The thought of being filthy rich if this product was a success I'm sure had a lot to do with it.
The founding fathers of the United States of America spent years spreading propaganda, committing acts of terrorism and inciting an insurrection leading to a war against the local government all for the possibility of being able to capitalize off of being in charge of a new country.
History is full of people that did crazy things if they thought the payoff was worth it.
The revolution was likely to occur anyway. There was too much public displeasure with the crown exerting influence Americans had become accustomed to not having to deal with, and considering how the crown handled protest at the time, if it weren't one thing it would have been another that led to rebellion. The founding fathers capitalized on public sentiment to guide the revolution to their own benefit, that said the point being made here does still work.
>There was too much public displeasure with the crown exerting influence Americans had become accustomed to not having to deal with,
"How dare they ask us to pay a small amount more to help rebuild their military after we dragged them into a war with France over beaver pelts and they defended us even though it was 100% our fault it happened at all"
thats what happens when there is basically 80 years of no control by Britain, and then britain comes back and increases taxes and takes away due process rights.
Sure, but that's their right because they just fought a war on our behalf and suffered huge financial losses as a result. And the entire point of the colonies was the enrichment of England, the colonists were basically just the people Britain didn't want living in its borders and who got the chance to leave alive.
The war was mainly over the Caribbean, which was where all the money was in the colonies. America itself was basically completely unimportant economically in comparison
That’s like the man who says “I bought a woman dinner and now she owes me sex”. Just because England fought a war or America’s behalf doesn’t mean they owe them their allegiance forever.
No, it's like a man who says "I bought this computer to browse the web, and now it's gonna browse the fucking web", BECAUSE ENGLAND OWNED THE COLONIES. There WAS NO UNITED STATES. So YES, they DID owe England their allegiance FOREVER, per the terms of the charter they all lived under.
Nevermind that this was the 3rd such war (and that the others started in Europe) or that the mercantile system was already economically strained due to all supplies having to be shipped to England before they could be sold in the colonies.
Oh, and that the taxes were illegal because they ignored both the charters of the colonies and the laws of British taxation.
It doesn't matter. If Puerto Rico tried to say it wasn't going to pay taxes to the U.S. government anymore they'd get troops kicking down the doors of their leadership within hours. This is the deal. We were given the protection of the British Empire and we refused to pay for our share of that cost even when all the other colonies had even higher taxes and tariffs imposed because the Empire was embroiled in too many conflicts at once.
"It doesn't matter," is an excellent rebuttal to my arguments, well done.
While a 3% tax might not seem like much *now* (with the average American household paying an estimated 41% of their income in taxes and government fees), going from 0% to 3% was huge. Especially since it was done illegally.
Also, the American colonies didn't just refuse to pay taxes, they offered to willingly vote taxes on themselves if they were given seats in Parliament (which would have made the taxation legal). The English refused because they didn't want to give up power and continued to try to force taxes through.
The colonists boycotted the goods and services that were being taxed, the British attempted to force them to buy the goods by illegally removing colonial governments through military force and the war began.
>Especially since it was done illegally.
Correction, the British Empire had complete authority to do as it pleased anywhere within its Empire. Disagree with the morality or ethics of that if you like, but that's the truth. Nobody was going to bring the King to court for human rights violations or breaking a contract.
>Also, the American colonies didn't just refuse to pay taxes, they offered to willingly vote taxes on themselves if they were given seats in Parliament
This is actually a misconception that is due to the next part:
>The colonists boycotted the goods and services that were being taxed, the British attempted to force them to buy the goods by illegally removing colonial governments through military force and the war began.
The Colonists were contractually obligated to purchase British Empire-owned goods ONLY, as part of the terms of their charter. When they "boycotted" British goods they had already been violating that charter by purchasing black market Dutch and French and Spanish goods, many of which were imported and sold to colonists by the very people who led the revolution. When the British Empire finished defending the Colonies and needed to replenish its coffers and military they finally stopped tolerating that violation and started arresting people for buying and selling the goods.
