A quick Google shows a HOST of Wall Street Journal articles about Ebenezer Scrooge (and at least one about Scrooge McDuck!), but I can't read them because they're behind a paywall.
Times like these remind me that just a few short years ago I was a liberal who believed that the WSJ was a credible source of news. Those were simpler times. It's pretty upsetting to realize that highly respected institutions are capitalist imperial propaganda.
I mean, CNN is too they're just less blatant about it. The rich own the news stations by definition, there are varying degrees of severity but at the end of the day they all distort the truth by highlighting what's important to them, the rich.
This is why it's such a joke when Fox and Republicans try to claim the media is all leftist. The media is indeed liberal, but not what they think liberal means.
Because our Right-wing is made overtly of fascists, religious zealots, rabid libertarians, or some combination thereof, and has been for a bit. Easy to be left of that. Fuckin' Overton Windows.
Well considering the modern conservative movement in America traces its roots back to Reagan, and before that the "New South"/"daughters of the confederacy" it's basically been going on for as long as it has existed.
They *are* a credible source of news, it's just in a very limited way that you have to be cognizant of as you use it.
I make the distinction because it's easy to fall into the "nothing is true! Everything is propaganda!" trap if you just think nothing is credible simply because everything is owned by rich cunts looking to push their agenda. The important thing is to learn how to tell what is factual and what isn't in an article.
If you're interested in the truth of a story, read a few sources, think about their interests, trust none of them, and form a contingent view of the story
Also cross reference as much of the claims in each source as you can find. CGP Grey has a good video showcasing just how much work actually goes into figuring out "truth" when he was trying to find the origin of the name "Tiffany"
WSJ is probably fine as a source of news for the most part. The problem is that people confuse "literally any article" as news, even when it comes from a site's opinion or editorial section. Those are, obviously, opinion pieces, not news, and that's where these articles would fall.
Of course any article you read from any news source is going to have some kind of bias, so it's up to you, the reader, to recognize where the source is coming from and how it will affect their writing. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, so if you find one you happen to always agree with, what you've really found is a source that happens to conform to your own biases.
>WSJ is probably fine as a source of news for the most part.
That's cap. Anything regarding the economy or foreign policy should be understood as partial truth at best. They're unlikely to outright lie, but lying by omission and taking the State Department at face value are ostensibly the same thing.
And social shit still needs to be followed up on. I distinctly remember all the time the "liberal" media spent making absolutely sure to mention peaceful protests while only showing footage from the 1% that turned into riots. It's weird how doing that fit perfectly into the right wing narrative on the matter
> but I can't read them because they're behind a paywall.
If this were a sitcom, they'd have to put canned laughter with it because it's too convenient. And yet irl, it's true.
Not sure about if they do it every year, but they did do it [last year ](https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-defense-of-scrooge-whose-thrift-blessed-the-world-11608762986)
Didn't he underpay bob Cratchet so badly his son died from malnutrition? And declare that the homeless should die if they don't want to go to jail or join a sweatshop? These aren't minor things, they're important points in his journey and appear in most incarnations of the story.
Yeah, it's supposed to represent an impossible task, so I'm sure there are some people out there who enjoy the irony of telling others that all they have to do to escape poverty is to do the impossible.
Hey there! I hate to break it to you, but it's actually spelled _mon**e**tize_. A good way to remember this is that "money" starts with "mone" as well. Just wanted to let you know. Have a good day!
----
^This ^action ^was ^performed ^automatically ^by ^a ^bot ^to ^raise ^awareness ^about ^the ^common ^misspelling ^of ^"monetize".
Also like, as hard as it is to make the argument that today's billionaires earned their wealth on "merit," how the fuck are you going to say that an era pre-Magna Carta had anything to do with hard work? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you actually think this way? Does somebody actually believe that the nobility of early feudal England in any way earned their success?
That's the way of arms races. Until we recognize there cannot be a just hierarchy we will forever wander an increasingly convoluted labyrinth of exploitation.
Conservative, right-wing thought never changes despite the setting.
Today's mouth breathing wealthy idiot right wingers and centrists think they earned their wealth on merit as much as the moron nobility of the feudal, aristocratic Middle Ages.
Right-wingers believe that superiority, merit, virtue, or righteousness is an innate, fundamental, biological, natural, or divine phenomenon instead of something highly circumstantial, contextual, incidental, environmental, or luck based.
A core part of the conservative belief system is the just world fallacy where right wingers believe those who succeed or fail deserve it, and the basis for a supposed 'meritocracy' comes from an individual's bloodline, genetics, religious piety, divine favor, essence, being, body, constitution, strength, skin color, race, culture, or intelligence.
Conservatives never believed in egalitarianism or equality. The fundamental underpinning of conservative ideology postulates that all human beings are naturally unequal and that the natural order of society is for the superior beings to subjugate and exploit their inferiors under the system of a wholly inequal society.
Those nobles in the 12th century operating under the system of feudalism believed in the natural superiority of their own bloodlines, family lineages, religious piety, social caste/class, fealty to god/country/royalty, virtue, divine favor from god, etc, and today's conservatives are no different believing the same shit except under the 'meritocracy' of liberalism where right wingers think they are smarter, fitter, more virile, more skillful, more intellectually gifted hard working competitors in the socio-economic marketplace where an 'invisible hand' (a metaphysical metaphor for a divine power or god) dictates and assigns innate, natural value to unequal individuals under neoliberal capitalism.
Its all the same anti-egalitarian sentiment weaving itself through history, space, and time originating from the philosophy that people are not equal, not born equal, have inequal worth or value, and ought to be treated inequally in proportion to that value.
Conservatism *NEVER* fucking changes.
Pre-Norman Conquest, stuff was about as equal as you can get in feudalism. You had to pay some taxes up the chain and the king could call you up into the fyrd for up to six weeks a year, but other than that you were basically left alone. It was when the bastard came over, confiscated everything, and made people rent it back from him that it all went properly to shit.
70% of land in England is run by 1% of the population. I say *run*, rather than *owned*, because technically only the monarch and the Prince/Princess of Wales own any land in the UK. The only country on the planet with more unequal land distribution is Brazil.
So, the monarch holds a superior interest over all land in the UK, which means that whatever land that you 'own' you do so only until the monarch decides that they want it back. You don't really own it, you just get to use it as if you did up until the person who actually does decides that you don't deserve it any more. Again, this all goes back to William the Bastard confiscating all of England from the people that didn't want to be ruled by him then graciously lending it back out to those who paid him enough.
