https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Boethiah

Things Fall Apart

Now on my to-read list!

This is a bit dramatized especially with “fucking children”. I’d like to see sources to back up such emotional claims, especially the chest-thumping parts eg. “Not own their children”. Families lived together and children weren’t treated like chattel. You exaggerated here.

“They weren’t chattel slaves, their children were just bound to lord and land in perpetuity”

Cool cool cool

“Nearly half of your working days” is an overstatement and labor obligations were typically 2–3 days a week plus extra during harvest (boon days).

Sunday off, at least pro forma.

Would you like to remind me what percentage 3 is of 6.

Enclosing timing and large-scale commons stripping were much more severe in the 15th–16th centuries than the 14th. While some pressures started in the late 13th, it wasn’t yet widespread.

“It was more severe later” doesn’t at all modify the point.

I can see why you had to be pressured to write a complete response.

I can see why you didn’t address the vast majority of my points, and why the points you did address, you did so without strong arguments.

They do say doctors make the worst patients…

Puddle of bird

Many would own neither their land nor their hovel. The lucky ones would own themselves, at least; the unlucky ones would not only not own themselves nor their hovel, but also not own their own fucking children - nearly half of England’s population was unfree. Of the free half, a majority of them would not have owned any land in any real sense. They lived on their lord’s sufferance.

Their access to the commons was dependent on the goodwill of their local lord, and, indeed, as the 14th century comes into play, that access is stripped as soon as it becomes more profitable for the local lord to sell the rights off.

10% of their harvest would go to the Church alone - not optional. Much more would go to their local lord simply for the privilege of existing - around 25% if you were free, closer to 50% if you were unfree. And that’s not getting into various other taxes, such as for anything sold, or to get permission to marry. And if you were unfree, you’d owe nearly half of your working days to your lord’s needs - without any recompense, in money or produce. On top of that, many taxes levied were irregular - ie whenever your lord thought he could get away with it.

I mean, I agree, but beef consumption in the US has dropped in the past 20 years. And you can find similar price stories for all meal prices, regardless of ingredients.

Not even close.

… that statement made me weak, and hopefully chosen 🥺

Beautiful

“I’m alive.”

Normal friends? What are those?

Poor forgotten Wyll 😔

If it’s any consolation, I rarely use him either. He’s too damn nice!

It feels like the original Oblivion, by all accounts. For me, that’s not a big thrill, but I wasn’t a big fan of the original.

It’s nice to see people being able to revisit the joys of their youth, though.

Daggerfall when

With Lockheed you are forced to choose between being complacent with it because they supply Ukraine’s defense against occupation by an imperialist power or outright oppose it due to its supplying towards the Palestinian genocide. The genocide is a dealbreaker in any capacity for me.

But then, is that not just enabling one genocide in exchange for another? Palestinian genocide is a dealbreaker, but Ukrainian genocide is an acceptable price to pay? (I’m not actually accusing you of accepting Ukrainian genocide for not supporting Lockheed-Martin - honestly, fuck Lockheed-Martin as a company - just highlighting that the argument necessitates accepting utilitarian consequences that run contrary to the anti-genocidal goal of the principled stand)

My point, though, is more that Lockheed-Martin is more than a no-brainer. There is consideration to be had. These firms are amoral, but that means that they are capable of enabling good as well as enabling evil.

If your choice is designing tractors, which will be sold to farmers recovering from a genocidal civil war in Sudan as well as genocidal colonists in Israel to consolidate their land gains and draw a profit with which to imperialize more, or designing warplanes, which will be sold to those resisting genocide in Ukraine as well as those perpetuating genocide in Israel, which is the moral choice? I don’t think it’s a no-brainer to say that the weaponry is the more immoral of the two. I’d say that the core immorality is selling to the genocidaires at all - which would not be specific to either industry.

And the core of the objection is against the idea in the meme that people who work at these firms as engineers are in some way more immoral than the rest of us working for soulless genocide-enabling corporations that provide the tools and funding for genocide.

Even ignoring the genocide, the bad outweighs the good to me by a longshot. I oppose it just like how I oppose McDonald’s, Amazon, Starbucks, and more.

I mean, I wouldn’t argue with that. But I also wouldn’t put much moral weight on whether someone chose to work at one of those places in anything but a pretty high executive capacity.

Not so sure about the deterrence argument. My point is just that defense industry firms are not particularly core to the problem of people murdering each other, and certainly not the workers therein, any more than farmers are guilty of feeding murderers if their client sells to a genocidal state.

They are produced for imperialist powers to defend the interests of exploitors, oppressors, and war mongers.

And also to oppose the interests of exploiters, oppressors, and warmongers.

From causes as good as anarchists in Rojava to as evil as fascists in Israel.

I do think there is nuance to the situation and exceptions. Your example being one. But I would consider Lockheed (the example of the original post) would be the no brainer one. Those weapons aren’t going to defending my family from an imperialist power, they are going to death squads in South America and committing genocide in Palestine.

But Lockheed-Martin’s equipment is going to Ukraine as well. Are the families of Ukrainians not worth defending? And ‘death squads’ in South America are not particularly likely to be using state-of-the-art US jets and missiles for their murders. And considering the state of things in Taiwan and Europe, if the US doesn’t end up on the side of the imperialist powers, I don’t know how much I would bet that Lockheed-Martin weapons won’t be defending other families from imperialist powers in the near the future,

Considering the strict controls on defense exports, it is far more relevant to question who the US government chooses (directly or indirectly) to support with Lockheed-Martin’s output. When the US is against genocide, as in Ukraine, Lockheed-Martin’s output is used to save innocent lives; when the US is for genocide, as in Palestine, Lockheed-Martin’s output is used for murder. Though even then I would note that it’s not particularly pivotal to the murders committed.

The correct target for ire in this, other than perhaps capitalism in general for creating a significant disconnect between social responsibility and firms of all industries, is the US government and where it funnels this equipment. The firms themselves are amoral but unexceptional, both in consequences and in nature; and the people who work at them (other than at the highest decision-making levels) are no more immoral than any other cog in the capitalist machine.

There are only a handful of genocides that even compare on a numbers scale

On raw numbers, that’s because the world population tripled between 1600 and 1900.

Try percentages, and you get a good idea of how many people a single human with a blade can kill.