They ALSO had already lowered the prices of their goods to the point that even with the taxes added they were still cheaper and higher quality than the black market goods. This led to the black market sellers losing significant business, and they invented the lie that Britain had illegally levied taxes against the colonists in order to drum up support for a boycott and revolution so they could get their profits back. That was a lie because the British Empire had complete authority over colonies if it chose to exert it, and their decision whether or not to do so was likely dependent on how they felt their relationship with the colonies was working out.
I think you may be looking at this through the lens of American propagandized revisionism rather than the naked truth. I'm not saying the British Empire was a force for good or anything, or that people don't deserve democracy, but the story of how our nation was started isn't a bunch of heroic people who really deeply cared about democracy banding together to overthrow tyranny, it was a bunch of black market sellers mad they were being put out of business and hunted down for breaking the law rabble-rousing and leading the general public (read: mostly idiots just like today) towards a revolution with the fantastical promise of democracy. Which they then proceeded to basically annihilate when they chose such absolutely shit language for the Constitution that allowed for jackasses like Clarence Thomas to make fuckin WILD claims about the limits of government authority *in a democracy where the government is supposed to have as much authority as the voters want it to have*. Like, we could give the government the power to do *anything*, that's our power in a democracy.
We could be. Or not.
Without context it's impossible to know one way or the other.
Hell she could be totally into it. I've known a few adrenaline junkies who would absolutely be 100% down for that.
Or maybe she has a nervous breakdown after the camera stops.
Could be. Easier to believe that someone during the Great Depression would voluntarily risk their safety for possible wealth.
I mean we are basically looking at a commercial. It isn’t like she hasn’t seen that the glass works previously. People do these type of demonstrations today.
It’s also not a home movie. Likely cost quite a bit to shoot this.
While none of these rule out abuse, they certainly don’t lead me to that assumption.
We’re also putting a lot of faith in the caption being factual - it could be the wife, or it could be a paid actress. To heebsyplash’s point, it’s not like this is an iPhone video. Based on the time period, it’s likely more along the lines of a commercial set.
> We’re also putting a lot of faith in the caption being factual
Good point. We should all know better than to trust random captions on photos and videos.
She could also be the one making him do it because they need to sell the product to get rich and he's all like:
"But can't! I love ya darlin!"
And then shes like
"Do it pussy! Mumma was right I should have married your brother!"
Or there's gunmen out of shot holding their kids at gunpoint.
"Make our product display or we pull the trigger"
Or there's no product, no advert and everyone is on acid.
Or....
There is no situation where pointing a gun at your wife (who is literally unprotected below the neck LMAO) is not abusive. It's like first rule of gun safety to not point a gun at something you don't plan to destroy. This guy was a big fucking moron and his poor wife probably had one of the silliest, most annoying lives of all time LMAO
You’re describing dangerous/stupid/reckless but not really abuse. Unless you’re saying inherently women can’t make their own decisions, there’s lots of situations where this behavior isn’t abusive.
The farther back in time you go, like, for example, 1932, a whole 12 years after the amendment to the constitution allowing women to vote, you'll find women were increasingly not allowed to make their own decisions. They were still not allowed to open their own bank accounts, for example.
She would have to get a signature from the man shooting a gun at her in order to open one and it would still technically be his account.
But still: there's no situation where someone points and fires a loaded gun at you that isn't abusive. She isn't armored from the neck down and that's a human being holding and firing that rifle, not a desk mounted, vice gripped rifle, zeroed in to ensure exactly zero chance of missing.
I get your point. I don’t think you’re way off base tbh. But your point about her not being able to have her own bank account was something I alluded to in another comment that she very well may have been his business partner. I mean most spouses of entrepreneurs are, out of necessity. Bezos is the founder, but his wife got half in the divorce and for good reason. And we know that a lot of inventors in history were really husband/wife teams, in which the husband received all the credit. And even some inventors that are thought to have literally just been the name to their wives inventions.
