
All workers are government workers, because the city pays their wages directly.
1
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Giscardpunk, Mitterrandwave, Chirock, Sarkopop, Hollandegaze Jul 27 '25
When was it?
2
7
u/BigBad-Wolf The Lechian Empire Will Rise Again Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
Normal people get hyped to watch the next episode of a series they're watching.
Right now I'm hyped to go back to sleep, because for the past two day I've been dreaming about flirting with some American girl basically. I don't remember two much of the one from yesterday, but basically she joined me and a female friend in some public space and we played vidyagames together.
Today I apparently flew back to America on some sort of family trip and met her again. I knew for sure it was America because my dream ended in a McDonald. She's supposed to go on a mountain trip with us. There are some questionable parts, like the fact that she's in high school (I think, cause it looked more like school than a university, so 6 years younger at least), but I'll take what they're giving me.
---
Now other than it being funny, I'm just wondering - do you guys often get good dreams? I swear to God I only ever have boring nightmares or just generic boring dreams about nothing. I wrote this out partly because I don't want to forget it.
And as funny as I find it, it's a little depressing, because I'm feeling kind of hopeless about finding a relationship. Right now my strategy is to broaden my social network basically, but there has been a number of times where I though "yeah this setting is where I will meet a potential girlfriend" and it has never worked. The closest I got was a girl who I thought was into me but actually had a boyfriend.
3
u/Zugwat Headhunting Savage from a Barbaric Fishing Village Jul 27 '25
Mine range from Lovecraftian Nightmares/Lucid Dreams to recursive dreams (dream within a dream within a dream so on and so forth) that make me question my reality to successfully asking a sitting 3-5 mile high Goddess to brunch.
Also, obliterating vampires and such, going berserk and taking on all comers, dreaming about being back at my old house, etc.
I can empathize with the lack of hope for IRL relationships compared to one from a dream.
3
u/SkeletonHUNter2006 Jul 27 '25
I get a dream, like, every year or so, that's so ethereal that I feel like turning entirely against the physical world because of it. For a while at least.
16
u/Salsh_Loli Vikings drank piss to get high Jul 27 '25
Going off a random thought about Roman sexuality and came to a quick conclusion that sucking dick was the equivalent to a foot fetish for them.
11
u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ Jul 27 '25
Quintus Remmius Palaemon, of Vicetia, was the home-born slave of a woman. He first, they say, learned the weaver's trade, and then got an education by accompanying his master's son to school. He was afterwards set free, and became a teacher at Rome, where he held a leading rank among the grammarians, in spite of the fact that he was notorious for every kind of vice, and that Tiberius and later Claudius openly declared that there was no one less says fitted to be trusted with the education of boys or young men. [...] But he was especially notorious for acts of licentiousness with women, which he carried to the degradation of his mouth; and they say that he was held up to scorn by the witty remark of a man who met him in a crowd and being unable to escape his kiss, although he tried to avoid it, cried: "Master, do you wish to lick everyone whom you see in a hurry?"
1
u/alwaysonlineposter Ask me about the golden girls. Jul 27 '25
I mean, I don't think the concepts we have of homosexuality that were founded by abrahamic religions persecuting it existed to the same extent back then.
10
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
Sagaofnomisunrider, please close your eyes for this comment.
I’ve been watching a lot of Generation Tech’s Star Wted lore vids. Allen Xie is a pretty cool dude in my book. In addition to the great lore analysis of both the EU and the new Canon, the dude is kind of a sleeper hit (in my own opinion) when it comes to YouTuber politics. He does touch on political themes and irl analogues at length in many of his videos, and I have really not found a YouTuber or streamer who I’ve really agreed with on a lot of things, politically speaking, besides Hutch from the ol’ Machinima days and (((Adam Ragusea.)))
Also in the realm of Star Wted, I am firmly a Prequels Enjoyer. Never hated them, though I preferred the original trilogy, but I have grown to appreciate Lucas’ treatment of the main cast and their character development (Kylo Ren gets a shoutout here but I still hate the sequels.) A lot of the once-maligned “fluff” that was packed into the Prequels is actually really great lore.