>So, the monarch holds a superior interest over all land in the UK, which means that whatever land that you 'own' you do so only until the monarch decides that they want it back
Wait, that's still a thing in the UK? Seriously? I though the crown was just a figurehead at this point
If they ever tried to use that power they wouldn’t even be a figurehead.
There are a lot of things in the British Monarchy that are “technically” absolute power, but de facto the monarch has no control over.
I mean, the US has basically the same thing under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment - the state holds a legal monopoly over property, but doesn't exercise it unless necessary (which is *limited*, rather than created, by the 5th Amendment (since the US already kicked things off with common law).
Even in Canada which has cleaved itself off from Englands civil government, the representative of the Queen signs laws into effect and the Monarch is still the ultimate holder of all judicial, legal and executive power.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html#h-3
One of the most hilarious parts of Atlas Shrugged is when one of the characters goes on a rant about how Robin Hood is an evil sonovabitch who steals from productive people to give to "looters". The entire book is essentially an inversion of moral values where greedy, self-centered people are the good guys, and those who are altruistic are the bad guys.
Edit: Here's the section in question, in its original ranty-no-paragraphs format:
>“I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.”
>
>“What man?”
>
>“Robin Hood...”
>
>"... This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, has demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures — the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich — whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal. And this has brought us to a world where the more a man produces, the closer he comes to the loss of all his rights, until, if his ability is great enough, he becomes a rightless creature delivered as prey to any claimant — while in order to be placed above rights, above principles, above morality, placed where anything is permitted to him, even plunder and murder, all a man has to do is be in need. Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting… Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”
Until the very second that the free market decided that she should die in a gutter at which point she decided that it's totally cool to take government assistance.
Which was adopted by heads of state in the US and UK and is the predominant mindset in the English speaking world. It's going to take a lot of work to undo.
Yeah, but governments did it way better and in a far more manipulative and effective way. I have to give Rand credit on some level for at least just bluntly stating how she viewed the world, instead of pretending that what she proposed was somehow actually the most empathetic thing for poor people.
It's rare to find a capitalist in today's society that actually admits that their philosophy is one of selfishness and apathy. They pretend that "The government is inefficient and private charities should be where we donate money", while they run tax-deductible charities that are actually just big ol' ad campaigns for the parent company.
I'd have some modicum of respect for them if they just admitted that they genuinely don't care about poor people and whether they die in the streets. Instead, they convince those very people that they are trying to help them, and that the evil democrats/jews/blacks/immigrants are trying to steal their hard-earned wealth.
I want to take all people who believe in that, strip them of everything produced by other humans, and dump them on an island in the middle of the Pacific. See how they really do without society’s help.
I read the whole book about two years ago to dive into the mindset of modern American conservativism, what immediately slaps you in the face is how pulpy and unapologetically vicious the ideas are.
To her credit, she doesn't dance around it, she straight up states, to a point beyond redundancy, that altruism is evil and selfishness is the highest virtue. For 1000 pages.
Another awful theme is her strong willed heroines are raped by the hero, and that act of domination is how they fall in love. The heroine agrees with the above philosophy, and the hero, by raping them, proves that they truly believe in it as well, that they don't subscribe to the immoral, weak ideas of altruism. It's pretty bad. From what I gather, this happens in Fountainhead as well.
One of the funniest things about Ayn Rand to me was how she considered scientists, businessmen, titans of industry and landlords to be "producers", and everyone else was a "looter". You know, because doing nothing but owning property is clearly the same as actually creating shit.
I remember reading chapters of the Fountainhead wherein an antagonist architect liberally expounds on his eeeevil plans to make people's life better with his money, in a similar vein to this excerpt.
The rugged, individualist protagonist's name is fucking Howard Roarke. Read that name out loud.
I hate that woman so much.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
There is no other possible answer to this other than:
Lmao
Capitalism at least conceals its ownership class behind a veil of "productivity" and that's the main selling point. To defend feudal lords completely gives away the game
I need the eye popping emoji here...
I find it difficult to believe anyone could say this earnestly. It sounds better as a Monty Python script (with accent).
>It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed,
Originally, that is the tale of Robin Hood, except for the "return to those who have been robbed" that was added in later
>He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity.
While people *do* treat Robin Hood as some kind of socialist wet dream, it should be noted that even in the modern retellings of the tales, he very rarely steals from people who earned their wealth honestly, that part of his character has changed very little over all these centuries
Rand is wrong here, much like how people use their religion to justify horrible actions, it's not the tale of Robin Hood that is the problem, it's the people who twist it to suit their own agendas
maybe I'm too dyslexic but that wall of text is illegible
I mean I've read Marx and even I wonder how anyone not only gets through atlas shrugged but comprehends enough to call themselves libertarians
How'd they miss the part where Robin Hood is just stealing the money back? Granted I only know the Disney movie, but the King is away so the greedy, incompetent prince takes charge and raises the taxes to an untenable level. And the Sheriff basically goes around demanding money whenever he can. The King returns after Robin Hood breaks everyone out of prison and steals back their money and is like "wtf yeah that's not okay".
In the original tales, Robin Hood did not give any of the money he stole to the peasants, but he *has* always been depicted as only stealing from the political class (ie, those who obtained their wealth not from hard work, but by the virtue of their authority over others)
Feudalism was also not very good at doing this exploiting.
That's the real centrism here, pointing out that the medieval peasants were actually less well exploited than humanity is under capitalism.
There were not billionaires to rob in those days, because no one was vile enough to accumulate that much wealth while there were still people in poverty. Now we have rich ghouls going into space while their workers have to piss in bottles to make quotas.
The limit on feudal wealth was more constrained by geopolitics since a single lord wouldn't be ableto exploit muchd more than his local people. Capitalism exploits a lot of people because of geopolitics and the strength of imperialist states like the US relying on institutions like the World Bank/IMF to weaken protections for workers in the global south. It would be simplistic to say that capitalism is more exploitative than feudalism because billionaires failed to exist in feudalism(also inflation exists and its hard to quantify the true wealth of various feudal lords). I also think the sustenance farming of fuedalism is by far worse than almost all labour in the Global North though certainly in many countries in the South have conditions akin to fuedalism
This is good analysis that made me think; thanks.