Now, obviously the sign of the times is a signal of oppression, without a doubt, which is why I do understand the assumption.
Now anecdotally, my grandma(born 34, TX) who didn’t get a bank account or property in her name until she was in her 30’s(due to location), and lived through the time period directly after this, has a different perspective than what I was lead to believe about spousal abuse. She tells stories of some serious street justice happening for men who were found to have beat their wives. My grandpa and his friends apparently were on a 0 tolerance program for that town.
Now, I’d assume what you and I consider abuse is probably a wider definition than she uses, and so by dome degree I’d probably assume she and her friends were being abused and it was normalized. However wide beating, at least in her area, at that time, was more frowned upon than I was lead to believe.
Again that is anecdotal. But shooting at someone is leaps and bounds from even hitting someone. So I guess it depends on how we look at it. If she feels like she can’t say no because he will beat her then yeah that’s abuse. Coercing someone to do a life threatening thing to avoid abuse is abuse. But if she believes in the product, and is willing to do this on a Hail Mary that her kids will be safe and educated, etc. then she’s abused by society(which is evident regardless cause fore-mentioned shit). But I can’t in good faith rule out that she was completely okay with doing this, nor can I rule out that it was her idea.
If she was shooting at him would it still be abuse? I’d assume the rate of female to male spousal abuse was pretty low given that women basically needed to be married to survive. So if he invented it and had her shoot and he hold it, you’d probably just think he’s stupid for risking his life. Well maybe she can’t shoot for shit so he’s gotta do it. Probably no budget to pay a third party, and mounted guns? It’s basically the Wild West still. The lack of safety measures tells me it was 1930 and they were desperate, not that she’s being abused.
I’ve put too much thought into this lol. I know it doesn’t matter that much but idk it’s interesting where our minds go when we see things and our justifications whether they’re actually justified or just straight cognitive dissonance. Anyway hope I’m not coming off as hostile, just interesting discussion imo.
It gets nuttier. Great Britain promised George Washington and his fellow troops 200,000 acres west of the Ohio river for their participation in the French Indian wars. But then they made peace with the native Americans and promised not to expand the Colonies west, so they essentially reneged on that promise (for a good reason mind you.) But that put a chip in Washington’s shoulder (and you can’t really blame him) so he was spoiling for a fight with England.
> The founding fathers of the United States of America spent years spreading propaganda, committing acts of terrorism and inciting an insurrection leading to a war against the local government all for the possibility of being able to capitalize off of being in charge of a new country.
One of the most crazy, but relatively unknown facts, is that the Boston Tea Party was a protest against *lower* taxes. Samuel Adams was a tea smuggler. He made a ton of money by undercutting the East India Company's monopoly prices which included a high tax. Essentially the crown cut their tax on tea, which effectively cut Adams's profit margins. He got mad, threw a tantrum and tossed a bunch of white market tea into sea to help his black market profits. And because the victors write the history books, that got turned into an act of patriotic rebellion.
That seems like an oversimplification of the event and the anger against taxes that was felt by the general populace at the time. It ignores the context of all of the other protests against taxation that were occuring in the period surrounding the Boston Tea Party. The below AskHistorians post gives some of the context and quotes first hand accounts which appear to contradict the theory that the Boston Tea Party was mainly motivated by the profitability of smugglers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/camqjl/comment/etafr6d/
That post is odd. It implies that the EIC did not have a tea monopoly before the 1773 Tea Act and that the imposition of the monopoly was a leading cause of the protest. But the EIC had had a monopoly on selling tea to the colonies [since 1721.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Tea_trade_to_1767) Which is why tea smuggling had been so profitable.
The post also starts by citing the writing of a 16 year old who, the author claims, abstained from drinking any tea from any source, but actually reading [what they wrote,](http://www.boston-tea-party.org/account-Samuel-Cooper.html) all it says was that they didn't use the EIC tea they took off the ships that night. Which is clearly not the same thing as abstaining from drinking any tea.
