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.

Don’t believe I’ve, personally, received those either.

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.

I mean, I agree, but beef consumption in the US has dropped in the past 20 years. And you can find similar price stories for all meal prices, regardless of ingredients.

Uh, I’ve never recieved gore or child porn on here at all

Relentlessly attacking the prostate is left praxis

Not even close.

… that statement made me weak, and hopefully chosen 🥺

I hope Zelenskyy manages to play the Moronic Fascist Orange like a fiddle.

For the record, I’ve never received gore, child porn, or, for that matter, PMs at all from Drag.

Normal friends? What are those?

“The present situation is the most favorable from the point of view of upsetting the Communist dictatorship since the death of Stalin.”

What could this possibly mean? /s

No no, I was told that this is all business as usual and nothing could ever get worse in America because all capitalist administrations are the same.

Misinformation feels good and makes you feel like you have special, hidden knowledge. Professional advice is boring and mundane.

Daggerfall when

Explanation: Sir Alec Guinness played Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: Episode IV. He also played the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in The Fall of the Roman Empire, a 1964 film.

It’s a bit mid, honestly, but has a rare depiction of the Germanic/Roman barritus warcry in a funeral scene.

If the admins are at some point distracted, or otherwise are unexpectedly removed from their ability to moderate for a time, and comms have no reliable moderators, then everything will be… well, unmoderated. Having active users as moderators, even if they currently don’t do much moderating compared to the admins, makes the moderation system as a whole more likely to survive any unforeseen events.

With Lockheed you are forced to choose between being complacent with it because they supply Ukraine’s defense against occupation by an imperialist power or outright oppose it due to its supplying towards the Palestinian genocide. The genocide is a dealbreaker in any capacity for me.

But then, is that not just enabling one genocide in exchange for another? Palestinian genocide is a dealbreaker, but Ukrainian genocide is an acceptable price to pay? (I’m not actually accusing you of accepting Ukrainian genocide for not supporting Lockheed-Martin - honestly, fuck Lockheed-Martin as a company - just highlighting that the argument necessitates accepting utilitarian consequences that run contrary to the anti-genocidal goal of the principled stand)

My point, though, is more that Lockheed-Martin is more than a no-brainer. There is consideration to be had. These firms are amoral, but that means that they are capable of enabling good as well as enabling evil.

If your choice is designing tractors, which will be sold to farmers recovering from a genocidal civil war in Sudan as well as genocidal colonists in Israel to consolidate their land gains and draw a profit with which to imperialize more, or designing warplanes, which will be sold to those resisting genocide in Ukraine as well as those perpetuating genocide in Israel, which is the moral choice? I don’t think it’s a no-brainer to say that the weaponry is the more immoral of the two. I’d say that the core immorality is selling to the genocidaires at all - which would not be specific to either industry.

And the core of the objection is against the idea in the meme that people who work at these firms as engineers are in some way more immoral than the rest of us working for soulless genocide-enabling corporations that provide the tools and funding for genocide.

Even ignoring the genocide, the bad outweighs the good to me by a longshot. I oppose it just like how I oppose McDonald’s, Amazon, Starbucks, and more.

I mean, I wouldn’t argue with that. But I also wouldn’t put much moral weight on whether someone chose to work at one of those places in anything but a pretty high executive capacity.

Not so sure about the deterrence argument. My point is just that defense industry firms are not particularly core to the problem of people murdering each other, and certainly not the workers therein, any more than farmers are guilty of feeding murderers if their client sells to a genocidal state.

They are produced for imperialist powers to defend the interests of exploitors, oppressors, and war mongers.

And also to oppose the interests of exploiters, oppressors, and warmongers.

From causes as good as anarchists in Rojava to as evil as fascists in Israel.