Cripple. History Major. Irritable and in constant pain. Vaguely Left-Wing.

  • 1.12K Posts
  • 3.32K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 21st, 2023
  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldtoNews@lemmy.world•Democrats reintroduce Equality Act as Trump escalates war on LGBTQ+ communityEnglish
    33·
    3 hours ago

    no you dumb fuck: this is a physical act that carries a symbolic significance.

    “My useless symbolic action will make the masses Rise Up™, while THEIR useless symbolic action won’t!”

    👏

    just fuck off and say you’re a coward and violence isn’t the answer blah blah liberal nonsense fuck you.

    Sorry that I find the idea that Congressmembers brawling will help our situation at all risible.

    You want to use violence as the answer to this question, get real about it, not asking clerks and octogenarians to get into slapfights in the halls of Congress on your behalf in the strange hope that it’ll cause a mass uprising wherein you won’t have to lift a finger.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.world•13th century vs 21st centuryEnglish
    3·
    2 days ago

    This is a bit dramatized especially with “fucking children”. I’d like to see sources to back up such emotional claims, especially the chest-thumping parts eg. “Not own their children”. Families lived together and children weren’t treated like chattel. You exaggerated here.

    “They weren’t chattel slaves, their children were just bound to lord and land in perpetuity”

    Cool cool cool

    “Nearly half of your working days” is an overstatement and labor obligations were typically 2–3 days a week plus extra during harvest (boon days).

    Sunday off, at least pro forma.

    Would you like to remind me what percentage 3 is of 6.

    Enclosing timing and large-scale commons stripping were much more severe in the 15th–16th centuries than the 14th. While some pressures started in the late 13th, it wasn’t yet widespread.

    “It was more severe later” doesn’t at all modify the point.

    I can see why you had to be pressured to write a complete response.

    I can see why you didn’t address the vast majority of my points, and why the points you did address, you did so without strong arguments.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.world•13th century vs 21st centuryEnglish
    111·
    2 days ago

    Many would own neither their land nor their hovel. The lucky ones would own themselves, at least; the unlucky ones would not only not own themselves nor their hovel, but also not own their own fucking children - nearly half of England’s population was unfree. Of the free half, a majority of them would not have owned any land in any real sense. They lived on their lord’s sufferance.

    Their access to the commons was dependent on the goodwill of their local lord, and, indeed, as the 14th century comes into play, that access is stripped as soon as it becomes more profitable for the local lord to sell the rights off.

    10% of their harvest would go to the Church alone - not optional. Much more would go to their local lord simply for the privilege of existing - around 25% if you were free, closer to 50% if you were unfree. And that’s not getting into various other taxes, such as for anything sold, or to get permission to marry. And if you were unfree, you’d owe nearly half of your working days to your lord’s needs - without any recompense, in money or produce. On top of that, many taxes levied were irregular - ie whenever your lord thought he could get away with it.

Moderates