United States George Floyd Protests, Reactions and Riots

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Homosexuality has existed all over the world and at various times and places, has been persecuted or tolerated to varying degrees. Though I can't think of any traditional society that has had the position on homosexuality that the modern left has - namely that it is the same as a heterosexual relationship, that gay and straight marriage are functionally the same, that a relationship between people of the same sex works more or less the same as a relationship between people of the opposite sex. The idea of being exclusively homosexual was historically unusual too. In Greece or Rome, where a man could get away with having sex with another man without too much stigma, it would have been an oddity for a man to say that he would only have sex with men and to completely reject marriage or sex with a woman.
To be fair, it's not the only thing that they would have found odd about modern relationships. Marriage, for example, for thousands of years was seen as a strictly utilitarian arrangement; done either for money, political power, or simply to produce children. Marrying for love would have been a completely alien concept to them.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
To be fair, it's not the only thing that they would have found odd about modern relationships. Marriage, for example, for thousands of years was seen as a strictly utilitarian arrangement; done either for money, political power, or simply to produce children. Marrying for love would have been a completely alien concept to them.
LOVE?! What has love got to do with marriage?!
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
To be fair, it's not the only thing that they would have found odd about modern relationships. Marriage, for example, for thousands of years was seen as a strictly utilitarian arrangement; done either for money, political power, or simply to produce children. Marrying for love would have been a completely alien concept to them.

No, it wasn't. If you think people were less into romance in history than they are now, I've got some high-quality Industrial Diamonds from Venus to sell you.

Now, I'd agree that today's ideation of 'love is the only reason you should marry' in pop culture would be pretty alien historically, especially for feudal nobility or the like.

That's a far cry from historical marriage 'strictly utilitarian' for everyone though.

There's romantic poetry from BC still kicking around, man.
 

Tryglaw

Well-known member
No, it wasn't. If you think people were less into romance in history than they are now, I've got some high-quality Industrial Diamonds from Venus to sell you.

Now, I'd agree that today's ideation of 'love is the only reason you should marry' in pop culture would be pretty alien historically, especially for feudal nobility or the like.

That's a far cry from historical marriage 'strictly utilitarian' for everyone though.

There's romantic poetry from BC still kicking around, man.

Kind of depends, for upper tiers of society - royalty especially, but aristocracy and nobility too, marriage was a tool of politics to seal an alliance. Arranged marriages that backed political alliances and bonds with bonds of blood were the norm.
Marriage for love was not something that could be afforded, the needs of dynasty / family took absolute precedence.

Heck, even in pre-WW2 Poland for the upper classes it was quite normal to have marriages arranged, and if for whichever reason that didn't work the selection process of who made an acceptable pairing was still quite steep indeed. With criteria of social origin / standing (read: breeding),
and what they brought to the table (read: wealth).

There's an iconic Polish novel called "Trędowata" ("Leper") by Helena Mniszkówna about the marriage of love of a wealthy aristocrat with a poor girl from petty nobility (not plebs, just petty nobility) where the "polite society" treats the girl as if she suffered from leprosy, hence titular "leper".
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
No, it wasn't. If you think people were less into romance in history than they are now, I've got some high-quality Industrial Diamonds from Venus to sell you.

Now, I'd agree that today's ideation of 'love is the only reason you should marry' in pop culture would be pretty alien historically, especially for feudal nobility or the like.

That's a far cry from historical marriage 'strictly utilitarian' for everyone though.

There's romantic poetry from BC still kicking around, man.

I found the world’s oldest recorded love poem, about 4,000 years old from Sumer:


Bridegroom, dear to my heart,
Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet,
Lion, dear to my heart,
Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet.
You have captivated me, let me stand tremblingly before you.
Bridegroom, I would be taken by you to the bedchamber,
You have captivated me, let me stand tremblingly before you.
Lion, I would be taken by you to the bedchamber.
Bridegroom, let me caress you,
My precious caress is more savoury than honey,
In the bedchamber, honey-filled,
Let me enjoy your goodly beauty,
Lion, let me caress you,
My precious caress is more savoury than honey.
Bridegroom, you have taken your pleasure of me,
Tell my mother, she will give you delicacies,
My father, he will give you gifts.
Your spirit, I know where to cheer your spirit,
Bridegroom, sleep in our house until dawn,
Your heart, I know where to gladden your heart,
Lion, sleep in our house until dawn.
You, because you love me,
Give me pray of your caresses,
My lord god, my lord protector,
My Shu-Sin, who gladdens Enlil's heart,
Give my pray of your caresses.
Your place goodly as honey, pray lay (your) hand on it,
Bring (your) hand over like a gishban-garment,
Cup (your) hand over it like a gishban-sikin-garment.


