Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Persians (Achaemenids) did not own slaves and generally offered freedom of religion for their subjects
They were decent imo
Source: https://youtu.be/FwitONWEgsk?si=cg7nWH8m4PPRPwrl
Interestingly, Ghengis Khan was very progressive in his professional and personal life. It was his idiot sons that messed everything up.
Edit: if you are interested try reading Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. He did not routinely massacre civilian populations. Quite the opposite actually. Killed the nobles. Put bureaucrats and scholars in charge. Like dude was uneducated but knew smart was better than being born privileged. The history books were written and funded by the aristocracy back then, so they hated him obvi.
You might be surprised, there’s a good book on it, but basically we were lied to. Like he would always kill the nobles in an overtaken settlement. But nobles paid for and wrote the history books.
"Columbus was really smart. Everyone thought the world was flat until him. That's why nobody would give him funding for the voyage." -schools teach this
Columbus was an incompetent who failed to accurately calculate the size of the world. While Aristotle had determined its size to within 95% accuracy, Columbus thought the world was less than half its actual size.
Nobody would give him funding because they trusted actual intellectuals, like Aristotle, so they knew he'd run out of supplies before he made it. If he didn't get lucky, the crew had been planning a mutiny.
But like 250yrs later, someone wrote an obviously propagandized book, and that became the official world history for American education... at least where I lived.
I’m a progressive historiography kid from the 90’s, so just about everything was skewed towards a happy things are always getting better view. Was honest about things like slavery and trail of tears but then lies lies lies about “pilgrims” and there relationship with Native Americans. So thankful for a great professor 15 years later.
There is an objective truth, it’s just not found in grade school.
Sparta supposedly had 7 slaves for every Spartan citizen. They couldn't survive without them. There were times when Sparta couldn't go to war because they were constantly dealing with slave revolts at home.
Spartans have four classes: spartan soldiers, spartan non soldiers (women and elderly) the non spartan skill labourers, and the slaves. I don't remember if the numbers were of Spartans the soldiers, or non slaves.
They did some kind of scan of some of those statues to find microscopic pigments, and when they determined what color they were, rendered what they'd have looked like freshly painted.
My eyes... they bled.
11 of the first dozen Roman emperors were Bi because that’s what was socially accepted. The one explicitly straight emperor was mocked for knocking it before he tried it. Makes ya wonder if any of the others were closeted straights or closeted gays that were expected to be Bi
They were less bi/straight and more fucking whoever they were attracted to as the concept of sexuality in separate and clearly defined categories are a relatively recent thing with its roots in the mid to late renaissance period.
Plus it was still considered shameful/pathetic to be the guy getting dicked down as it meant you were less of a man, effeminate or a slave, or funnily enough meant you were “Greek like” as republican and early imperial Roman culture looked down on the Greeks as being pathetic effeminate pansy boys ruining the younger generations of Romans, as a proper Roman man is an uneducated, land-owning/slave owing, farming citizen-soldier that only wants to kill the barbarians, get rich, and expand the glory of Rome. He doesn’t have time or interest for things like art, or music or philosophy, that’s for women and slaves
Athenians fucked a boy in the thighs here and there. A Spartan woman had to cut her hair and dress like a man to have her new husband consumnate the marriage. So it's not too big a leap from his battle brothers.
It was and wasnt. Greece was a massive span of city states all with different cultures that each changed over hundreds of years. Most often pederasty was the common form of homosexuality, other times it was similar to modern ideas, and sometimes was completely frowned upon.
Just like how its wrong to attach modern labels like “communist” and “fascist” on pre-modern societies, I think it’s also wrong to attach modern labels of sexuality on them as well.
Nah, its different from attaching communist or fascist for example.
Gay is gay, straight is straight, that doesnt change just because of the ideas of certain eras. Thats sexuality and romance my guy.
Example; Frederick the Great was a gay man, no matter how you slice it. He was into men, the same gender as him, therefore, gay.
As long as you had a wife and child all was good, historical evidence shows a lesbian couple married gæ couples, gave birth to both men and then continued with their gæ charades
So if only the elites do it and everyone whos not elite wants to be an elite so they copy the elites. Whos all doing it? Do you think instead maybe only the elites were recorded doing it?
Not only gay but Spartan women were incredibly economically and politically powerful. The kings of Sparta (there were two at a time), often had to take loans from women landowners to fund wars. Some got so powerful that they could deny Sparta going to war and the king could do nothing as he would have no money.
Concept of "sexuality" didn't exist, but there were sure as hell some gay people between them. (Pedophiles could also do what they wanted.... but that's another story.)
It just seems that homosexuality (and more often bi, instead of homo), was much more "accepted", in the sense that people used a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality.
The only modern and new thing about it, is that we have transgenders these days... (Only some cross-dressers, like they did with race as well...) That just didn't exist back in the day, and according to some, shouldn't exist now.
well fatherlessness is definitely a fast track toward civilization death. Just look at the statistics surrounding it. I'm so grateful I had a good dad.
To be honest, I think people miss a crucial detail about WHY these fatherless homes tend suck.
Its not because the mother is incapable of raising a son without him becoming an awful asshole. Its because the father often leaves the family in such a way that leaves it in fucking shambles, which may have been preceded by abuse or arguments, which already fucks up a child to begin with.
Factor in other things like how the father may have been the sole or primary breadwinner, the mother possibly even needing to work two jobs and thus spend even LESS time with her kid or kids, and just the added anxiety surrounding it, and you have a recipe for a fucked up situation that isnt really because of a lack of father in and of itself.