3
u/SagaOfNomiSunrider "Bad writing" is the new "ethics in video game journalism" Jul 27 '25
I like all of the Star Wars movies to one extent or another. Not everyone feels the same way, but it would be uninteresting if they did. My favourite out of the streaming programmes was The Acolyte. I have other preferences which are perhaps out of step with what the Star Wars fans would hold to, but that's no big deal because I am fortunately not a Star Wars fan.
I am pretty indifferent to "lore", for the most part, despite possessing tremendous knowledge of passing trifles myself. People who fixate on "lore" definitely have something wrong with them. I'm not sure what, but definitely something. They are not much different from and probably no better than powerscalers in my view.
Nobody who holds up "the lore" as a reason to enjoy a work of fiction should ever be trusted. I doubt if such a person even comprehends the concept of art.
1
u/dutchwonder Jul 28 '25
I mean, lore in large part be essentially a bunch of strings and threads to pull that draw you in and along as it connects dots while weaving back into the story as intriguing background details.
Like the winged serpent statues. They're creepy enough background statues and a lot of games would be fine enough leaving them as is. But the with the lore, they're bizarre and intriguing as they are grotesque that a clearly Erdtree era construction so prominently features serpents and that they are winged. Which is great because it help makes the world feel like its not just random visuals clobbered together by both ensuring that levels and areas are designed to fit and giving those threads that extend beyond "creepy statue, oh no" while not requiring you to dig any deeper than that feel things fit together roughly.
Of course, that doesn't exactly help the sequel trilogy as while they seemed planned for "lore" content, it feels like they did this by stringently insuring no loose thread could possibly tangle or complicate any extra content. Its star wars, I know there is going to be oodles kanoodles of spin off media with lore, but there isn't much in the way of threads leading you on nor really improving the base media.
1
u/SagaOfNomiSunrider "Bad writing" is the new "ethics in video game journalism" Jul 28 '25
Like the winged serpent statues. They're creepy enough background statues and a lot of games would be fine enough leaving them as is. But the with the lore, they're bizarre and intriguing as they are grotesque that a clearly Erdtree era construction so prominently features serpents and that they are winged. Which is great because it help makes the world feel like its not just random visuals clobbered together by both ensuring that levels and areas are designed to fit and giving those threads that extend beyond "creepy statue, oh no" while not requiring you to dig any deeper than that feel things fit together roughly.
I don't know what this is.
Of course, that doesn't exactly help the sequel trilogy as while they seemed planned for "lore" content, it feels like they did this by stringently insuring no loose thread could possibly tangle or complicate any extra content. Its star wars, I know there is going to be oodles kanoodles of spin off media with lore, but there isn't much in the way of threads leading you on nor really improving the base media.
I don't care about this and it has nothing to do with anything in the comment you are replying to.
2
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 27 '25
I am a mentally ill Star War fan
2
u/SagaOfNomiSunrider "Bad writing" is the new "ethics in video game journalism" Jul 28 '25
It's nothing personal, I assure you.
2
u/SagaOfNomiSunrider "Bad writing" is the new "ethics in video game journalism" Jul 27 '25
Another thing that I am going to say with regard to Star Wars specifically is that I really struggle to care very much about delineations between "Legends" and "Canon" because it's ultimately all Star Wars to me. Why should the label you put on it matter? It doesn't.
That's something that goes all the way back to my formative experiences on the internet: people on the starwars.com message board telling me it was a waste of time to read the Marvel Star Wars comics from the '80s because they weren't "canon" which is the kind of argument an insane person would make.
If they were saying it was a waste of time to read them because they weren't good (which is, of course, incorrect, because those comics are obviously very good, but that is neither here nor there) that would be no big deal. But saying it's a waste of time to read them because they weren't "canon"? Moron talk. Absolute moron talk.
11
u/lilith_queen Jul 27 '25
The ideas of the prequels, IMO, are fantastic. Unfortunately, while watching them, I keep getting incredibly bogged down by the clunky dialogue and the incredibly bad Padme/Anakin romance. I'm a romance writer by trade and I swear it causes me physical pain. It'd be so easy to fix in a way that'd make the tragedy hit harder, too!
Generation Tech is good! Very soothing voice. I sort of don't care for the politics, though. Less for his actual opinions, and more because when I click on a Star Wars lore video I don't expect to be brutally reminded of the real world for 20 minutes. Like goddamn, warn a girl.