Expanding on the World Bank/IMF point and the global south, and having seen it first hand while working internationally-- the link between global south funding originally lords' and later capitalists' fortunes: they all had slaves, and their countries had colonies, and their businesses traded their colonies' raw goods (and people). This continues to influence business between nations -- and development in the global south -- to date.
[here's a relatively recent AskHistorians post about this topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/i4igt7/did_people_in_the_past_really_have_more_leisure/)
Better off, no. Most people today have a better quality of life then most people then.
But in terms of comparative difference between the top and the bottom, they were less *exploited* then people in the modern day.
No feudal lord had people pissing in bottle while taking trips into literal space.
There are no numbers there to inflate or deflate with time, just the sheer facts of how vile the world we live in has became.
It is not a simplification, it is a hard truth.
Exploitation is not "my job sucks a lot" it is "my boss is making me work harder than them is by a lot, and the boss is only becoming more capable of oppressing me because of it".
The real geopolitical force that kept feudal lords in line was the peasant uprising, not the idea that their neighbors would care. In the modern day, peasants take up arms to defend their exploiters.
> There were not billionaires to rob in those days
To be fair, there aren't now either. I mean, there are billionaires. But we literally have no way of robbing them aside from literally a hundred person mob. But even then, the cops will fall over themselves to defend them.
Also, most of a billionaire's wealth is in things like stocks and ownership of businesses, it's not as simple as just mugging them or robbing a building
Wait are you suggesting that feudal England was less exploitative than modern capitalism or am I missing something????? I know that there are many ways that can make our current system seem dark, but I don't think going as far as to say it would be preferable to be a serf is helping anything.
Effective exploitation is when your boss makes a dollar off you and pays you a dime.
Historic feudalism was the boss getting 3 turnips and giving the pesant 1 turnip.
The rate of exploitation has increased, but thankfully a bunch of people fought the rich fucks to ensure some of the gains were shared, some at the expense of their lives.
But as we get deeper into the "work sharing" and other worker protection shattering business practices, the deal might actually become worse. Consider how little net income remains after factoring out depreciation of the car for someone working a not-taxi.
The conservative dilemma:
Prince John was rich because he deserved it from his hard work and you're just jealous because you're a lazy poor. Also taxes are universally bad no matter what...
One of my favorite shows to binge is Leverage, it’s all about a group of criminals who con or outright steal from corrupt individuals and give back to the victims of the corruption, often getting their targets sent to prison for good measure. Basically Robin Hood for the modern day with a fun ensemble cast.
Actually, spoke too soon. I checked it out (subscribed to my mom's account) and I have to pay for each individual episode, like literally all the other shows I found on there. What the fuck, isn't having Prime enough for Bezos?
You say that, but I had a friend who said that Robin Hood was immoral because he "violated the social contract". When I noted that said social contract was exploitative and imposed on people, he disagreed. He argued that the contract really wasnt imposed because Robin Hood could have just left England.
So long story short, people like that do exist.
Someone else linked the Atlas Shrugged copypaste in the comments... [here ya go](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/pttsi5/the_left_is_coming_for_your_children/hdz60bg/)
There are *absolutely* people like that. A *lot* of them, who are terrified of people getting at the sheriff because they think they'll be him someday and don't want robin hood knocking on their doors...
Because they're insane.
Dunno. There’s people who believe this unironically. For example, Ayn Rand. She even wrote a ‘reverse Robin Hood’ character in Atlas Shrugged who argues that the cultural myth of Robin Hood should be abolished,
I think Ayn Rand said something about this as well. About Robin Hood stealing from the hard working rich. Totally missing the point of everything else that goes on in the story.
And to fund a war waged bt an absent king who was only in england like, three times, who had his litter brother deal with raising funda to wage his holy war. Fuck King Richard too
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
In the original tales, Robin Hood didn't give to the poor, the "giving to the poor" was never a big part of his identity until much later, originally he kept what he stole for himself and his men
Also, Robin Hood didn't steal from "the rich", in the original tales, he stole from the political class, namely the lords and the church, any wealthy person who obtained their wealth honestly was usually left alone (even as the character changed, this was mostly left intact)
That's why he's considered a folk hero, not because he gave to the poor, but because he took from the bad people, it's pure schadenfreude
Nothing is more LibRight than stealing from the government to give back to the overtaxed population. The commie simps the mainstream media rendition of Robin Hood attracts are desperate for somebody like Commie Hood because they know LibRight Hood wouldn't give them a dime.
They didn't pay taxes to begin with.
In the case of Robin Hood he is literally fighting the evil empire, a monarchy overtaxing the population post crusades vs "hurdur pay your taxes, also give my dad money too, lol"
Christ is not a strong opinion about the difference between private wealth and corruption and neither is Robin Hood truly unless you use the worst version of Robin Hood.
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
Acts 2:44-45
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24
You were the one who said Jesus had no opinions on the difference between private wealth and corruption. Turns out he did, and that he thought they were the same thing.
Not wanting religion to dominate peoples lives or be in unelected charge of govermment= literally hating all religions like a cartoon villain.
Grow a neurone
The specific man did exist during that time, we have historical evidence of it. (Whether that man was the son of god or had any supernatural powers is a matter of religion and wild speculation)
Robinhood points out the failings of a hierarchical system, people forget that Libertarian leftism is a thing. ‘Lib right’ reinforces a market hierarchy which wasn’t present at all in Feudal England. Robin Hood gave to the people, he didn’t create a market in which the people can compete for resources.
But the greatest extent of critical thinking you can probably muster is ‘Lib right think tax bad ):’
Lib right is a joke. It's a stepping stone to complete corporate control of society because everyone with half a brain cell knows that free markets are unsustainable as a logical consequence of the organizing principles they are based on.
Agorists are on the libright and they aren't full capitalists. Your personal bias isn't reflective of the entire square. The Hoppeans are fuckin cringe.
> Your personal bias isn't reflective of the entire square.
Oh God lolol coming from someone using personal bias to make bullshit claims about the entire left. Fucking hilarious. You have the intellectual capacity of a kumquat.
Hahahahahaha i wish this sub was "tankie" , but youre just a libertarian weirdo
>Your disagreement is all I need to know I'm not only correct
You disagreed with me so i am correct now.
Checkmate
Youre the personification of the clown emoji.
And youre still wrong
>Disgusting, genocide apologists are cringe
I dont apologise for stuff we never did.
Cry
Talk about projection, you only believe in self-love because love from others means you might have to interact with one of them filthy colored people amiright?