Notice, this poem has bridegroom as the object of the bride’s affection. It sounds pretty romantic. Ancient people didn’t get married like we do now, but we can’t say that love wasn’t a part of marriage.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Kind of depends, for upper tiers of society - royalty especially, but aristocracy and nobility too, marriage was a tool of politics to seal an alliance. Arranged marriages that backed political alliances and bonds with bonds of blood were the norm.
Marriage for love was not something that could be afforded, the needs of dynasty / family took absolute precedence.

Heck, even in pre-WW2 Poland for the upper classes it was quite normal to have marriages arranged, and if for whichever reason that didn't work the selection process of who made an acceptable pairing was still quite steep indeed. With criteria of social origin / standing (read: breeding),
and what they brought to the table (read: wealth).

There's an iconic Polish novel called "Trędowata" ("Leper") by Helena Mniszkówna about the marriage of love of a wealthy aristocrat with a poor girl from petty nobility (not plebs, just petty nobility) where the "polite society" treats the girl as if she suffered from leprosy, hence titular "leper".

I'm not trying to claim that there wasn't a lot of utilitarianism in some parts of society. I've not said it isn't or wasn't a factor, it's just that the idea of romance being irrelevant is complete hogwash.

Romance has driven human motivation in both healthy and unhealthy ways for as long as there's been human civilization.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Things like this is why I am leery about the right backing the police, or at least without caveats, given how they have been doing things like this for years. Why should we support the police when they will blatantly stage such false arrests.

Your Police Unions, I've heard, are actually responsible for keeping the corrupt and incompetent cops IN the Police Force because it'd make it a risk for the others' job presence and because there's cash to be made

Right now they're going to Trump.

Mostly because they're not being allowed to do their jobs, people can attempt to murder or actually murder them and the media would bash them and let the murderer get away, they're at risk of losing their jobs and they've become social pariahs.

That said, TBF, their bosses or city governments expect them to do so, can't let all the "fascists" going around defending themselves or challenging their new KKK
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Things like this is why I am leery about the right backing the police, or at least without caveats, given how they have been doing things like this for years. Why should we support the police when they will blatantly stage such false arrests.
I've been of this opinion for quite a while. I know lots of individuals who are great people, and great officers. The vast majority are good officers. We have a bad apple problem, though, and often they aren't held accountable. We also have a problem with the laws themselves.

I almost agree with BLM.

Except I don't think the problem is about race...and I don't agree with their tactics. Or that defunding is the answer. I strongly disagree with their leadership and stated positions, and I am strictly against violence and riots...I guess I just also don't like the police, but that's where our commonality ends.

Law enforcement in this country is fucked. Police are over powered, over militarized, get away with far too much, literally rob people with civil asset forfeiture, spy on citizens and violate our privacy. The entire drug war has been a giant, disasterous mistake that has cost many lives, cost lots of money, all while creating a robust and powerful black market. We have the largest prison population in the world. It's a problem.

But defunding police isn't the answer. Reform and additional funding, for FAR MORE TRAINING are the answers.

I like Jocko Willinck's 20% rule. They should spend 20% of their job training.

After George Floyd, the whole country was disgusted. We could have come together and put through real, meaningful change. The whole country was on the same page for once..

Instead these ANTIFA and blm fucks went out and started burning and smashing, destroying any chance of that happening. I am fucking furious at them.
 
Last edited:

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
Your Police Unions, I've heard, are actually responsible for keeping the corrupt and incompetent cops IN the Police Force

Right now they're going to Trump.

Mostly because they're not being allowed to do their jobs, people can attempt to murder or actually murder them and the media would bash them and let the murderer get away, they're at risk of losing their jobs and they've become social pariahs.

That said, TBF, their bosses or city governments expect them to do so, can't let all the "fascists" going around defending themselves or challenging their new KKK

I am Canadian, but we have the same problem, which may or may not be the reason with the RCMP and their antics.

I think this gives us an opportunity. We can force through actual reforms since that is preferable to getting utterly scewed.

And that really isn't any defense, they have a choice, or at least a choice to avoid doing some of this.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
I am Canadian, but we have the same problem, which may or may not be the reason with the RCMP and their antics.

I think this gives us an opportunity. We can force through actual reforms since that is preferable to getting utterly scewed.

And that really isn't any defense, they have a choice, or at least a choice to avoid doing some of this.

I think this kinda depends on whether or not people are aware of said problems

Most people maybe too dumb to even know how much power the police have or how they hit people regardless of race or how dumb they can possibly be

Instead they mostly just know things off Hollywood

The spying and arresting people for crimes that are basically harmless or lack the context are probably not thought of much
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top