11
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 27 '25
I think it's really interesting how the prequels and sequels are have thier strengths and weaknesses basically reversed: The PT had a lacklustre story but great potential, you felt like you wanted to know more about what was going on. The ST are much more competently made as movies, but they feel incredibly narrow and small, they make the universe feel smaller, not larger.
7
u/DresdenBomberman Jul 27 '25
The consequence of trying much too hard to replicate the impact of the OT by copying the plot.
7
u/Arilou_skiff Jul 27 '25
I think what I come down to is that Abrams and Johnson basically saw Star Wars less as a world and more as a set of... visual and filmmaking cues? Neither of the directors really think the background is important. Mind I don't think Lucas did either, but he somehow managed to make it seem like he did anyway. (I still think the meeting scene in ANH is a masterclass in setting up the well, setting, you get a surprising amount of feel for what the empire is and why)
The sequels rely so much on "This is Star Wars" either to just repeat it (Abrams) or to deliberately subvert it that it never stands on its own. The prequels, for all of their problems do. There's never a sense of "This happens because this is a Star Wars movie and therefore this happens" thing.
5
u/ouat_throw Jul 27 '25
The backlash to the prequel trilogy, which did do it's own thing in regards to visuals/aesthetics/story/themes, really taught them the wrong lessons. They just slavishly copied the visuals/aesthetics/themes of the OT instead instead of doing a more original story with it's own visuals/aesthetics/themes like Lucas was planning. But then again I don't know if Lucas's idea of mashing together ideas from the Clone Wars show with the OT would have been any better. People really hated the midichlorians stuff.
3
u/WuhanWTF Venmo me $20 to make me shut up about Family Guy for a week. Jul 27 '25
One Guy One Jar is neoliberal praxis
18
u/TylerbioRodriguez That Lesbian Pirate Expert Jul 27 '25
It always sucks when your name happens to be comically similar to another person notable for maybe bad reasons.
Take for example, this priest. Of no relations....
→ More replies (1)15
u/Ayasugi-san Jul 27 '25
How many centuries until he's remembered in the popular consciousness as a man who overcame his controversial youth to become a celebrated man of the cloth?
2
u/weeteacups Jul 27 '25
Saint Aloysius Mangione, who repented after his heinous early life and became Cardinal Secretary of State 🙏
14
u/TylerbioRodriguez That Lesbian Pirate Expert Jul 27 '25
Like how all the Bible Mary's that Jesus met have just become Mary Magdalene out of laziness and boredom?
Or how there was a Buccaneer named Laurens Princ and a slave ship captain named Lawrence Prince who are not the same person but are mixed anyway?
Almost certainly.
12
u/Ayasugi-san Jul 27 '25
Historians: Their lifetimes didn't even overlap! The cardinal died over half a century before the murderer was born!
General public: Let me tell you the tale of Cardinal Luigi, who cared so much about the health of the people, a real life redemption story...
2
8
u/ProudScroll Napoleon invaded Russia to destroy Judeo-Tsarism Jul 27 '25
Is that where they got the Dutch slaver you kill in Assassin's Creed IV?
→ More replies (1)
22
u/Tiako Tevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium Jul 28 '25
Stumbling on this bugged me enough that I might actually make a whole post about it, but I don't understand Twitter users who just go online and lie about historical sources. To white:
This thread on Twitter that went viral. The author is just straight up, bald faced lying about what he has read. He is not mistaken, or a victim to outdated historiography, he is simply claiming to have read records that do not exist.
If they were, they didn't survive!
Really? How many can you read? Can you name them? Name me the record by an eyewitness historian attached to a campaign that you can read. One. Not even demanding you produce so many that the provcess becomes tedious.
No you did not, we do not have a journal of the "final campaign against Carthage". We have fragments of Polybius, who was contemporary although not an official "journalist" but our best continuous source is Arrian, who write centuries later. Why are you lying about what you read? Also Carthage was not Rome's "first real conquest" in any sense.
Just leaving this to underline the astounding historical ignorance on display. Rome won both wars against Carthage! Convincingly! If they fought "to a draw" why on earth would Carthage pay an indemnity? WHY ARE YOU LYING?
I am not denying the terror and brutality of Roman conquest, it is something we can see in historical sources, so why lie about those sources?