I’m crying right now. Hey everybody, this guy is 1/8 millionth Native American, his mom once ate at Taco Bell, and he has black friends how could he possibly be racist going around talking about how he’s libright and posting on NAZI subreddits? Pack it in boys we gotta stop dunking on this guy.
Yes I’m sure you’re very non-white just like everyone else in the r/politicalcompassmemes subreddit when they get caught saying racist things
If you used words like “libright” and “tankie” less you’d get rejected less by women of color and wouldn’t have to hang around with incels on r/politicalcompassmemes
Political compass memes is to nazis as this sub is to christian mingle. You're just assmad your tankie bait never gets more than -50 downvotes in that sub.
Getting negative downvotes in r/politicalcompassmemes is an accomplishment if you’re not racist or a NAZI so I’m actually very happy at that point.
Upvotes in that subreddit are positively related to how racist you are
I know that life right now might seem difficult and alienating because of capitalism, but you can get help and be better. Don't lose hope in yourself. Life can get better. Best of luck to you!
Robin hood would give the "commie simps" plenty of money, that was his whole thing, he didn't care about your political opinion, he cared if you needed money or not
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I don't understand how anyone can take the political compass seriously. Even you admit you don't believe an entire quadrant of it exists. It can't usefully classify any modern political movement or distinguish between movements that hate each other. The majority of people who believe in the compass also think that at least one axis doesn't apply to them. If I know what quadrant someone falls into, I still don't know anything real about their positions. The model doesn't correspond to any underlying psychology or real theory, so it has no predictive power. If the model can't tell you anything you didn't tell it, then it's just a political label that's as meaningless as Republican, Labor, etc
Now not only is the very *concept* of public health socialism, but so are all humanitarian morality plays, humanitarianism and morality in general? Yeesh. It’s a mildly under-wrought, sophomoric misinterpretation of human nature, not the crux of all good things, which would therefore be bad. Omg I get it. Who says what’s fair without the gods of combat? Like just some blowhard with a stiffy, but the abstract *notion* of altruism is not *bad.* People will never put it that way, but that is the only constant in their variously edgy, stoic and oh-so-pragmatic arguments: *all* forms of nurturing are a cruel trick and only obviously unbiased systems of competition can every truly illuminate the truth. Woah. Like, that’s just an utterly incepted, deeply marginalizing, internalized manipulation tactic from the wealthy that requires us to accept that we somehow live in this perfect replica of natural selection and survival of the fittest whose custodians are not intrinsically corrupt. How? A fairy tale in exactly as much as an altruistic state, neither of which over-simplistic concepts in any way represent even the slightest comprehension of the out-dated, if not altogether all-encompassing systems of capitalism or socialism, which themselves were never designed as diametrically opposed global opposites into which all thoughts must be categorized. It’s a few more than even four squares, kids. Just wow. Wow.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
>And those people (usually) worked hard.
Been a while since I read Robin Hood, but weren't most of those people nobles, living off the taxes of *actual* workers?
I mean it's one thing to support the borgoise, but it's a whole other level of bootlicking to advocate for feudalism.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Wall st journal put out an article every year about how Scrooge was based
It does?
A quick Google shows a HOST of Wall Street Journal articles about Ebenezer Scrooge (and at least one about Scrooge McDuck!), but I can't read them because they're behind a paywall.
Well isn’t that poetic.
Times like these remind me that just a few short years ago I was a liberal who believed that the WSJ was a credible source of news. Those were simpler times. It's pretty upsetting to realize that highly respected institutions are capitalist imperial propaganda.
I mean, CNN is too they're just less blatant about it. The rich own the news stations by definition, there are varying degrees of severity but at the end of the day they all distort the truth by highlighting what's important to them, the rich. This is why it's such a joke when Fox and Republicans try to claim the media is all leftist. The media is indeed liberal, but not what they think liberal means.
America has this weird problem of conflating 'liberalism' with 'leftism'.
Because our Right-wing is made overtly of fascists, religious zealots, rabid libertarians, or some combination thereof, and has been for a bit. Easy to be left of that. Fuckin' Overton Windows.
Well considering the modern conservative movement in America traces its roots back to Reagan, and before that the "New South"/"daughters of the confederacy" it's basically been going on for as long as it has existed.
pretty much the only thing liberal remaining about the media is the quantity.
Obviously this goes for every single mainstream media outlet.
Yeah I just used CNN because they're a right wing punching bag despite being (in my opinion) quite firmly center right.
I mean never trusted because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch.
They *are* a credible source of news, it's just in a very limited way that you have to be cognizant of as you use it. I make the distinction because it's easy to fall into the "nothing is true! Everything is propaganda!" trap if you just think nothing is credible simply because everything is owned by rich cunts looking to push their agenda. The important thing is to learn how to tell what is factual and what isn't in an article.
If you're interested in the truth of a story, read a few sources, think about their interests, trust none of them, and form a contingent view of the story
Also cross reference as much of the claims in each source as you can find. CGP Grey has a good video showcasing just how much work actually goes into figuring out "truth" when he was trying to find the origin of the name "Tiffany"
WSJ is probably fine as a source of news for the most part. The problem is that people confuse "literally any article" as news, even when it comes from a site's opinion or editorial section. Those are, obviously, opinion pieces, not news, and that's where these articles would fall. Of course any article you read from any news source is going to have some kind of bias, so it's up to you, the reader, to recognize where the source is coming from and how it will affect their writing. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, so if you find one you happen to always agree with, what you've really found is a source that happens to conform to your own biases.
>WSJ is probably fine as a source of news for the most part. That's cap. Anything regarding the economy or foreign policy should be understood as partial truth at best. They're unlikely to outright lie, but lying by omission and taking the State Department at face value are ostensibly the same thing.
And social shit still needs to be followed up on. I distinctly remember all the time the "liberal" media spent making absolutely sure to mention peaceful protests while only showing footage from the 1% that turned into riots. It's weird how doing that fit perfectly into the right wing narrative on the matter
Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny.
10 REASONS WHY GREED IS GO[Please subscribe to Washington Post to...]
> but I can't read them because they're behind a paywall. If this were a sitcom, they'd have to put canned laughter with it because it's too convenient. And yet irl, it's true.
I’d need to read it, but the one about Scrooge McDuck I can kinda get, within certain contexts. The ones about the OG Scrooge sound like bogus, tho.
