On the Incels.is forums an angry and somewhat grammatically challenged commenter tries to explain why misogyny is a-ok and women don’t need rights.
“Misogyny is absolutely normal and healthy,” Persecuted begins.
Often misrepresented or reduced to irrational hatred. Misogyny is only rational answer that man can have to degenerate and idiotic behviour of cumdumpsters.
Well that’s quite a start.
It’s realisation that only metric of foids value is how usefull they are to men and since holes are worst at almost everything than men, thier rights should be taken away and thier roles reduced to mothers and housewifes.
I’m pretty sure society already tried this. Let’s just say it didn’t work.
In fact, most of the positive qualities associated with femininity are result of strict patriarchal supervision. It’s men who created an image of a woman that prelevant in culture.
“Prelevant.”
Foids by nature are devoid of those positves qualities and as such strict control of female behaviour is a key to stable society, since foids themselves don’t posses any ability to control themselves.
Those self-uncontrollable bitches!
Moreover, since foids already leech most of society resource and contribute to society less than men, that means that thier role isn’t crucial in society, so getting rid of thier rights would only benefit society.
Time for the world’s largest [CITATION NEEDED]. Make it retroactive for all the other bullshit he’s peddling here.
By making foids a property of a father and then husband, we shift burden from of financially providing for a whore from society to a father and then husband.
You know, dude, that most women pay their own bills, right? It’s not like they get a monthly whore allowance deposited in their bank account.
If you disagree, you’re a cuck and waste of space.
Ah, yes, calling someone a “cuck,” the most powerful logical argument of all.
In a followup comment, Persecuted suggests that women needed to be forced into motherhood at a young age.
If given a choice, foids themselves have no want of being mothers, especially with below-to-averege males. Mothership is obviously patriarchal concept, as even feminist note. The liberated foid only became mother and wife after a years of taking Chads’ sperm and settles in her 30s, way after her ovaries past prime. In past, foids were forced by society to give birth at young, prime age, most suited for child birth.
Also this system is created to profit of[f] degeneracy, in which foids take lead, and financial dependency of average citizen
A lot of terrible ideas knocking around inside this guy’s mostly empty head.
Naturally, Persecuted’s miniature manifesto has received an overwhelmingly positive response among his Incels.is colleagues — except for one dude with only a handful of comments to his name who suggests that the manifesto-writer move to Afghanistan, rousing the ire of others in the discussion.
Most are enthusiastic about Persecuted’s blatherings.
“Yes,” writes RetardedChinlet.
I think even a happy, well-adjusted sexhaver man ought to have a healthy dose of misogyny. It’s what women deserve and even want deep down. This fantasy of gender equality is sheer fucking insanity.
“Foids are less than men,” adds uo89997, a little more concisely.
I’m pretty sure that no one who uses the term “foid” is contributing much positive to civilization. But we all deserve the same rights nonetheless.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
@Lizzie
Let’s be fair: The Former Guy did not actually tell his followers to drink bleach.
He told them to INJECT bleach. Much safer and more medically sound.
Ever notice how the people who rant the most against psychiatric medications are the ones who appear (to the layman’s eye) to be the ones who need them the most?
Many and various people I know (one in my mirror) who take the meds are incredibly grateful they exist.
I once got an online lecture from some “all-natural holistic woo-woo energy” type about the fact that I give my cat a small dose of Prozac every day.
Never mind that it keeps him from howling in frustration, allows him his Bast-allotted 20 hours of sleep a day, and he went from having extensive medical treatment 2-3 times a year (often at the ER vet $$$ once at the specialist vet $$$$) from his stress response to once in the past 4 years. We are ALL much happier.
(This comment is not about cats.)
@Lizzie: I wonder how many of Musk’s scientistic fans will balk at the open anti-science agenda.
@Allandrel: That’s of course assuming that Previous Guy comprehends the difference between “inject” and “ingest” and didn’t just mouth flub.
Big Titty Demon
… European colonialism
It was ships and forged steel, wasn’t it, until it got to rifles?