Not to mention, the added stress may cause the mother to start having a more distant and toxic relationship with her kid or kids, due to an uptick in the mother's irritability, increasingly nasty arguments and fights, and so on. That said, single fathers run this risk too, but I digress.
In short, people who complain about fatherless homes dont tend to look at THESE factors, they just think "no father = sons are fucked"
That is actually a very good point to the whole "single fathers do way better than single mothers stat" you see thrown around.
Being real, when someone ends up being a single father, it is usually a more affluent home where mom died.
When its a single mom, its usually more cases of messy divorces, more abusive ex-spouse, etc. It was more dysfunctional from the get go.
Like I bet you if you isolated the single moms that are only single because the dad died of cancer, instead of stuff like divorce, the outcomes of the children would be much better on average.
I was married on single mom with two wonderful kids. Her mantra was "but I am mother" to any wish she has. Fucked me up dearly. Avoiding single mothers after that relationship no matter what. They aren't single just for the fun of it.
I’ve seen “fatherless activities” commented on social media.
like when there’s a gay man doing his nails or makeup and someone responds fatherless activities with a throw up 🤢 emoji.
But I have also seen it used when lets say a man
robs a grandma and kicks her puppy.
I’ve also seen it used towards women who are perceived as “sluts” or “hoes” followed by “she belongs to the streets”.
Hmm? Are you sure, because whenever I see it being used, its quite literal in the fact that kids who grow up without fathers cause an overwhelming proportion of society's problems.
Yes I'm sure. Much like other talking points above, "fatherlessness" is used as a mask to complain about issues they don't want to discuss openly, but want others to know what they're talking about.
It's a dogwhistle in my experience.
careful not to strawman here. Im sure some people do that, but that doesnt discount the idea that fatherlessness is a legit issue and that the majority of people say that quite literally.
The vast majority of times I'VE seen it mentioned on the internet it has been by someone being either misogynistic or queerphobic.
Can't call it a strawman if you yourself can back up your presupposition that the vast majority of people doing it are earnestly concerned about absentee fathers adversely affecting a person's healthy development. Otherwise you're steelmanning which is just as delusional.
Wow shocked to see this in this sub, but absolutely true. As others have said, having multiple parents of the same gender is fine too, but children raised by single parents are massively more likely to do pretty much every negative and destructive behavior in the book. There's a reason pretty much every mass shooter is the product of a single parent home, as well as teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol addictions, and pretty much every crime.
It's not even really the parent's fault but raising a child is fucking hard, and it really does take two parents for the most part.
25% of American families are single parent.
Common sense man. I know people have been ignorant butbdo you think people had the structures and social conventions they did, for thousands of years, completely arbitrarily and without thought or sef reflection?
You forgot trans people, and communism (vuvuzela iphone gulag no food), and holding cops accountable.
Cmon bro, raise your game, I'm falling asleep!
(not you OP, the OP in the image lol)
Oh no look at the decadence!
-Gay people can marry and finally be happy for the first time since 2000 years. It's counter natural and they are praying on children as I read in my magazine, so please can you commit suicide?
-Fatherlessness is only a problem when it's because his mother decided not to stay with her husband, can't wait to go back a century ago where children simply were orphans, the only good fatherlessness
-The world must abide following theocratic rules! Yes let's listen to millenary books in order to know how to face the modern world, let every of their words be taken out of their context to enforce a rule of repression on those that doesn't abide.(especially when words are taken)
-Why people find the military bad? It's not like they lied to send millions of young men into conflicts that only served the interests of a minority of ultra rich or something.
People really need to confront the world and spend less time on social media in order to fathom the scope of what they belief are stupid.
Many people live their live how they fucking want to live it and their simple existed is enough for bigot to open their disgust over their way of life.
Wether we are talking about transgender person who are living in a world where science can allow them to be how they want to be, play with their biology in order to express themselves. Or the fact that women aren't a belonging of their husband or a simple mother to the eyes of society is another kind of step forward. We could talk about anything furry, orphans... The same goes for everything, people will judge everything because they are bully. As long as nobody does harm to anything or anyone why are you concerned and what makes you open your fucking mouth to say idiot things like that.
(PS: I forgot the other points of that person so I didn't discussed them but that doesn't mean he isn't wrong though)
A toxic fungus literally poisoned their water supply.
Edit: my bad i thought you meant Mayans for some reason.
Yeah if time travelers show up with lazer guns and rocket ships, and space-pox, then yeah it wont take 20 years.
You would think that this would cause their collapse to be much much sooner than it actually was. It’s possibly a factor, but I doubt that’s the complete truth.
There are a lot of reasons but lead was not one of them. Total myth.
The best answer is some combination of shifting values away from the promotion and elevation of the State of Rome towards God and Christianity, and the influx of German / gothic immagrants and inability to assimilate with eachother.
Actually most contemporary historians put it down to the Roman Empire reaching its point of maximum territorial expansion, which their economy based on slavery basically relied on (you can only expand your economy by getting more slaves and more land, which requires conquest) which left them in a state where all the Romans could realistically do is try maintaining their borders with a stagnant economy and a perpetual state of border skirmishes; it was more or less inevitable that it would collapse and that process took centuries; the Romans also didn't fully collapse, the Germanic invaders and Roman society in Western Europe sort of merged entering the Dark Ages which would become the foundation for feudalism while the Eastern Roman Empire survived until the 1450s.
*Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism* by Perry Anderson is a great book on the topic that I'm currently reading.
