this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
604 points (96.3% liked)

memes

14480 readers
2849 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website
604
13th century vs 21st century (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 days ago by xpostml10@lemmings.world to c/memes@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nomugisan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 4 days ago

Sorry but saying a 13th century high medieval peasant owned their hovel is just incorrect. Yeomen did, they owned their own land, but they didn't live in hovels. Serfs and villeins were bound to their land, owned by a lord, and had to do uncompensated labor on the lord's land for the "right" to live on the land they could not leave.

Also, saying high medieval serfs paid "1/10 annual produce" completely ignores all the other feudal duties owed to their lord. Usually, serfs owed a third of their land value in produce to their lord off the peasant's land, as well as not owning anything, while having to use the lord's flour mill which was also heavily taxed. @PugJesus@lemmy.world has it right.

[–] MyDarkestTimeline01@ani.social 48 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If that doesn't hit close to home.....

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 54 points 5 days ago (3 children)

The commons is the one that hits hardest for me. In Washington State, you have to pay to use our state parks as well as the federal parks. They're saying that we're paying to park.

The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even when owned privately or publicly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

[–] vala@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This was an alternative to defunding the state parks completely.

Republicans didn't want to pay for parks at all.

Requiring payment to enter the parks is a way to fund them without "taxes".

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 days ago

Yes, all of that is what we are complaining about.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (19 children)

Have you tried cycling?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (14 children)

Yes everyone who ever wants to go to a truly set aside, lovely natural park is a Tour de France level bicyclist.

Fuck disabled people, why should they enjoy nature?

[–] thedarkfly@feddit.nl 8 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Two common strawmen in favor of car dependency.

There are cheap electric bikes out there (at least much cheaper than a car). No need to be an athlete.

Disabled people are among those who suffer the most under car dependency. There should exist public transportation to go to parks for everyone, including disabled people.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There should exist public transportation to go to parks for everyone, including disabled people.

Yes that would be wonderful.

Unfortunately that world doesn't yet exist.

Let me know when the light rail, or even a bus goes from Seattle to the Hoh Rainforest.

At the rate the light rail is expanding, maybe 2250.

Maybe a bus by 2075?

There are cheap electric bikes out there (at least much cheaper than a car). No need to be an athlete.

Actually motorcycles are still more performant (greater ranges, better suspension, greater speeds) and cheaper than the kinds of eBikes you are talking about, capable of making a 100+ mile journey.

One of those kinds of eBikes is about 1/4 of my yearly income from SSDI.

Before rent, before food.

Not that it would matter anyway:

How is my crippled ass, who literally cannot even balance on a stationary bike, due to the nature of my injuries, nor grip the handle bars, who would topple over within 30 seconds...

... who can barely walk 10 minutes at 1mph in braces and with a cane before I have to lie down, not sit down, lie down...

How am I gonna ride this eBike 160 ish miles to the Hoh Rainforest? Up a literal mountain range?

...

I am not in favor of car or ICE dependency.

Far from it.

But you are acting like all your proposed ideas just... already exist. That they could basically magically be implemented at the snap of a finger.

This is nonsense.

You have to actually transition to the new paradigm in a way that doesn't just immediately fuck over people who are the edge cases that are not compatible with your vision.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ebikes/trikes can help for the elderly or some disabilities. Plenty of disabled people can cycle but not drive too.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And plenty of them can't, and can barely tolerate being in even a mobility scooter.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So would you support removing cars with disability transport being one of the few exceptions? Because that would make it easier for most disabled people without making it harder for any.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago

Yes! Of course!

In my ideal world, there would be general, semi-individualized, semi on demand, or at least 'request a ride in advance', electric or hydrogen or hybrid (or perhaps even locally sourced bio diesel powered, if electric or hydrogen is too cost prohibitive) mini busses or vans that would help people with mobility difficulties get to and from daily tasks within a city or multi city region.

This would be like ambulances, like fire trucks, like ... other busses.

Some important services just cannot be practically un-car-ified, and still function at all effectively.

This is why most busses in Seattle, and much of the US broadly, have deployable disability ramps and internal wheelchair attachment point zones, so that wheelchair bound folks can get around.

It would probably be more generally time effiecient to have just a seperate fleet dedicated to them/us in particular, given that a single wheel chair pickup/deboard for a city bus can throw off its entire planned timetable by a good amount, in high density, high traffic, peak ridership hours.

... but thats getting a bit into the precise technicalities.

...

For long distance disabled travel? Yeah, this is a legitimately more difficult logistics problem to solve in a general way that isn't wildly costly to either the rider, or the ride provider... but bicycles are probably the least sensible solution to this problem I've ever heard.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What are “the commons” in this case?

[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Bit we have social media.now

So things are MUCH better.... right?

[–] SanicHegehog@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago

And no plagues!

oh wait

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 3 points 4 days ago

Keep going.

[–] pacology@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Doesn't know how to use a Venn Diagram (twice, not in the intersection)

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 4 points 4 days ago

Elaborate if you're educated about it

[–] DakRalter@feddit.uk 4 points 3 days ago

Only half?

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/26/map-shows-much-salary-spend-rent-different-areas-london-10072789/

London is more like 60-80%.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Progress will never fail landlords

[–] boreengreen@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago

Well, if we go for economic contraction, shrinking population, automation and even wealth distribution, then the landlord will need to find other work.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not even close.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Elaborate?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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. "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). So, about one-third of workdays, not half. 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. Seems like you've got a strong opinion but flimsy research to back it up. I can see why you had to be pressured to write a complete response. Have a day.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›