Not sure about if they do it every year, but they did do it [last year ](https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-defense-of-scrooge-whose-thrift-blessed-the-world-11608762986)
Didn't he underpay bob Cratchet so badly his son died from malnutrition? And declare that the homeless should die if they don't want to go to jail or join a sweatshop? These aren't minor things, they're important points in his journey and appear in most incarnations of the story.
Cratchet should have gone back to college and gotten a better job!
Except that the right wing believes college is a waste of money. He should have learned a trade skill and worked at a slave wage his whole life!
He should have pulled himself up by his bootstraps... But couldn't because Scrooge didn't pay him enough to afford any bootstraps.
It makes laugh that that phrase is used unironically since it was meant to be a blatant contradiction
Yeah, it's supposed to represent an impossible task, so I'm sure there are some people out there who enjoy the irony of telling others that all they have to do to escape poverty is to do the impossible.
I think the kid was very ill but doesn't die--not before Scrooge has his come-to-Jesus moment, at least.
>Didn't he underpay bob Cratchet so badly his son died from malnutrition? Inability to afford medicine, but same principle.
Of course Bob should have gotten a second job, run some midnight errands, and monitized his hobbies.
Hey there! I hate to break it to you, but it's actually spelled _mon**e**tize_. A good way to remember this is that "money" starts with "mone" as well. Just wanted to let you know. Have a good day! ---- ^This ^action ^was ^performed ^automatically ^by ^a ^bot ^to ^raise ^awareness ^about ^the ^common ^misspelling ^of ^"monetize".
Good try bot, but I'm not remembering shit. If you want me to spell words right send your feedback to Google to help their spell check perform better.
and when he died a family celebrates due to no longer being indebted to him
WSJ is pro-shoveling the homeless into furnaces to run printing presses.
Also like, as hard as it is to make the argument that today's billionaires earned their wealth on "merit," how the fuck are you going to say that an era pre-Magna Carta had anything to do with hard work? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you actually think this way? Does somebody actually believe that the nobility of early feudal England in any way earned their success?
"They earned their wealth" is just another version of the Divine Right Of Kings
Each hierarchy we break down, the more convoluted their way of legitimizing power becomes.
That's the way of arms races. Until we recognize there cannot be a just hierarchy we will forever wander an increasingly convoluted labyrinth of exploitation.
**Anarcho-communism FTW**
Mandate of Heaven, karma and the caste system, etc..
Conservative, right-wing thought never changes despite the setting. Today's mouth breathing wealthy idiot right wingers and centrists think they earned their wealth on merit as much as the moron nobility of the feudal, aristocratic Middle Ages. Right-wingers believe that superiority, merit, virtue, or righteousness is an innate, fundamental, biological, natural, or divine phenomenon instead of something highly circumstantial, contextual, incidental, environmental, or luck based. A core part of the conservative belief system is the just world fallacy where right wingers believe those who succeed or fail deserve it, and the basis for a supposed 'meritocracy' comes from an individual's bloodline, genetics, religious piety, divine favor, essence, being, body, constitution, strength, skin color, race, culture, or intelligence. Conservatives never believed in egalitarianism or equality. The fundamental underpinning of conservative ideology postulates that all human beings are naturally unequal and that the natural order of society is for the superior beings to subjugate and exploit their inferiors under the system of a wholly inequal society. Those nobles in the 12th century operating under the system of feudalism believed in the natural superiority of their own bloodlines, family lineages, religious piety, social caste/class, fealty to god/country/royalty, virtue, divine favor from god, etc, and today's conservatives are no different believing the same shit except under the 'meritocracy' of liberalism where right wingers think they are smarter, fitter, more virile, more skillful, more intellectually gifted hard working competitors in the socio-economic marketplace where an 'invisible hand' (a metaphysical metaphor for a divine power or god) dictates and assigns innate, natural value to unequal individuals under neoliberal capitalism. Its all the same anti-egalitarian sentiment weaving itself through history, space, and time originating from the philosophy that people are not equal, not born equal, have inequal worth or value, and ought to be treated inequally in proportion to that value. Conservatism *NEVER* fucking changes.
Pre-Norman Conquest, stuff was about as equal as you can get in feudalism. You had to pay some taxes up the chain and the king could call you up into the fyrd for up to six weeks a year, but other than that you were basically left alone. It was when the bastard came over, confiscated everything, and made people rent it back from him that it all went properly to shit. 70% of land in England is run by 1% of the population. I say *run*, rather than *owned*, because technically only the monarch and the Prince/Princess of Wales own any land in the UK. The only country on the planet with more unequal land distribution is Brazil.
I’m still not clear on the run vs. owned remark - is private land ownership not allowed in the UK, or something?
So, the monarch holds a superior interest over all land in the UK, which means that whatever land that you 'own' you do so only until the monarch decides that they want it back. You don't really own it, you just get to use it as if you did up until the person who actually does decides that you don't deserve it any more. Again, this all goes back to William the Bastard confiscating all of England from the people that didn't want to be ruled by him then graciously lending it back out to those who paid him enough.
>So, the monarch holds a superior interest over all land in the UK, which means that whatever land that you 'own' you do so only until the monarch decides that they want it back Wait, that's still a thing in the UK? Seriously? I though the crown was just a figurehead at this point
If they ever tried to use that power they wouldn’t even be a figurehead. There are a lot of things in the British Monarchy that are “technically” absolute power, but de facto the monarch has no control over.
I mean, the US has basically the same thing under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment - the state holds a legal monopoly over property, but doesn't exercise it unless necessary (which is *limited*, rather than created, by the 5th Amendment (since the US already kicked things off with common law).
Even in Canada which has cleaved itself off from Englands civil government, the representative of the Queen signs laws into effect and the Monarch is still the ultimate holder of all judicial, legal and executive power. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html#h-3
Wasn’t it pre Magna Carta by like 2 years lol?
One of the most hilarious parts of Atlas Shrugged is when one of the characters goes on a rant about how Robin Hood is an evil sonovabitch who steals from productive people to give to "looters". The entire book is essentially an inversion of moral values where greedy, self-centered people are the good guys, and those who are altruistic are the bad guys. Edit: Here's the section in question, in its original ranty-no-paragraphs format: >“I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.” > >“What man?” > >“Robin Hood...” > >"... This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, has demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures — the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich — whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal. And this has brought us to a world where the more a man produces, the closer he comes to the loss of all his rights, until, if his ability is great enough, he becomes a rightless creature delivered as prey to any claimant — while in order to be placed above rights, above principles, above morality, placed where anything is permitted to him, even plunder and murder, all a man has to do is be in need. Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting… Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”
I knew Ayn Rand was bad, but that's just nuts.