And don’t overlook the cultural differences among European societies that allowed England to have the biggest, baddest naval fleet in the world. Yes, yes, we all know about citrus fruit and scurvy. Less well known is the fact that the English navy (and I presume their civilian ships followed suit) buried their dead at sea. The French navy, OTOH, might take weeks or months after a naval engagement to get back to port and take the dozens of corpses rotting in the holds to get their Christian burials. The rate of illness and death on French ships was, unsurprisingly, much higher than the Brits. (Which, as night follows day, meant that the brits naval workforce maintained a higher proportion of experienced and skilled sailors and marines than their competitors.)
As for the bozo above. He seems to overlook a lot of routine folk wisdom. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar would be a good starting point.
From the previous page:
Here, the idea that only European scientific/technological/societal advancement matters seems to be a starting assumption rather than a conclusion. The common perception is that Europeans started their technological revolution from late medieval era onward quite independently of what was happening elsewhere. Thus, people who also buy the overstated narrative about the Dark Ages might easily assume this revolution could’ve happened many centuries earlier, as a natural continuation of the Graeco-Roman advancement.
Other people in this thread have already poked holes in the Dark Ages narrative. I gather there was a kind of stagnation of development between around 400 and 1000 AD in the Roman/Mediterranean Europe (rather than “Europe” as a whole) but no any real setback. During this stagnation, the more northern parts of Europe just started catching up with Mediterranean Europe in the general development. Overall, Old World civilizations kept chugging forward at their usual slow pace. There must have been random regional periods of stagnation and periods of more rapid development.
As Surplus noted, the development of Old World civilizations has been driven by two main innovation centres. The eastern one has always been in China, while the western one has gradually shifted from Middle East to Mediterranean to western Europe. IIRC, Jared Diamond has suggested that ecological fragility of the Middle Eastern – Mediterranean region resulted in degradation of agroecosystems and less productive farming over millennia, hampering the development of societies the in the long term and allowing Europe to eventually advance past Middle East (and past China, as it happened).
The proponents of the Dark Ages narrative tend to ignore that there was a good deal of development in Christian Europe between 400 and 1400, and particularly between 1000 and 1400. Some of this development was homegrown (mainly after 1000), while some was dependent on innovations imported from Islamic world and even China. Even after 1400, Europeans did adopt some useful ideas from other civilizations. For example, the gradual development of early firearms was pretty much a competitive-collaborative effort between Chinese, Middle Eastern and European military tech industries.
Overall, I think Europe in 1400 AD was in much better position to continue rapid development than Europe in 400 AD. For one thing, there had been a massive growth in Europe’s own agriculture and population, providing more basis for trade and urbanization. For another, Europe was also now able to benefit from whatever additional development had occurred in other Old World regions, as well as in Europe itself, over the past thousand years. The eventual ascendance of Europe into world domination was perhaps kind of inevitable given geographical circumstances, but the progress wasn’t going to be steady or independent from the rest of the Old World.
@ oncewasmagnificent
An exception was of course made in the case of Admiral Nelson’s body. That was placed in a barrel of rum or brandy (the Navy report just said ‘refined spirits’).
To this day Royal Navy sailors call Pusser’s rum ‘Admiral’s Blood’.
There is the legend, which is probably true, that sailors surreptitiously drained off some of the spirits for sneaky drinks.
Stealing from barrels was common practice generally; but after the Nelson incident a new phrase enter the sailors’ lexicon.
I know I am late to the Dark Ages argument, but I would point out that one of the reasons for the seeming delay in mathematics and science is that the Greeks and Romans got up to the point where maths become very hard. There were a lot of other things that needed to happen before calculus could be invented, and many engineering challenges that needed to happen before lenses and mirrors could be invented for telescopes and microscopes. And without those things, science had advanced as far as it could. Ibn Sina could tell the difference between 8 different types of skin diseases, which we now know are all caused by different viruses. But if you can’t actually see anything internally, how are you going to come up with any kind of explanation for illness. Without calculus, engineering and physics can’t be better than trial and error. That’s what was going on.