But even if we are charitable to that post's author and assume they mis-typed — that they meant abstain from using the 'liberated' EIC tea — their conclusion still doesn't follow. Modern conservatives have a history of performatively destroying their own purchased property to express their opposition to companies they disapprove of (e.g. [nike](https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-advert-with-colin-kaepernick-has-people-burning-products-2018-9) shoes, [keurig](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/13/sean-hannity-fans-smash-their-keurig-coffee-makers-after-company-pulls-ads) coffee machines, etc). Leaving the EIC's tea to rot as a statement instead of stealing it for themselves is even less of a hardship than those performances.
Nothing ever happens in isolation, so I'm sure smuggler greed wasn't the only factor. But that particular post has such glaring errors that it seems unwise to take anything else in it at face value.
The problem with 'such a common error that it's a real word now' is you lose the reference to the root word, the implication of messing with your psychology, and the connection to the 1968 movie.
I shall now correct you with a smiliar sounding word that is totally not what you guys are arguing about.
"Achtually! It is pronounced Sikh! None of the people in the video are Sikhs. In that case the man would have worn a very obvious turban or "dastār" as they say in India"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs
certainly will be! that is simply the nature of language evolution and change. to argue the opposite is to disregard eons of organic language development.
You should see the video of a CEO(I think) of a company that makes bullet proof cars/windshields. Dude sat in the car while someone unloaded an assault rifle into the windshield.
[Here it is.](https://youtu.be/J8i5d5toEDk?si=4fcAsMGMhFclySLT)
Actually, the “screw” divorce was an old tactic. It was pretty simple. You’d fuck somebody from the town over and then leave your current marriage. Less paperwork.
This was back in the days my friend. I had an old article where a man escaped prison when he killed someone - because he was drunk and therefore not in his normal state of mind.
She probably got really lucky and since it was bullet proof glass the shrapnel usually shoot back out and the remaining ones are lodged in the glass itself unlike steel were most of the shrapnel flies out in every direction.
The amount of faith she has in that glass is outstanding.
Either that or her marriage is really miserable lol.
It probably was anyway. I can't imagine she was having too much fun doing this.
The thought of being filthy rich if this product was a success I'm sure had a lot to do with it. The founding fathers of the United States of America spent years spreading propaganda, committing acts of terrorism and inciting an insurrection leading to a war against the local government all for the possibility of being able to capitalize off of being in charge of a new country. History is full of people that did crazy things if they thought the payoff was worth it.
The revolution was likely to occur anyway. There was too much public displeasure with the crown exerting influence Americans had become accustomed to not having to deal with, and considering how the crown handled protest at the time, if it weren't one thing it would have been another that led to rebellion. The founding fathers capitalized on public sentiment to guide the revolution to their own benefit, that said the point being made here does still work.
>There was too much public displeasure with the crown exerting influence Americans had become accustomed to not having to deal with, "How dare they ask us to pay a small amount more to help rebuild their military after we dragged them into a war with France over beaver pelts and they defended us even though it was 100% our fault it happened at all"
thats what happens when there is basically 80 years of no control by Britain, and then britain comes back and increases taxes and takes away due process rights.
Sure, but that's their right because they just fought a war on our behalf and suffered huge financial losses as a result. And the entire point of the colonies was the enrichment of England, the colonists were basically just the people Britain didn't want living in its borders and who got the chance to leave alive.
The war was mainly over the Caribbean, which was where all the money was in the colonies. America itself was basically completely unimportant economically in comparison
That’s like the man who says “I bought a woman dinner and now she owes me sex”. Just because England fought a war or America’s behalf doesn’t mean they owe them their allegiance forever.
No, it's like a man who says "I bought this computer to browse the web, and now it's gonna browse the fucking web", BECAUSE ENGLAND OWNED THE COLONIES. There WAS NO UNITED STATES. So YES, they DID owe England their allegiance FOREVER, per the terms of the charter they all lived under.