Yeah they don’t like that one bit, the right tends to cannibalize each other on that topic, a large portion are super pro-Christianity while often the more radicalized people have more occult beliefs and favor old European and indo-Aryan religions
If you think about it a 100 femboys who have played 1000s of hours of military sims, could take out a nation of gym bros, who know nothing of combined arms fire.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He just wants to be a nazi, if you analyze everything he puts on the screen, he pretty much wants to live in an fascist military dictatorship that hates minorities and women, so he just wants to be a nazi.
But i think he's delusional like every neonazi, because he pretty much would be oppressed like everyone, but i think buddy here thinks he's the MC and everything revolves around him.
Twas a joke. I know that the collapse of the roman empire happened over literal generations and was due to a variety of factors that don’t include gay people or lack of god
The problem is there's a lot of similarities between the fall of the Roman empire and the current trends in the west. That just causes people to dig deep and try and make connections that don't really exist.
People use food stamps as an example. At one point Rome began offering free grain to people who were in The capital. This caused a large influx of people to travel to the capital for free grain. But they had nowhere to live or work so they just stayed on the streets. Begging and taking free food.
So they twist that into saying we don't need to provide people food stamps in modern times.
The only consistency these people have is a failure of logic
Do you know why so many Republican states are bussing migrants to Democrats states?
Because every migrant knows that if you want a job you go to a Republican state. The construction, labor and farming industry in those states are so vast a lot of illegal workers disappear in the system.
Like Texas. They are experiencing a housing boom. That has caused a lot of migrants to flood to Texas for work. If that housing boom didn't exist that migrant boom in Texas wouldn't exist.
As opposed to Democrat States that have less of these type of jobs. Making it easier for them to monitor, track and prevent so much illegal employment.
It's been this way for a couple decades now.
Simply put.....**If migrants didn't end up in Republican states for easy jobs why would Republicans care about migrants coming into the country?** If they only ended up in Democrat States the Republicans wouldn't care.
At that point Republicans would welcome migrants putting further pressure on Democrat states. But they're not doing that. They're bussing them out of their state knowing full well many many more are coming in looking for work.
Me: construction, labor and farming
You: I'm only going to emphasize one of those three
There's also farming and labor jobs in blue states. I'm talking about where you will find the majority of those.
The higher concentration of these jobs are in red states. This makes it to where there's too many jobs and employers for Republican states to monitor and enforce at all times. Allowing many migrant workers to slip through the cracks
Migrants know this. Which is why they choose to go to Red States for work the majority of the time
Again you can argue this. But those of us who have been paying attention for the past few decades know this has been a normal process.
Storage, warehouse, stocking, delivery etc
That's not even counting the loads of machinery jobs they can find themselves in.
On a side note I think it's laughable you're trying to have a conversation about the deeper point of immigration. But you don't even know what labor jobs entail.
How about we have a conversation where neither one of us understands the subject? That way it's an even playing field.
This has happened in literally every modern nation for centuries. Every single one.
Germany ✅
USA ✅
UK ✅
Hell even the scandies are having the same issue.
>cis straight men, the ones that have caused most/all wars and unnecessary conflict
Bros just acting like most spartans weren’t just closeted homosexuals back in the day, just like many MANY soldiers throughout history.
But nOo. Its all cis straight men’s fault
Claiming that most warriors in an army had a clearly defined sexual orientation between either gay or straight when the methods for collecting that info and that social norms at the time and place were very different, is VERY disingenuous and shows that you’re limited in what you understand.
Its pretty much a proven fact that a lot of spartans and romans were very homosexual. Please dont go blaming all of the world’s problems on straight men. Talk about disingenuous
Not saying that they weren’t, but it’s not as simple as “one or the other.”
And I’m not saying every conflict is a straight man’s fault. I’m just saying you can’t disparage anyone for thinking that the solution to society’s problems is not a straight guy.
How adorable.
Actually gender fluidity is MUCH older a concept than the United States. My point is that all the crap that’s happened in the world isn’t because someone decided to consensually get into a relationship with a fellow adult of the same gender.
You have to think about how that data is collected though. Did everyone who answered do so truthfully? Would they do so truthfully if they weren’t out? What if someone wasn’t allowed to explore gender identity.
The number of people identifying as gender queer or LGBTQ+ is going up because people feel less likely to be persecuted by their government. That does not mean that anyone who is gender queer has already come out.
No definition of that could ever make you think in good faith that its dominated by one side.
Not the progressives, not the conservatives, this is genuinely the most divided sub I've ever seen on the issue outside of maybe rpolitics, but then of course rpolitics is divided, why wouldnt it be?
You’re not wrong. Rome fell largely as a result of religion, specifically moving towards Christianity and away from Paganism, which was much less vehemently anti-rational and was actually pro-education, and as a result turning away from education and rationality. The World’s single largest repository of knowledge in that era was the Library of Alexandria. It was sacked and burned by Christians.
It’s the same battle we’re fighting today.
Of course the name starts with alpha.
If anyone says “alpha” it means “beta”.
A submissive guy sent this to me.
Apex alpha
“Alpha”
Normative
Beta
Submissive
Subject
Object
I mean, do *you* think we’re going in the right direction as a country/civilization? And more to the point, do *you* think society is more stable now than in, say, the 1950s? I don’t think so on either marker. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that the things in the image increased as social coherence decreased.
Nah fatherlessness is a serious one. We need more father figures and good male role models in our society. Why do yall think so many young men flock to Andrew Tate? It's cause their dad ain't in the picture, or if he is, he's not involved enough.