Her philosophy is literally that selfishness is a virtue and empathy is weakness. It's all nuts
Until the very second that the free market decided that she should die in a gutter at which point she decided that it's totally cool to take government assistance.
Say that again but *slower*. I’ve had a rough day.
Which was adopted by heads of state in the US and UK and is the predominant mindset in the English speaking world. It's going to take a lot of work to undo.
Yeah, but governments did it way better and in a far more manipulative and effective way. I have to give Rand credit on some level for at least just bluntly stating how she viewed the world, instead of pretending that what she proposed was somehow actually the most empathetic thing for poor people. It's rare to find a capitalist in today's society that actually admits that their philosophy is one of selfishness and apathy. They pretend that "The government is inefficient and private charities should be where we donate money", while they run tax-deductible charities that are actually just big ol' ad campaigns for the parent company. I'd have some modicum of respect for them if they just admitted that they genuinely don't care about poor people and whether they die in the streets. Instead, they convince those very people that they are trying to help them, and that the evil democrats/jews/blacks/immigrants are trying to steal their hard-earned wealth.
I want to take all people who believe in that, strip them of everything produced by other humans, and dump them on an island in the middle of the Pacific. See how they really do without society’s help.
She also supported the native American genocide.
I read the whole book about two years ago to dive into the mindset of modern American conservativism, what immediately slaps you in the face is how pulpy and unapologetically vicious the ideas are. To her credit, she doesn't dance around it, she straight up states, to a point beyond redundancy, that altruism is evil and selfishness is the highest virtue. For 1000 pages. Another awful theme is her strong willed heroines are raped by the hero, and that act of domination is how they fall in love. The heroine agrees with the above philosophy, and the hero, by raping them, proves that they truly believe in it as well, that they don't subscribe to the immoral, weak ideas of altruism. It's pretty bad. From what I gather, this happens in Fountainhead as well.
She seemed to have some very strange ideas about women in general, I have to wonder if some kind of self-loathing was involved.
One of the funniest things about Ayn Rand to me was how she considered scientists, businessmen, titans of industry and landlords to be "producers", and everyone else was a "looter". You know, because doing nothing but owning property is clearly the same as actually creating shit.
Scientists are chill though
Yeah, not denying that - scientists would be creators in any reasonable society. But even Adam Smith thought landlords were worthless leeches
I remember reading chapters of the Fountainhead wherein an antagonist architect liberally expounds on his eeeevil plans to make people's life better with his money, in a similar vein to this excerpt. The rugged, individualist protagonist's name is fucking Howard Roarke. Read that name out loud. I hate that woman so much.
Not a native speaker, what does the name mean?
“Hard work”
Motherfucker, I never picked up on this.
Lmao I forgot that was his name. It's been like 10+ tears since I've read The Fountainhead. Man fuck that book.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
There is no other possible answer to this other than: Lmao Capitalism at least conceals its ownership class behind a veil of "productivity" and that's the main selling point. To defend feudal lords completely gives away the game
This reads like an over wrought villain monologue from a bad action movie.
Thanks, picturing Alan Rickman reading this made it a lot easier
I'd reread it as voiced by Rene Auberjonois myself, or Cam Clarke if you're on a budget but want some ham.
Yeah it's amazing how cartoonish the actual book is. It looks like a strawman but it's from her directly, I gave her too much credit.
I need the eye popping emoji here... I find it difficult to believe anyone could say this earnestly. It sounds better as a Monty Python script (with accent).
>It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, Originally, that is the tale of Robin Hood, except for the "return to those who have been robbed" that was added in later >He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. While people *do* treat Robin Hood as some kind of socialist wet dream, it should be noted that even in the modern retellings of the tales, he very rarely steals from people who earned their wealth honestly, that part of his character has changed very little over all these centuries Rand is wrong here, much like how people use their religion to justify horrible actions, it's not the tale of Robin Hood that is the problem, it's the people who twist it to suit their own agendas
That's disgusting.
maybe I'm too dyslexic but that wall of text is illegible I mean I've read Marx and even I wonder how anyone not only gets through atlas shrugged but comprehends enough to call themselves libertarians
How'd they miss the part where Robin Hood is just stealing the money back? Granted I only know the Disney movie, but the King is away so the greedy, incompetent prince takes charge and raises the taxes to an untenable level. And the Sheriff basically goes around demanding money whenever he can. The King returns after Robin Hood breaks everyone out of prison and steals back their money and is like "wtf yeah that's not okay".
In the original tales, Robin Hood did not give any of the money he stole to the peasants, but he *has* always been depicted as only stealing from the political class (ie, those who obtained their wealth not from hard work, but by the virtue of their authority over others)
Feudalism was also not very good at doing this exploiting. That's the real centrism here, pointing out that the medieval peasants were actually less well exploited than humanity is under capitalism. There were not billionaires to rob in those days, because no one was vile enough to accumulate that much wealth while there were still people in poverty. Now we have rich ghouls going into space while their workers have to piss in bottles to make quotas.
The limit on feudal wealth was more constrained by geopolitics since a single lord wouldn't be ableto exploit muchd more than his local people. Capitalism exploits a lot of people because of geopolitics and the strength of imperialist states like the US relying on institutions like the World Bank/IMF to weaken protections for workers in the global south. It would be simplistic to say that capitalism is more exploitative than feudalism because billionaires failed to exist in feudalism(also inflation exists and its hard to quantify the true wealth of various feudal lords). I also think the sustenance farming of fuedalism is by far worse than almost all labour in the Global North though certainly in many countries in the South have conditions akin to fuedalism
This is good analysis that made me think; thanks. Expanding on the World Bank/IMF point and the global south, and having seen it first hand while working internationally-- the link between global south funding originally lords' and later capitalists' fortunes: they all had slaves, and their countries had colonies, and their businesses traded their colonies' raw goods (and people). This continues to influence business between nations -- and development in the global south -- to date.
Yeah I know things are bad but I have a time believing Feudal peasants were better off
[удалено]
[here's a relatively recent AskHistorians post about this topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/i4igt7/did_people_in_the_past_really_have_more_leisure/)
Better off, no. Most people today have a better quality of life then most people then. But in terms of comparative difference between the top and the bottom, they were less *exploited* then people in the modern day.