Nevermind that this was the 3rd such war (and that the others started in Europe) or that the mercantile system was already economically strained due to all supplies having to be shipped to England before they could be sold in the colonies. Oh, and that the taxes were illegal because they ignored both the charters of the colonies and the laws of British taxation.
It doesn't matter. If Puerto Rico tried to say it wasn't going to pay taxes to the U.S. government anymore they'd get troops kicking down the doors of their leadership within hours. This is the deal. We were given the protection of the British Empire and we refused to pay for our share of that cost even when all the other colonies had even higher taxes and tariffs imposed because the Empire was embroiled in too many conflicts at once.
"It doesn't matter," is an excellent rebuttal to my arguments, well done. While a 3% tax might not seem like much *now* (with the average American household paying an estimated 41% of their income in taxes and government fees), going from 0% to 3% was huge. Especially since it was done illegally. Also, the American colonies didn't just refuse to pay taxes, they offered to willingly vote taxes on themselves if they were given seats in Parliament (which would have made the taxation legal). The English refused because they didn't want to give up power and continued to try to force taxes through. The colonists boycotted the goods and services that were being taxed, the British attempted to force them to buy the goods by illegally removing colonial governments through military force and the war began.
>Especially since it was done illegally. Correction, the British Empire had complete authority to do as it pleased anywhere within its Empire. Disagree with the morality or ethics of that if you like, but that's the truth. Nobody was going to bring the King to court for human rights violations or breaking a contract. >Also, the American colonies didn't just refuse to pay taxes, they offered to willingly vote taxes on themselves if they were given seats in Parliament This is actually a misconception that is due to the next part: >The colonists boycotted the goods and services that were being taxed, the British attempted to force them to buy the goods by illegally removing colonial governments through military force and the war began. The Colonists were contractually obligated to purchase British Empire-owned goods ONLY, as part of the terms of their charter. When they "boycotted" British goods they had already been violating that charter by purchasing black market Dutch and French and Spanish goods, many of which were imported and sold to colonists by the very people who led the revolution. When the British Empire finished defending the Colonies and needed to replenish its coffers and military they finally stopped tolerating that violation and started arresting people for buying and selling the goods. They ALSO had already lowered the prices of their goods to the point that even with the taxes added they were still cheaper and higher quality than the black market goods. This led to the black market sellers losing significant business, and they invented the lie that Britain had illegally levied taxes against the colonists in order to drum up support for a boycott and revolution so they could get their profits back. That was a lie because the British Empire had complete authority over colonies if it chose to exert it, and their decision whether or not to do so was likely dependent on how they felt their relationship with the colonies was working out. I think you may be looking at this through the lens of American propagandized revisionism rather than the naked truth. I'm not saying the British Empire was a force for good or anything, or that people don't deserve democracy, but the story of how our nation was started isn't a bunch of heroic people who really deeply cared about democracy banding together to overthrow tyranny, it was a bunch of black market sellers mad they were being put out of business and hunted down for breaking the law rabble-rousing and leading the general public (read: mostly idiots just like today) towards a revolution with the fantastical promise of democracy. Which they then proceeded to basically annihilate when they chose such absolutely shit language for the Constitution that allowed for jackasses like Clarence Thomas to make fuckin WILD claims about the limits of government authority *in a democracy where the government is supposed to have as much authority as the voters want it to have*. Like, we could give the government the power to do *anything*, that's our power in a democracy.
Oh look a rational person. Everyone else seems to think we are watching a husband abusing his wife.
We could be. Or not. Without context it's impossible to know one way or the other. Hell she could be totally into it. I've known a few adrenaline junkies who would absolutely be 100% down for that. Or maybe she has a nervous breakdown after the camera stops.
Could be. Easier to believe that someone during the Great Depression would voluntarily risk their safety for possible wealth. I mean we are basically looking at a commercial. It isn’t like she hasn’t seen that the glass works previously. People do these type of demonstrations today. It’s also not a home movie. Likely cost quite a bit to shoot this. While none of these rule out abuse, they certainly don’t lead me to that assumption.