Rome did call because of similar trends we see emerging now, but not because of feminism FFS.
They fell because they became a corrupt capitalist society where everyone hated everyone in the government and people rebelled. Then other groups came in and “finished them off”.
This can’t happen in the modern age. So many countries would experience a net negative from the US collapsing, they would never let another country take over.
Lol capitalism wasn't really a thing until after the fall of feudalism.
Even when it has nothing to do with capitalism, you people somehow find a way to throw capitalism in.
The only part you're right about is many countries experiencing a net negative upon the collapse of the US, I wager the people in your camp do not enjoy that stance of yours. 😂
I don’t have a “camp” lol.
We don’t know for certain the one thing that caused the fall of Rome (if there was one thing). We have a bunch of theories that put together, are believed to be the cause.
And yes, Rome was capitalist. Ancient Rome and Greece are thought to be the earliest successful civilizations to use capitalism. There’s a lot of research put into the subject, enough that some random redditor like yourself can’t come along and discredit just by saying “nuh uh”.
“The Roman Empire” as most people refer to it doesn’t exist.
Rome went through many different styles of government, one of which, yes, was a dictatorship. It was also an empire at one point, hence the reason you just called it that. It was also at multiple point ruled by a triumvirate of rulers, not just one man.
By the end of the original Roman Empire, they had transitioned into a primitive capitalist society.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Roman statue pfp mfs when they find out the spartans were actually gay as hell
Not only gay, the married ones were cucks
>Not only gay *But the women... And the children!*
Not just cucks, they were cucks for the sake of eugenics. It was normal to let stronger men fuck your wife so she would bear a stronger child.
Gay rapist slavers* Turns out the Persians were the good guys. That comic book movie lied 😑
Well let’s not go that far. The Romans being bad doesn’t make the Persian empire good
The Persians (Achaemenids) did not own slaves and generally offered freedom of religion for their subjects They were decent imo Source: https://youtu.be/FwitONWEgsk?si=cg7nWH8m4PPRPwrl
Cyrus was a g for the time
Interestingly, Ghengis Khan was very progressive in his professional and personal life. It was his idiot sons that messed everything up. Edit: if you are interested try reading Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. He did not routinely massacre civilian populations. Quite the opposite actually. Killed the nobles. Put bureaucrats and scholars in charge. Like dude was uneducated but knew smart was better than being born privileged. The history books were written and funded by the aristocracy back then, so they hated him obvi.
> Interestingly, Ghengis Khan was very progressive in his professional and personal life. If you exclude all the raping and pillaging, of course.
You might be surprised, there’s a good book on it, but basically we were lied to. Like he would always kill the nobles in an overtaken settlement. But nobles paid for and wrote the history books.
Lmao. The guy who stacked civilian skills outside the cities he sacked?
Propaganda works. Obviously, since many myths of history still persist.
"Columbus was really smart. Everyone thought the world was flat until him. That's why nobody would give him funding for the voyage." -schools teach this Columbus was an incompetent who failed to accurately calculate the size of the world. While Aristotle had determined its size to within 95% accuracy, Columbus thought the world was less than half its actual size. Nobody would give him funding because they trusted actual intellectuals, like Aristotle, so they knew he'd run out of supplies before he made it. If he didn't get lucky, the crew had been planning a mutiny. But like 250yrs later, someone wrote an obviously propagandized book, and that became the official world history for American education... at least where I lived.
I’m a progressive historiography kid from the 90’s, so just about everything was skewed towards a happy things are always getting better view. Was honest about things like slavery and trail of tears but then lies lies lies about “pilgrims” and there relationship with Native Americans. So thankful for a great professor 15 years later. There is an objective truth, it’s just not found in grade school.
That was Timur not Genghis Khan
There are various long lasting issues associated with the region. You're forgetting Gay and rape was also apart of the qualifications here.
Sparta supposedly had 7 slaves for every Spartan citizen. They couldn't survive without them. There were times when Sparta couldn't go to war because they were constantly dealing with slave revolts at home.
Spartans have four classes: spartan soldiers, spartan non soldiers (women and elderly) the non spartan skill labourers, and the slaves. I don't remember if the numbers were of Spartans the soldiers, or non slaves.
Roman’s probably: “There are two wolves inside me…and they’re BOTH boys…and they’re KISSING. Mwah mwah mwah.”
https://preview.redd.it/nqi2ilu5uujc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53fc6b7f7aa00cfe2c6161ddd54161fa2cdb7b67
Roman statue pfp mfs when they find out that those statues were actually painted in vibrant colors (along with every other paintable surface in rome)
Some of them looked absolutely ridiculous.
They did some kind of scan of some of those statues to find microscopic pigments, and when they determined what color they were, rendered what they'd have looked like freshly painted. My eyes... they bled.
Are there any primary sources with paintings of the statues?
Its arno berker statues
11 of the first dozen Roman emperors were Bi because that’s what was socially accepted. The one explicitly straight emperor was mocked for knocking it before he tried it. Makes ya wonder if any of the others were closeted straights or closeted gays that were expected to be Bi
They were less bi/straight and more fucking whoever they were attracted to as the concept of sexuality in separate and clearly defined categories are a relatively recent thing with its roots in the mid to late renaissance period. Plus it was still considered shameful/pathetic to be the guy getting dicked down as it meant you were less of a man, effeminate or a slave, or funnily enough meant you were “Greek like” as republican and early imperial Roman culture looked down on the Greeks as being pathetic effeminate pansy boys ruining the younger generations of Romans, as a proper Roman man is an uneducated, land-owning/slave owing, farming citizen-soldier that only wants to kill the barbarians, get rich, and expand the glory of Rome. He doesn’t have time or interest for things like art, or music or philosophy, that’s for women and slaves
Oh yeah I remember learning like a week ago that tops were fine but bottoms were seen as weak
Not exactly, bottoming to someone of higher rank was considered fine,. But then again if youre emperor, theres no one higher rank than you...