There were a lot of steps needed for those things to be invented. Some happened in Europe. Others in the Middle East. Others in India and China. No one was consciously trying to create math beyond geometry either. It just happened that enough things eventually fell in place that all of Eurasia now had the tools of a decimal number system and a rough idea of functions.
But many engineering things in Europe were actually advancing by the year 1000. Yes, Romans had plate armor, and everyone went back to chain mail for a very long time. But metallurgy did get significantly advanced, so that when people started going back to plate, it was substantially better than anything the Romans or Persians had. (At the time, obviously.)
@Alan Robertshaw:
An exception was of course made in the case of Admiral Nelson’s body. That was placed in a barrel of rum or brandy (the Navy report just said ‘refined spirits’).
To this day Royal Navy sailors call Pusser’s rum ‘Admiral’s Blood’.
There is the legend, which is probably true, that sailors surreptitiously drained off some of the spirits for sneaky drinks.
A case of Tapping the Wizard occurs in 1602, Neil Gaiman’s Elizabethan-Jacobean AU of the Silver Age Marvel Comics Universe; after sneaking a nip from a particular cask of rum, a sailor goes mad—it contained the preserved head of a man executed for witchcraft.
@Lumi: No, there was actually very, very real setback. Even people who downplay the Dark Ages have to point to some very small incremental inventions, many inspired from abroad. One can look at almost any measure of output during the time and see just a colossal decline. In many respects, people in the Dark Ages were living more closely to Paleolithic people than the Roman era.
And one can decry the Dark Ages without assuming that it’s only technological innovation that matters. The Roman collapse also meant a lot of death, philosophical backwardness, loss of development of artistic techniques and independent artistic flourishing, etc. Even the people who try to say that the Dark Ages are only “dark” because we lost records (as if the archaeological evidence doesn’t also support a huge decline after the collapse of Western Rome) are in turn inviting the question, “Gee, sounds like a huge decline in the ability of a civilization to keep up books, huh?”
You mention “between 400 and 1400”. Yeah, that’s because 1400 isn’t the Dark Ages. This is the common trick that people trying to restore the Dark Ages (which, by the way, has a lot of Christian dominionist agenda behind it) do: they just redefine the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages really means the early Middle Ages, basically 400 to 900 or so. It’s true that Europe started to slowly redevelop around that time and things get a lot less bleak in the middle to late medieval period, but that’s not the Dark Ages as anyone refers to it, and even then the distinction in terms of political unity, intellectual culture, etc. are staggering from Rome if we’re being honest.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/medieval-history-why-are-the-middle-ages-often-characterized-as-dark-or-less-civilized.html has a good summary: “The myth of the Middle Ages as a “dark age” does not lie in the fact that things declined markedly after the fall of Rome—they did. It lies in the idea that this situation persisted until the dawning of something called “the Renaissance,” which somehow rescued Western Europe from the clutches of the Catholic Church, revived ancient Greek and Roman learning, reinvented “good” (i.e. realistic) art and made everything OK again”. And even this Slate article gets some things wrong: We know actually know that watermills were in extensive use in Rome (see Barbegal and references by Vitruvius), so their starting to be used in the early medieval period is not a success but the start of a return to form. What seems to me to have happened is that medievalists did a lot of reconstruction of the period without contrasting with new scholarship on Rome.
And the comparison shouldn’t be 400 to 1400 CE. 400 CE is Rome about to collapse. No shit it’s not as set to contribute. But Rome prior to devastating civil wars and financial collapses, had they managed to not fall into fascism? Or even a Europe that, as it collapsed, didn’t lose the ideas of the Romans and kept working on them even as they fought?
And, of course, we all know what European “contributions” after 1400 were…
I just find it totally ludicrous to look at the utterly poor quality of scholarship in the Dark Ages, the total lack of broad scientific curiosity, the willingness to literally put hymns over Archimedes, and not imagine that had things different no one would have discovered anything, no one would have gone abroad to try to work with other collaborators.