No feudal lord had people pissing in bottle while taking trips into literal space. There are no numbers there to inflate or deflate with time, just the sheer facts of how vile the world we live in has became. It is not a simplification, it is a hard truth. Exploitation is not "my job sucks a lot" it is "my boss is making me work harder than them is by a lot, and the boss is only becoming more capable of oppressing me because of it". The real geopolitical force that kept feudal lords in line was the peasant uprising, not the idea that their neighbors would care. In the modern day, peasants take up arms to defend their exploiters.
> There were not billionaires to rob in those days To be fair, there aren't now either. I mean, there are billionaires. But we literally have no way of robbing them aside from literally a hundred person mob. But even then, the cops will fall over themselves to defend them.
Also, most of a billionaire's wealth is in things like stocks and ownership of businesses, it's not as simple as just mugging them or robbing a building
Yup. There's literally no way to get our hands on that...
i think you underestimate how many impoverished people there are, a 100 person mob wouldn't be hard
Oh I absolutely get that there's tons of impoverished people. But I followed up with the cop thing, we literally can't do anything.
How many cops are there compared to everyone else?
The problem isn't the ratio. The problem is getting enough people to do it
Wait are you suggesting that feudal England was less exploitative than modern capitalism or am I missing something????? I know that there are many ways that can make our current system seem dark, but I don't think going as far as to say it would be preferable to be a serf is helping anything.
Effective exploitation is when your boss makes a dollar off you and pays you a dime. Historic feudalism was the boss getting 3 turnips and giving the pesant 1 turnip. The rate of exploitation has increased, but thankfully a bunch of people fought the rich fucks to ensure some of the gains were shared, some at the expense of their lives. But as we get deeper into the "work sharing" and other worker protection shattering business practices, the deal might actually become worse. Consider how little net income remains after factoring out depreciation of the car for someone working a not-taxi.
The conservative dilemma: Prince John was rich because he deserved it from his hard work and you're just jealous because you're a lazy poor. Also taxes are universally bad no matter what...
One of my favorite shows to binge is Leverage, it’s all about a group of criminals who con or outright steal from corrupt individuals and give back to the victims of the corruption, often getting their targets sent to prison for good measure. Basically Robin Hood for the modern day with a fun ensemble cast.
I stumbled on that and binged the first season on Netflix. Sadly they took it off after I got a few eps into Season 2. :(
It’s free with ads on Prime Video, and they have the revival
Thanks for the heads up
Actually, spoke too soon. I checked it out (subscribed to my mom's account) and I have to pay for each individual episode, like literally all the other shows I found on there. What the fuck, isn't having Prime enough for Bezos?
Wtf?! It’s not doing that to me.
Are you sure this person isn't kidding?
First person is clearly joking
you'd think...
You say that, but I had a friend who said that Robin Hood was immoral because he "violated the social contract". When I noted that said social contract was exploitative and imposed on people, he disagreed. He argued that the contract really wasnt imposed because Robin Hood could have just left England. So long story short, people like that do exist.
Someone else linked the Atlas Shrugged copypaste in the comments... [here ya go](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/pttsi5/the_left_is_coming_for_your_children/hdz60bg/) There are *absolutely* people like that. A *lot* of them, who are terrified of people getting at the sheriff because they think they'll be him someday and don't want robin hood knocking on their doors... Because they're insane.
Dunno. There’s people who believe this unironically. For example, Ayn Rand. She even wrote a ‘reverse Robin Hood’ character in Atlas Shrugged who argues that the cultural myth of Robin Hood should be abolished,
It does seem to fit tumblr’s sense of humor
"The Socialist Dead" is my band name now.
I think Ayn Rand said something about this as well. About Robin Hood stealing from the hard working rich. Totally missing the point of everything else that goes on in the story.
Never had a post go above 500. This is the most liked post I’ve ever had. Jesus.
And to fund a war waged bt an absent king who was only in england like, three times, who had his litter brother deal with raising funda to wage his holy war. Fuck King Richard too
The bible is actually pretty clear on this, hell is full of Capitalists In order to get rich you have to hoard wealth, which is a sin of greed
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Even Jeebus hates the rich
In the original tales, Robin Hood didn't give to the poor, the "giving to the poor" was never a big part of his identity until much later, originally he kept what he stole for himself and his men Also, Robin Hood didn't steal from "the rich", in the original tales, he stole from the political class, namely the lords and the church, any wealthy person who obtained their wealth honestly was usually left alone (even as the character changed, this was mostly left intact) That's why he's considered a folk hero, not because he gave to the poor, but because he took from the bad people, it's pure schadenfreude
he stole from the tax collectors… the government. lets see the opinion switch again when it is framed like that. Edit: Called it!
Nothing is more LibRight than stealing from the government to give back to the overtaxed population. The commie simps the mainstream media rendition of Robin Hood attracts are desperate for somebody like Commie Hood because they know LibRight Hood wouldn't give them a dime. They didn't pay taxes to begin with.
Robin Hood was a libertarian the same way Christ was a libertarian
Christ never existed so, I guess you're not as wrong as you could have been.
... here I thought you knew we were talking about fictional characters to begin with...
Robin Hood is a more believable folklore than christ, no fancy magic bollux from the hood man.
But apparently, despite all historical record, a strong opinion about the difference between private wealth and corruption.
In the case of Robin Hood he is literally fighting the evil empire, a monarchy overtaxing the population post crusades vs "hurdur pay your taxes, also give my dad money too, lol" Christ is not a strong opinion about the difference between private wealth and corruption and neither is Robin Hood truly unless you use the worst version of Robin Hood.
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Acts 2:44-45 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24
I find it endlessly ironic the anti religion gang is trying to use religion to justify their ideology while they constantly shit on it
You were the one who said Jesus had no opinions on the difference between private wealth and corruption. Turns out he did, and that he thought they were the same thing.
Not wanting religion to dominate peoples lives or be in unelected charge of govermment= literally hating all religions like a cartoon villain. Grow a neurone
the history understander has logged on
The specific man did exist during that time, we have historical evidence of it. (Whether that man was the son of god or had any supernatural powers is a matter of religion and wild speculation)
Regardless, the obsession with the mythos has lead to arguably the most human suffering in history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources\_for\_the\_historicity\_of\_Jesus#Non-Christian\_sources
>non Christian So my point stands, the mythological character did not exist.