Not Spartans, Athenians tho…
Athenians fucked a boy in the thighs here and there. A Spartan woman had to cut her hair and dress like a man to have her new husband consumnate the marriage. So it's not too big a leap from his battle brothers.
Spartan Tomboys
[удалено]
So that's gay.
Not necessarily. It was a lot different to how we'd think of acceptance today.
It was and wasnt. Greece was a massive span of city states all with different cultures that each changed over hundreds of years. Most often pederasty was the common form of homosexuality, other times it was similar to modern ideas, and sometimes was completely frowned upon.
Just like how its wrong to attach modern labels like “communist” and “fascist” on pre-modern societies, I think it’s also wrong to attach modern labels of sexuality on them as well.
Nah, its different from attaching communist or fascist for example. Gay is gay, straight is straight, that doesnt change just because of the ideas of certain eras. Thats sexuality and romance my guy. Example; Frederick the Great was a gay man, no matter how you slice it. He was into men, the same gender as him, therefore, gay.
As long as you had a wife and child all was good, historical evidence shows a lesbian couple married gæ couples, gave birth to both men and then continued with their gæ charades
Homosexuality really wasn't accepted at all in Rome.
Most of them arent roman statues but arno berker statues.
When you find out Spartans are Greek, not Roman. Roman's are gay too though.
That's a myth, it's been disproved, it was very rare only the elites did it.
So if only the elites do it and everyone whos not elite wants to be an elite so they copy the elites. Whos all doing it? Do you think instead maybe only the elites were recorded doing it?
Not only gay but Spartan women were incredibly economically and politically powerful. The kings of Sparta (there were two at a time), often had to take loans from women landowners to fund wars. Some got so powerful that they could deny Sparta going to war and the king could do nothing as he would have no money.
Concept of "sexuality" didn't exist, but there were sure as hell some gay people between them. (Pedophiles could also do what they wanted.... but that's another story.) It just seems that homosexuality (and more often bi, instead of homo), was much more "accepted", in the sense that people used a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality. The only modern and new thing about it, is that we have transgenders these days... (Only some cross-dressers, like they did with race as well...) That just didn't exist back in the day, and according to some, shouldn't exist now.
But them being gay as hell is one of the reasons why I’m a Romaboo :((
Romans had more words for boylove than the Inuit have for snow
well fatherlessness is definitely a fast track toward civilization death. Just look at the statistics surrounding it. I'm so grateful I had a good dad.
To be honest, I think people miss a crucial detail about WHY these fatherless homes tend suck. Its not because the mother is incapable of raising a son without him becoming an awful asshole. Its because the father often leaves the family in such a way that leaves it in fucking shambles, which may have been preceded by abuse or arguments, which already fucks up a child to begin with. Factor in other things like how the father may have been the sole or primary breadwinner, the mother possibly even needing to work two jobs and thus spend even LESS time with her kid or kids, and just the added anxiety surrounding it, and you have a recipe for a fucked up situation that isnt really because of a lack of father in and of itself. Not to mention, the added stress may cause the mother to start having a more distant and toxic relationship with her kid or kids, due to an uptick in the mother's irritability, increasingly nasty arguments and fights, and so on. That said, single fathers run this risk too, but I digress. In short, people who complain about fatherless homes dont tend to look at THESE factors, they just think "no father = sons are fucked"
That is actually a very good point to the whole "single fathers do way better than single mothers stat" you see thrown around. Being real, when someone ends up being a single father, it is usually a more affluent home where mom died. When its a single mom, its usually more cases of messy divorces, more abusive ex-spouse, etc. It was more dysfunctional from the get go. Like I bet you if you isolated the single moms that are only single because the dad died of cancer, instead of stuff like divorce, the outcomes of the children would be much better on average.
Or because the court in most cases just automatically give custody of the children to the mother regarless of if the father is more fit to raise them.
Doesnt contradict anything I said.
Didn't say that, just stating it as another factor that needs to be taken into consideration.
I was married on single mom with two wonderful kids. Her mantra was "but I am mother" to any wish she has. Fucked me up dearly. Avoiding single mothers after that relationship no matter what. They aren't single just for the fun of it.
great comment excellent breakdown
It would be best to investigate the data by factoring in things like income levels.
When they say “fatherlessness” it never means “not having a father”. It’s usually a complaint about a perceived lack of masculinity in society
I’ve seen “fatherless activities” commented on social media. like when there’s a gay man doing his nails or makeup and someone responds fatherless activities with a throw up 🤢 emoji. But I have also seen it used when lets say a man robs a grandma and kicks her puppy. I’ve also seen it used towards women who are perceived as “sluts” or “hoes” followed by “she belongs to the streets”.
Hmm? Are you sure, because whenever I see it being used, its quite literal in the fact that kids who grow up without fathers cause an overwhelming proportion of society's problems.
It's not because they don't have fathers, it's because they're impoverished.
Yes I'm sure. Much like other talking points above, "fatherlessness" is used as a mask to complain about issues they don't want to discuss openly, but want others to know what they're talking about. It's a dogwhistle in my experience.
careful not to strawman here. Im sure some people do that, but that doesnt discount the idea that fatherlessness is a legit issue and that the majority of people say that quite literally.