@Dave: Okay, but that was a problem in the Renaissance too. There’s absolutely no reason to think the Romans wouldn’t have tried to solve it just like the Europeans. If we imagine a unified Roman empire, or even a Europe that was still more Roman and had kept Roman infrastructure and practices, they would have had the exact same ability to learn from abroad. Muslims wouldn’t have been the only people doing any real science and math outside of China and a few other places for hundreds of years while the Europeans didn’t learn about it.
Fred B-C:
Ok. I gather this wasn’t in response to just me, and indeed probably several other people in this thread are more knowledgeable than me on this topic. If others want to continue the argument, I’ll watch from the sides.
I brought up a roughly thousand-year period because (IIRC) some people have suggested that Europe’s scientific development was delayed by that much. As in, the early medieval decline/stagnation lasted several centuries and then recovery would also take several centuries. Admittedly, I could’ve been more clear that I wasn’t conflating the Dark Ages with the entire medieval period.
Eh, who knows what could’ve happened? With regard to “position”, I was thinking the general level of science and technology in Roman world and nearby regions in early CE (might as well be 200 CE) rather than intellectual conditions.
I’m aware that the collapse of Rome began in early third century, if not earlier. There seems to be a lot of speculation on whether or not the political and economical collapse of Rome was inevitable. It seems even more murky what other factors contributed to the intellectual collapse.
Poor spelling, bad grammar, nearly incoherent sentence structure, no grasp of history, yep, clearly he is the superior …creature.
I really, really need to know how these dudes function on a day to day basis. It seems like they would fall apart every time they even went to the grocery store. All those women, sorry, “foids” just being normal humans must cause some sort of cognitive dissonance.
@Lumi: To be clear, no animus on my part, just disagreeing, though I do think the issue is a little more important than a totally disinterested scholarly discussion because it does relate to Christian apologia. (Essentially, a huge part of the thrust to rehabilitate the medieval period comes from a desire to get rid of the proverbial stink on it because a lot of that stink looks really bad for Christian and European culture, so a lot of Christian apologists and “European culture” apologists try to defend it. There’s also a good impulse to try to make modern people be a little less biased against the past and less misinformed, and good scholarship).
So the “thousand years” rhetoric could be a miscount, agreed, but it could also be a bit of hyperbole based on the idea that what could have been done during that time was quite impressive. But I would still argue that the period from 900 to 1400, while nowhere near as awful, was still pretty unimpressive compared to the height of Rome. Instead of a Pax Romana, there was endless internal struggle as well as Crusades. Instead of Stoics and Aristotelians and Platonists and all sorts of philosophical and scientific movements, there were just a few highly Christianized universities. Even what people list as breakthroughs during the time are overwhelmingly craft innovations for farming and early proto-industrialization. Good stuff to be sure, but not a comprehensive slate of innovation. So, yeah, I think it’s reasonable to argue that we lost about a thousand years of the technical output that Europe previously had the intellectual and physical infrastructure to handle. And we can tell that because the Renaissance really didn’t need much of a change in terms of actual physical conditions (it’s not like they discovered vibranium or something), just a rediscovery of what was already there and some contact with other societies and some changes in institutions that allowed an intellectual culture to reemerge. One just needs to look at the medieval philosophers, their paucity for hundreds of years and their deeply circumscribed priorities of investigation, to see the contrast.
And, yeah, “what caused Rome to fall” is a hugely complicated question, obviously. I don’t know if there’s anything like a scholarly consensus. But I would still definitely argue that something like Rome in 200 CE that was continuing to have the kind of development that one already was seeing in the Dark and then later Middle Ages under worse conditions would have, at the minimum, see them make all of the same developments but propagate and standardize them better.
And definitely we would have been better off had the dominant ideology that took over was one that valued science instead of variously actively denigrating it or simply having stated disinterest. I think that’s the more salient examination: could the Dark Ages have been a lot less dark even given Rome’s collapse, if other conditions had prevailed? I think so.
It’s more questionable if a thousand more years of Rome at its peak would actually have been better, given how violent and expansionist Rome was, but then again the Renaissance and Enlightenment had major civilizing effects within much more violent societies.