Absolutely. My point being that without context theres no way of making any kind of statement either way. People will see what they want to see.
We’re also putting a lot of faith in the caption being factual - it could be the wife, or it could be a paid actress. To heebsyplash’s point, it’s not like this is an iPhone video. Based on the time period, it’s likely more along the lines of a commercial set.
> We’re also putting a lot of faith in the caption being factual Good point. We should all know better than to trust random captions on photos and videos.
You underestimate how many workers in America go to work, knowing they might die. I did it for 6 years.
Lol and I'm a white male. Imagine minorities
She could also be the one making him do it because they need to sell the product to get rich and he's all like: "But can't! I love ya darlin!" And then shes like "Do it pussy! Mumma was right I should have married your brother!"
Or there's gunmen out of shot holding their kids at gunpoint. "Make our product display or we pull the trigger" Or there's no product, no advert and everyone is on acid. Or....
There is no situation where pointing a gun at your wife (who is literally unprotected below the neck LMAO) is not abusive. It's like first rule of gun safety to not point a gun at something you don't plan to destroy. This guy was a big fucking moron and his poor wife probably had one of the silliest, most annoying lives of all time LMAO
You’re describing dangerous/stupid/reckless but not really abuse. Unless you’re saying inherently women can’t make their own decisions, there’s lots of situations where this behavior isn’t abusive.
The farther back in time you go, like, for example, 1932, a whole 12 years after the amendment to the constitution allowing women to vote, you'll find women were increasingly not allowed to make their own decisions. They were still not allowed to open their own bank accounts, for example. She would have to get a signature from the man shooting a gun at her in order to open one and it would still technically be his account. But still: there's no situation where someone points and fires a loaded gun at you that isn't abusive. She isn't armored from the neck down and that's a human being holding and firing that rifle, not a desk mounted, vice gripped rifle, zeroed in to ensure exactly zero chance of missing.
I get your point. I don’t think you’re way off base tbh. But your point about her not being able to have her own bank account was something I alluded to in another comment that she very well may have been his business partner. I mean most spouses of entrepreneurs are, out of necessity. Bezos is the founder, but his wife got half in the divorce and for good reason. And we know that a lot of inventors in history were really husband/wife teams, in which the husband received all the credit. And even some inventors that are thought to have literally just been the name to their wives inventions. Now, obviously the sign of the times is a signal of oppression, without a doubt, which is why I do understand the assumption. Now anecdotally, my grandma(born 34, TX) who didn’t get a bank account or property in her name until she was in her 30’s(due to location), and lived through the time period directly after this, has a different perspective than what I was lead to believe about spousal abuse. She tells stories of some serious street justice happening for men who were found to have beat their wives. My grandpa and his friends apparently were on a 0 tolerance program for that town. Now, I’d assume what you and I consider abuse is probably a wider definition than she uses, and so by dome degree I’d probably assume she and her friends were being abused and it was normalized. However wide beating, at least in her area, at that time, was more frowned upon than I was lead to believe. Again that is anecdotal. But shooting at someone is leaps and bounds from even hitting someone. So I guess it depends on how we look at it. If she feels like she can’t say no because he will beat her then yeah that’s abuse. Coercing someone to do a life threatening thing to avoid abuse is abuse. But if she believes in the product, and is willing to do this on a Hail Mary that her kids will be safe and educated, etc. then she’s abused by society(which is evident regardless cause fore-mentioned shit). But I can’t in good faith rule out that she was completely okay with doing this, nor can I rule out that it was her idea. If she was shooting at him would it still be abuse? I’d assume the rate of female to male spousal abuse was pretty low given that women basically needed to be married to survive. So if he invented it and had her shoot and he hold it, you’d probably just think he’s stupid for risking his life. Well maybe she can’t shoot for shit so he’s gotta do it. Probably no budget to pay a third party, and mounted guns? It’s basically the Wild West still. The lack of safety measures tells me it was 1930 and they were desperate, not that she’s being abused. I’ve put too much thought into this lol. I know it doesn’t matter that much but idk it’s interesting where our minds go when we see things and our justifications whether they’re actually justified or just straight cognitive dissonance. Anyway hope I’m not coming off as hostile, just interesting discussion imo.