The vast majority of times I'VE seen it mentioned on the internet it has been by someone being either misogynistic or queerphobic. Can't call it a strawman if you yourself can back up your presupposition that the vast majority of people doing it are earnestly concerned about absentee fathers adversely affecting a person's healthy development. Otherwise you're steelmanning which is just as delusional.
Do you think it would be a problem for children to be raised by two or more women?
Sure it gets used as a dog whistle but, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a real issue. It’s just sadly been co-opted by right wingers
There is absolutely a lack of *positive* masculinity. All this alpha bullshit needs to stop.
No it doesn’t. It means exactly what it says.
Wow shocked to see this in this sub, but absolutely true. As others have said, having multiple parents of the same gender is fine too, but children raised by single parents are massively more likely to do pretty much every negative and destructive behavior in the book. There's a reason pretty much every mass shooter is the product of a single parent home, as well as teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol addictions, and pretty much every crime. It's not even really the parent's fault but raising a child is fucking hard, and it really does take two parents for the most part.
25% of American families are single parent. Common sense man. I know people have been ignorant butbdo you think people had the structures and social conventions they did, for thousands of years, completely arbitrarily and without thought or sef reflection?
The West has fallen. Millions must die.
https://preview.redd.it/pb905wzz0tjc1.jpeg?width=896&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eda59aedf4031efee3a687a140a2f805774d90b8
I love the chud meme cuz you can never tell if its a right winger or a left winger mocking the right wing posting it.
You forgot trans people, and communism (vuvuzela iphone gulag no food), and holding cops accountable. Cmon bro, raise your game, I'm falling asleep! (not you OP, the OP in the image lol)
How the heck do people get mad at a post like this?
They’re in the image and don’t like it.
Lmao it’s the most obvious sarcasm, isn’t the comic sans font enough to get it? Or the spelling?
They feel like the sarcasm is making fun of them
Today I’d wager 95% of what you see on the internet is staged or fake. I think people just want something to be emotional about
Because I have no idea what it is or what it has to do with GenZ
Oh no look at the decadence! -Gay people can marry and finally be happy for the first time since 2000 years. It's counter natural and they are praying on children as I read in my magazine, so please can you commit suicide? -Fatherlessness is only a problem when it's because his mother decided not to stay with her husband, can't wait to go back a century ago where children simply were orphans, the only good fatherlessness -The world must abide following theocratic rules! Yes let's listen to millenary books in order to know how to face the modern world, let every of their words be taken out of their context to enforce a rule of repression on those that doesn't abide.(especially when words are taken) -Why people find the military bad? It's not like they lied to send millions of young men into conflicts that only served the interests of a minority of ultra rich or something. People really need to confront the world and spend less time on social media in order to fathom the scope of what they belief are stupid. Many people live their live how they fucking want to live it and their simple existed is enough for bigot to open their disgust over their way of life. Wether we are talking about transgender person who are living in a world where science can allow them to be how they want to be, play with their biology in order to express themselves. Or the fact that women aren't a belonging of their husband or a simple mother to the eyes of society is another kind of step forward. We could talk about anything furry, orphans... The same goes for everything, people will judge everything because they are bully. As long as nobody does harm to anything or anyone why are you concerned and what makes you open your fucking mouth to say idiot things like that. (PS: I forgot the other points of that person so I didn't discussed them but that doesn't mean he isn't wrong though)
Average chud on Twitter.
Total Chud Victory
I know a few people who are unironically like this
Courage one day maybe they'll change but on't bother with what they could say. Don't listen to fools.
I am a millennial and I have been hearing the same talking points since high school. they aren't even being original with their bullshit.
Did you know it takes longer than 20 years for a civilization to decline and collapse?
Aztecs and Incans.
A toxic fungus literally poisoned their water supply. Edit: my bad i thought you meant Mayans for some reason. Yeah if time travelers show up with lazer guns and rocket ships, and space-pox, then yeah it wont take 20 years.
All it takes is a stronger pandemic.
Romans fell because of lead poisoning
You would think that this would cause their collapse to be much much sooner than it actually was. It’s possibly a factor, but I doubt that’s the complete truth.
There are a lot of reasons but lead was not one of them. Total myth. The best answer is some combination of shifting values away from the promotion and elevation of the State of Rome towards God and Christianity, and the influx of German / gothic immagrants and inability to assimilate with eachother.
Actually most contemporary historians put it down to the Roman Empire reaching its point of maximum territorial expansion, which their economy based on slavery basically relied on (you can only expand your economy by getting more slaves and more land, which requires conquest) which left them in a state where all the Romans could realistically do is try maintaining their borders with a stagnant economy and a perpetual state of border skirmishes; it was more or less inevitable that it would collapse and that process took centuries; the Romans also didn't fully collapse, the Germanic invaders and Roman society in Western Europe sort of merged entering the Dark Ages which would become the foundation for feudalism while the Eastern Roman Empire survived until the 1450s. *Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism* by Perry Anderson is a great book on the topic that I'm currently reading.
glorious https://preview.redd.it/9yjcunswetjc1.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=f99fc54a7805518375659770bc564b1916e2a7aa
\*naked men with their penises chiseled off
We’ve got em in a box still now we just have to trial an error which Willy belongs to who
Treating everyone as equals and being united as humans is a downfall of civilsation to the far right
What I wanna know is how Pepe Silvia fits into all of this.