I just read “Medieval Europe” by Chris Wickham, which covers the 500-1500 period with an emphasis on economics and includes the early Ottoman Empire and predecessor sultanates/caliphates, plus Muslim Spain. The economy of Western Europe really did shrink quite a bit, leaving less money for sciencey things; the Ottomans kept up the Byzantine financial structures that were in place.
Good info, but not too well organized. Lots of forward and back references; when I’m in Chapter 2 I’m not going to skip ahead to Chapter 7! Maybe not even vice versa. And there’s no way to do that if you’re listening to an audiobook version. Same with popping the width of Europe randomly. It really could have used a much tougher edit.
Late (as usual 🙁 ) to the party, because of work.
Relevant to the Medieval discussion, a blog I’ve linked to before:
https://historyforatheists.com/category/the-great-myths-series/
https://historyforatheists.com/category/middle-ages/
The guy who runs that blog has a history degree, and has studied the period(s) under discussion here. Those links are to a pair of sub-indexes that gather together some posts that discuss things like why their was such a learning lag in the earliest Medieval centuries (amongst other reasons they were pretty busy fighting off waves of ‘barbarian’ attackers, Vandals, and the Black Death), the Archimedes Palimpsest (which was not created using the last known copy of Codex C in the universe because there were still a bunch more copies of it in existence back then), and the so-called thousand year science gap. (I figured the fewer links in a post the less likely it’ll get caught in the moderator filter here,)
As to the idea that Renaissance art (good as it was) was objectively better because it was more realistic than what came before, be aware that not every civilization on the planet had ‘make things look as lifelike as possible’ as an overriding goal for their artists. Some used abstract stylization to make certain points about their subjects (Ancient Egyptian art is a prime example of this), some civilizations didn’t have enough leisure time to spare for their artists to devote time to making things super-realistic, and some just didn’t have the right materials available (Stone Age cave paintings come to mind here).
@ redsilkphoenix
Stone Age cave paintings come to mind here
AsPicasso He’s still a knob though
Having said that, there were some genuine innovations in the Renaissance. Not just in terms of materials; but also in technique; and the way artists tried to play with ideas.
The Mona Lisa suffers a bit from ‘Seinfeld is unfunny’ syndrome. These days it doesn’t seem that special; rather than just being famous. But that’s because it has been so influential. There are some really novel techniques used. And they don’t just work on a technical visual level; they work on perception and emotion in new ways too. Take the famous ‘smile’ just as one example. That relies on a particular optical illusion arising from how our eyes work; and Leonardo seems to be the first person to have sussed that (we see him experimenting with it in his notes).
Similarly, I’m a big believer that Caravaggio used a sort of proto-photography, centuries before Daguerre.
It was also an age of cross fertilisation amongst disciplines. Artemisia Gentileschi was very good friends with Galileo. And you can see that in how she uses parabolas in her work.
So yes, in some respects there’s nothing new under the Sun. I could look at no art produced after around 14,000 BCE and still be very happy with what’s on offer. But also there have been some very new ways of thinking about art developed in the Renaissance.
Of course that is a very Eurocentric way of thinking. There have been plenty of other innovations from all sorts of cultures spread across geography and time.
@Alan Robertshaw:
Perhaps a pinhole in the wall of a dark room, to project an image of the subject onto the canvas to then be traced out? That would work without the need for photo-sensitive chemicals, which were the “hard step” in inventing photography.
@ surplus
Yes. It seems pretty established that artists were using camera obscure (as Vermeer later did) to project an image onto the canvas, and then overpaint that. We can tell from distortions reproduced in the work that are consistent with such a projected image.
Caravaggio may have gone further though. The theory is that the canvas was daubed with various substances, like fulminate of mercury, and that actually burned an image onto the canvas. It wouldn’t have been fixed; and eventually the whole canvas would have reacted to the available light. But it would have given you a few minutes to get the preliminary cartoon done. There are contemporary accounts of Caravaggio burning lines into canvas somehow. And people think that might be a reference to witnesses trying to explain this technique.
Related: You might find this interesting.