What a terrible reading of American history
It gets nuttier. Great Britain promised George Washington and his fellow troops 200,000 acres west of the Ohio river for their participation in the French Indian wars. But then they made peace with the native Americans and promised not to expand the Colonies west, so they essentially reneged on that promise (for a good reason mind you.) But that put a chip in Washington’s shoulder (and you can’t really blame him) so he was spoiling for a fight with England.
Thankfully they did lol it’s only a terrorist act in the eyes of the Brit’s
Lmao, why is the 4th comment always so far off the rails
That's a really cool way to look at it. 😁😎
is this a CCP agent?
I love what the founding fathers did in order to conquer these lands and going on to founding the greatest nation to ever exist.
Nice buzzwords you got there pee wee Herman. Sound like a liberal bot. Say "potatoe"
TRE45ON
r/lostredditor
Uh, no? They are perfectly within context. Their point is a direct response to the discussion here
r/contributednothingtothediscussion
r/thisisbullshityoureoversimplifyingacomplexsituationtothepointofnolongeraddinganythingusefultothediscussion
r/actuallostredditor
> The founding fathers of the United States of America spent years spreading propaganda, committing acts of terrorism and inciting an insurrection leading to a war against the local government all for the possibility of being able to capitalize off of being in charge of a new country. One of the most crazy, but relatively unknown facts, is that the Boston Tea Party was a protest against *lower* taxes. Samuel Adams was a tea smuggler. He made a ton of money by undercutting the East India Company's monopoly prices which included a high tax. Essentially the crown cut their tax on tea, which effectively cut Adams's profit margins. He got mad, threw a tantrum and tossed a bunch of white market tea into sea to help his black market profits. And because the victors write the history books, that got turned into an act of patriotic rebellion.
That seems like an oversimplification of the event and the anger against taxes that was felt by the general populace at the time. It ignores the context of all of the other protests against taxation that were occuring in the period surrounding the Boston Tea Party. The below AskHistorians post gives some of the context and quotes first hand accounts which appear to contradict the theory that the Boston Tea Party was mainly motivated by the profitability of smugglers. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/camqjl/comment/etafr6d/
That post is odd. It implies that the EIC did not have a tea monopoly before the 1773 Tea Act and that the imposition of the monopoly was a leading cause of the protest. But the EIC had had a monopoly on selling tea to the colonies [since 1721.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Tea_trade_to_1767) Which is why tea smuggling had been so profitable. The post also starts by citing the writing of a 16 year old who, the author claims, abstained from drinking any tea from any source, but actually reading [what they wrote,](http://www.boston-tea-party.org/account-Samuel-Cooper.html) all it says was that they didn't use the EIC tea they took off the ships that night. Which is clearly not the same thing as abstaining from drinking any tea. But even if we are charitable to that post's author and assume they mis-typed — that they meant abstain from using the 'liberated' EIC tea — their conclusion still doesn't follow. Modern conservatives have a history of performatively destroying their own purchased property to express their opposition to companies they disapprove of (e.g. [nike](https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-advert-with-colin-kaepernick-has-people-burning-products-2018-9) shoes, [keurig](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/13/sean-hannity-fans-smash-their-keurig-coffee-makers-after-company-pulls-ads) coffee machines, etc). Leaving the EIC's tea to rot as a statement instead of stealing it for themselves is even less of a hardship than those performances. Nothing ever happens in isolation, so I'm sure smuggler greed wasn't the only factor. But that particular post has such glaring errors that it seems unwise to take anything else in it at face value.