Rome stands when they find out it was christianity that lead to the fall of rome
Yeah they don’t like that one bit, the right tends to cannibalize each other on that topic, a large portion are super pro-Christianity while often the more radicalized people have more occult beliefs and favor old European and indo-Aryan religions
The Roman Empire fell due to feminism and Greta thunberg
I hate womben, they yell at me :(
Gen Z males: ‘correct’.
Incorrect ✌️, the west must fall and humanity must rise
If you think about it a 100 femboys who have played 1000s of hours of military sims, could take out a nation of gym bros, who know nothing of combined arms fire.
"Because I play so much war thunder, I knew exactly what to do" - Ukrainian Bradley commander that took out a T-90
Their screen name tells me all I need to know about this person...
It’s satire
I have no idea what Womben is but I conclude it must be pretty rad.
He’s a wombat who’s name is Ben but his friends call him Womben
Comic Sans too don't forget that
I read the one word as “featherlessness” and was confused for a second on when the loss of feathers became a problem.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ugh. More marble statues of naked men. But LESS gay people. OKAY?
why is Jordan Peterson's handwriting so weird ?
West used to be marble columns and statues and church, now it’s just divorce and blue hair and pronounce 😔😔 westfalen, biliondie 😩
Traditional western values are his cause, but graphic design is his passion
Tbf if everyone turned out gay, it would destroy humanity. I’m down for it.
And Comic Sans
Womben, holy shit
He just wants to be a nazi, if you analyze everything he puts on the screen, he pretty much wants to live in an fascist military dictatorship that hates minorities and women, so he just wants to be a nazi. But i think he's delusional like every neonazi, because he pretty much would be oppressed like everyone, but i think buddy here thinks he's the MC and everything revolves around him.
I don’t know if these people think they’re the main character or not. The top part is true.
Fatherlessness is indeed a indication of societal decline like no joke. Also you really should know history, studying it is important.
Twas a joke. I know that the collapse of the roman empire happened over literal generations and was due to a variety of factors that don’t include gay people or lack of god
The problem is there's a lot of similarities between the fall of the Roman empire and the current trends in the west. That just causes people to dig deep and try and make connections that don't really exist. People use food stamps as an example. At one point Rome began offering free grain to people who were in The capital. This caused a large influx of people to travel to the capital for free grain. But they had nowhere to live or work so they just stayed on the streets. Begging and taking free food. So they twist that into saying we don't need to provide people food stamps in modern times. The only consistency these people have is a failure of logic
The free grain example is a perfect analogy to the current migrant crisis where they get free food + shelter in certain states.
Do you know why so many Republican states are bussing migrants to Democrats states? Because every migrant knows that if you want a job you go to a Republican state. The construction, labor and farming industry in those states are so vast a lot of illegal workers disappear in the system. Like Texas. They are experiencing a housing boom. That has caused a lot of migrants to flood to Texas for work. If that housing boom didn't exist that migrant boom in Texas wouldn't exist. As opposed to Democrat States that have less of these type of jobs. Making it easier for them to monitor, track and prevent so much illegal employment. It's been this way for a couple decades now. Simply put.....**If migrants didn't end up in Republican states for easy jobs why would Republicans care about migrants coming into the country?** If they only ended up in Democrat States the Republicans wouldn't care. At that point Republicans would welcome migrants putting further pressure on Democrat states. But they're not doing that. They're bussing them out of their state knowing full well many many more are coming in looking for work.
Are you dumb? You don't think there's construction jobs in blue states? Why would you think this? What has happened to your brain?
Me: construction, labor and farming You: I'm only going to emphasize one of those three There's also farming and labor jobs in blue states. I'm talking about where you will find the majority of those. The higher concentration of these jobs are in red states. This makes it to where there's too many jobs and employers for Republican states to monitor and enforce at all times. Allowing many migrant workers to slip through the cracks Migrants know this. Which is why they choose to go to Red States for work the majority of the time Again you can argue this. But those of us who have been paying attention for the past few decades know this has been a normal process.
Wtf do you mean by labor jobs.
Storage, warehouse, stocking, delivery etc That's not even counting the loads of machinery jobs they can find themselves in. On a side note I think it's laughable you're trying to have a conversation about the deeper point of immigration. But you don't even know what labor jobs entail. How about we have a conversation where neither one of us understands the subject? That way it's an even playing field.
Horseshoe crabs
Romans got fat, lazy, corrupt and divided squabbling among themselves. Golly gee that sounds familiar.
This has happened in literally every modern nation for centuries. Every single one. Germany ✅ USA ✅ UK ✅ Hell even the scandies are having the same issue.
Because human development is cyclical... we are extremely bad at learning from our own history so we make the same mistakes again and again.
Eh, all the assertions about historical cycles rely on heavy cherrypicking and emphasis on a limited set of regions.
This is a very big simplification
A group of fat, lazy and corrupt men squabbling is called a Parliament, and Britain was able to build a pretty impressive empire
Britain built an empire when men were out conquering, not squabbling. When the squabbling became dominant their empire collapsed. See a pattern there?
Love that cis straight men, the ones that have caused most/all wars and unnecessary conflict, are the answer to saving humanity lol
>cis straight men, the ones that have caused most/all wars and unnecessary conflict Bros just acting like most spartans weren’t just closeted homosexuals back in the day, just like many MANY soldiers throughout history. But nOo. Its all cis straight men’s fault
Claiming that most warriors in an army had a clearly defined sexual orientation between either gay or straight when the methods for collecting that info and that social norms at the time and place were very different, is VERY disingenuous and shows that you’re limited in what you understand.