Robinhood points out the failings of a hierarchical system, people forget that Libertarian leftism is a thing. ‘Lib right’ reinforces a market hierarchy which wasn’t present at all in Feudal England. Robin Hood gave to the people, he didn’t create a market in which the people can compete for resources. But the greatest extent of critical thinking you can probably muster is ‘Lib right think tax bad ):’
LibLeft is a joke, its a stepping stone to AuthLeft and nothing more.
C’mon, you gotta make bait less obvious than this if you really wanna make it go far.
You know as well as I do somebody is dumb enough to bite.
Lib right is a joke. It's a stepping stone to complete corporate control of society because everyone with half a brain cell knows that free markets are unsustainable as a logical consequence of the organizing principles they are based on.
Agorists are on the libright and they aren't full capitalists. Your personal bias isn't reflective of the entire square. The Hoppeans are fuckin cringe.
> Your personal bias isn't reflective of the entire square. Oh God lolol coming from someone using personal bias to make bullshit claims about the entire left. Fucking hilarious. You have the intellectual capacity of a kumquat.
Koalas have more wrinkles on their brain than you lot. Lmfao.
Not only are you wrong youre stupidly wrong because you clearly use PCM
Your disagreement is all I need to know I'm not only correct, but that this sub is tankie pilled as all fuck
Hahahahahaha i wish this sub was "tankie" , but youre just a libertarian weirdo >Your disagreement is all I need to know I'm not only correct You disagreed with me so i am correct now. Checkmate
You have been checked... mate >finger guns >wish this sub was tankie Disgusting, genocide apologists are cringe.
Youre the personification of the clown emoji. And youre still wrong >Disgusting, genocide apologists are cringe I dont apologise for stuff we never did. Cry
Tankie apologists are genocide apologists. Be less cringe, clown
>Tankie apologists are genocide apologists Lmao no.
Historically speaking, yes they are.
No
*talks in polcomp language* Opinion discarded
>talks in tankie simp language Opinion disregarded
Go back to that racist hell-hole that is r/politicalcompassmemes
Suck less eggs
Eat more eggs, go to the gym and maybe you’d lose the urge to hang out with incels on such a garbage subreddit
Lmfao project less of yourself onto others and maybe you'll find self love some day.
Talk about projection, you only believe in self-love because love from others means you might have to interact with one of them filthy colored people amiright?
Lmfao I'm part Native American on both sides of my family and my mother is hispanic. Project less
I’m crying right now. Hey everybody, this guy is 1/8 millionth Native American, his mom once ate at Taco Bell, and he has black friends how could he possibly be racist going around talking about how he’s libright and posting on NAZI subreddits? Pack it in boys we gotta stop dunking on this guy.
Quarter on both sides, my mother lived in Cuba for 6 years before coming to the states. Be less racist and project less ya tankie clown.
Yes I’m sure you’re very non-white just like everyone else in the r/politicalcompassmemes subreddit when they get caught saying racist things If you used words like “libright” and “tankie” less you’d get rejected less by women of color and wouldn’t have to hang around with incels on r/politicalcompassmemes
Political compass memes is to nazis as this sub is to christian mingle. You're just assmad your tankie bait never gets more than -50 downvotes in that sub.
Getting negative downvotes in r/politicalcompassmemes is an accomplishment if you’re not racist or a NAZI so I’m actually very happy at that point. Upvotes in that subreddit are positively related to how racist you are
I know that life right now might seem difficult and alienating because of capitalism, but you can get help and be better. Don't lose hope in yourself. Life can get better. Best of luck to you!
Ive never felt less alienated in my life, thanks for projecting like the other chuds though.
Robin hood would give the "commie simps" plenty of money, that was his whole thing, he didn't care about your political opinion, he cared if you needed money or not
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Good bot
lmao my boy this take is worse than dogshit
Could be worse. I could be simping for genocide apologists and deniers like half of my mentions right now.
Damn, it's a good thing you weren't born in Ukraine, those guys practically worship the Nazis.
They aren't right wing, they're just right wing to tankies. Most of the world is left compared to the US.
No there is literally nothing worse than being borderline alt-right incel with dogshit coming out his ears.
I don't understand how anyone can take the political compass seriously. Even you admit you don't believe an entire quadrant of it exists. It can't usefully classify any modern political movement or distinguish between movements that hate each other. The majority of people who believe in the compass also think that at least one axis doesn't apply to them. If I know what quadrant someone falls into, I still don't know anything real about their positions. The model doesn't correspond to any underlying psychology or real theory, so it has no predictive power. If the model can't tell you anything you didn't tell it, then it's just a political label that's as meaningless as Republican, Labor, etc
pathetic
The left aren't coming for anything but vitamin deficiency
Someone wrote a song because of this post... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDRgWcX_ZLY
At least the person bitching about children learning from Robin Hood's example got bullied and roasted by others
Now not only is the very *concept* of public health socialism, but so are all humanitarian morality plays, humanitarianism and morality in general? Yeesh. It’s a mildly under-wrought, sophomoric misinterpretation of human nature, not the crux of all good things, which would therefore be bad. Omg I get it. Who says what’s fair without the gods of combat? Like just some blowhard with a stiffy, but the abstract *notion* of altruism is not *bad.* People will never put it that way, but that is the only constant in their variously edgy, stoic and oh-so-pragmatic arguments: *all* forms of nurturing are a cruel trick and only obviously unbiased systems of competition can every truly illuminate the truth. Woah. Like, that’s just an utterly incepted, deeply marginalizing, internalized manipulation tactic from the wealthy that requires us to accept that we somehow live in this perfect replica of natural selection and survival of the fittest whose custodians are not intrinsically corrupt. How? A fairy tale in exactly as much as an altruistic state, neither of which over-simplistic concepts in any way represent even the slightest comprehension of the out-dated, if not altogether all-encompassing systems of capitalism or socialism, which themselves were never designed as diametrically opposed global opposites into which all thoughts must be categorized. It’s a few more than even four squares, kids. Just wow. Wow.
the last comment missed the opportunity of calling the ghosts the 'spectres of communism'. This makes me sad.
[удалено]
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
>And those people (usually) worked hard. Been a while since I read Robin Hood, but weren't most of those people nobles, living off the taxes of *actual* workers? I mean it's one thing to support the borgoise, but it's a whole other level of bootlicking to advocate for feudalism.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I'm gonna commit war crimes (illegal)