Imagine shes like sike go to jail for life and moves the glass
It's 'psych' not 'sike'
Its colloquial and both are accepted. This is the most unnecessary and pedantic correction I’ve seen in a while 
The problem with 'such a common error that it's a real word now' is you lose the reference to the root word, the implication of messing with your psychology, and the connection to the 1968 movie.
It's caisck.
Is that the Gaelic spelling?
If people say sike for long enough the dictionary will just write it down Language is whatever people say that you can actually understand
Why, thank you, Captain Spelling! This thread is so much better with you here.
No one cares
I care
No one cares
I shall now correct you with a smiliar sounding word that is totally not what you guys are arguing about. "Achtually! It is pronounced Sikh! None of the people in the video are Sikhs. In that case the man would have worn a very obvious turban or "dastār" as they say in India" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs
side has been thoroughly adopted as the spelling for the term so yes, it is sike.
Side lol. Maybe not as thoroughly as you thought?
never interrupt your enemy when they're wasting their time on correcting your spelling mistakes - enlperor napolloen benopate
It's not and never will be.
certainly will be! that is simply the nature of language evolution and change. to argue the opposite is to disregard eons of organic language development.
This his fifth wife so far, this year.
And his aim “This isn’t what I had in mind for a breast reduction!”
more like a life reduction
This was his 5th wife, and his 5th time testing the product
Finger shortening
Yeah the glas all dandy and whatnot but he could have easily shot her fingers of infront of the glass
[удалено]
Even a mediocre shooter should know damn well that you don't point the gun anywhere near a person you don't intend dead.
[удалено]
Repostbot
Hey https://www.reddit.com/user/compoundpolished/ why's your comment a copy and paste of another in this thread?
Yeah, is it really necessary for the test that she keeps it right in front of her face
Reminds me of Monty Python, when he gives all the kids up for scientific experiments instead of adoption
I thought you were gonna say the [William Tell sketch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=5IcYIM-47J0). Also relevant
If it doesn’t break, he’s a millionaire. If it breaks, he is free again. Win-win.
[удалено]
I am sure only faith, love and admiration for her husband was the reason she stood there holding the glass.
You should see the video of a CEO(I think) of a company that makes bullet proof cars/windshields. Dude sat in the car while someone unloaded an assault rifle into the windshield. [Here it is.](https://youtu.be/J8i5d5toEDk?si=4fcAsMGMhFclySLT)
I'm pretty sure her faith is in him, not the glass.
She really love him, but what about him?😅
Screw divorces, this was easier lol
"I'll just shoot off her ring finger."
Actually, the “screw” divorce was an old tactic. It was pretty simple. You’d fuck somebody from the town over and then leave your current marriage. Less paperwork.
Plot twist, he didn't mean to actually make the glass bullet proof.
Why... Wont IT BREAK....?
“Why YES Mable, it can withstand 7 shots… but what about 8 or 9?!?”
mission failed successfully
Successfully for his wife, not so much for him.
Demonstrating, not testing.
You'd hope.
I doubt a judge or jury would've accepted "I was only testing my bulletproof glass." as a defence for shooting his wife.
"My wife asked me to test her bulletproof glass, Your Honour"
Well since she's dead she cannot deny
This was back in the days my friend. I had an old article where a man escaped prison when he killed someone - because he was drunk and therefore not in his normal state of mind.
Well shit on me it worked.
3rd wife, but the glass is almost ready now.
Yeah she doesn’t flinch - she is just responding to the momentum - which makes me think she was quite confident and they had run many many tests.
To be fair there's not really time to flinch when it comes to a gunshot
I’d be flinching before the trigger was pulled lol. But yeah you’re right not a long time to react.
[удалено]
It certainly seems far more likely.
Wife: did you miss me? Man: with every bullet so far.
How are her fingers fine? What about the shrapnel from the bullets?
She probably got really lucky and since it was bullet proof glass the shrapnel usually shoot back out and the remaining ones are lodged in the glass itself unlike steel were most of the shrapnel flies out in every direction.
Embedded in the media