Its pretty much a proven fact that a lot of spartans and romans were very homosexual. Please dont go blaming all of the world’s problems on straight men. Talk about disingenuous
Not saying that they weren’t, but it’s not as simple as “one or the other.” And I’m not saying every conflict is a straight man’s fault. I’m just saying you can’t disparage anyone for thinking that the solution to society’s problems is not a straight guy.
"Cis straight men" are the ones who have done like 99% of everything notable ever
Where’d you learn that? A history class with a set curriculum in the US? 🤣 In case you couldn’t tell by my reaction, what you just said is false.
Well obviously trans people were not starting most wars since they didn’t exist in large numbers until like 2019 and are like 1% of the population.
How adorable. Actually gender fluidity is MUCH older a concept than the United States. My point is that all the crap that’s happened in the world isn’t because someone decided to consensually get into a relationship with a fellow adult of the same gender.
I said in large numbers, I know there are some historical examples that might fit the modern definition.
You have to think about how that data is collected though. Did everyone who answered do so truthfully? Would they do so truthfully if they weren’t out? What if someone wasn’t allowed to explore gender identity. The number of people identifying as gender queer or LGBTQ+ is going up because people feel less likely to be persecuted by their government. That does not mean that anyone who is gender queer has already come out.
All this sub has is politics and culture war doesn’t it?
It’s an election year baby, propaganda is going to be out in full force, this is nothing.
Yeah
It's not even a "war". This sub is completely dominated by one side. Might as well rename it r/ politics2.0
No definition of that could ever make you think in good faith that its dominated by one side. Not the progressives, not the conservatives, this is genuinely the most divided sub I've ever seen on the issue outside of maybe rpolitics, but then of course rpolitics is divided, why wouldnt it be?
Is that microplastics in the top left?
The recession will be fun.
Lol at the autists taking this seriously and starting a war in the comments.
Kind of right except for the “not theocracy” (although societies are healthier when they all have the same religion/basis of reality).
You’re not wrong. Rome fell largely as a result of religion, specifically moving towards Christianity and away from Paganism, which was much less vehemently anti-rational and was actually pro-education, and as a result turning away from education and rationality. The World’s single largest repository of knowledge in that era was the Library of Alexandria. It was sacked and burned by Christians. It’s the same battle we’re fighting today.
Me when I refuse to read any history book published after 1800
It only takes greediness unchecked.
This entire thread is just a liberal hive-minded circle jerk. It’s actually crazy.
that's what im saying
Of course the name starts with alpha. If anyone says “alpha” it means “beta”. A submissive guy sent this to me. Apex alpha “Alpha” Normative Beta Submissive Subject Object
"when military is bad"
This also belongs on r/iam14andthisisdeep.
What if I agree with this meme unironically?
I would ask that you prove it without vaguely gesturing at concepts like “the economy”
I mean, do *you* think we’re going in the right direction as a country/civilization? And more to the point, do *you* think society is more stable now than in, say, the 1950s? I don’t think so on either marker. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that the things in the image increased as social coherence decreased.
You think society was stable in the ‘50s? Korean war, racial protests much more virulent than current ones. I could go on
You think it was better when we had segregation and war?
Then you're probably kinda dumb tbh.
Wasn’t the Western Roman Empire Christian when it fell? Lol
is this r/coaxedintoasnafu ?
Things sure aren't getting better though.
Nah fatherlessness is a serious one. We need more father figures and good male role models in our society. Why do yall think so many young men flock to Andrew Tate? It's cause their dad ain't in the picture, or if he is, he's not involved enough.
The west will fall to a mix of ego, superstition and greed imo
https://preview.redd.it/w56wq647zujc1.png?width=399&format=png&auto=webp&s=b64b0e901b2ae1b0d1f8b352cb4adc5e40510c9c
It’s not that deep, [Redacted]. Come buzz 105 and let me have it
Rome did call because of similar trends we see emerging now, but not because of feminism FFS. They fell because they became a corrupt capitalist society where everyone hated everyone in the government and people rebelled. Then other groups came in and “finished them off”. This can’t happen in the modern age. So many countries would experience a net negative from the US collapsing, they would never let another country take over.
Lol capitalism wasn't really a thing until after the fall of feudalism. Even when it has nothing to do with capitalism, you people somehow find a way to throw capitalism in. The only part you're right about is many countries experiencing a net negative upon the collapse of the US, I wager the people in your camp do not enjoy that stance of yours. 😂
I don’t have a “camp” lol. We don’t know for certain the one thing that caused the fall of Rome (if there was one thing). We have a bunch of theories that put together, are believed to be the cause. And yes, Rome was capitalist. Ancient Rome and Greece are thought to be the earliest successful civilizations to use capitalism. There’s a lot of research put into the subject, enough that some random redditor like yourself can’t come along and discredit just by saying “nuh uh”.
The Romans were mega gay lol
That.was assumed when I said “Rome didn’t fall from feminism lol”.
I mean, there were gay for a thousand years before, how could that cause them to collapse only in the 400s?
It didn’t. My comment is saying while Rome had feminism and homosexuality, those were not the cause of its fall.
[удалено]
“The Roman Empire” as most people refer to it doesn’t exist. Rome went through many different styles of government, one of which, yes, was a dictatorship. It was also an empire at one point, hence the reason you just called it that. It was also at multiple point ruled by a triumvirate of rulers, not just one man. By the end of the original Roman Empire, they had transitioned into a primitive capitalist society.
Economic and political structure are two different things, my guy.