Controversial General Political Discussion

[Adam 🍎]

Politically,Bolsonaro should have "de-fanged the snake" instead of playing their game.He had the opportunity to do so and backed down.I will explain what this means later on.

He backed down because he couldn't do it lol

He is same as any other politician, rich fucks that don't give a shit for poor people and will say any rhetoric for votes
[automerge]1701516365[/automerge]

That's what I mean with my previous post, transidentity and homosexuality have obviously always existed to some degree but it can't be denied that.chemicals are messing with all sorts of things in the human body

What a load of bull lmao

Homosexuality and Trans existed in ancient times from North of Scandinavia to South of Sahara. Greece, Rome, Egypt and so were insanely gay and trans. What changed was introduction of Catholic church and Islam that squashed both with heavy prejudice. It is only in late 20th century we see rise of acceptance as it was during ancient times

Hell Alan Turning, guys responsible for ending WW2 quicker than would it be was chemically castrated because he was gay

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

He backed down because he couldn't do it lol

He is same as any other politician, rich fucks that don't give a shit for poor people and will say any rhetoric for votes
[automerge]1701516365[/automerge]

What a load of bull lmao

Homosexuality and Trans existed in ancient times from North of Scandinavia to South of Sahara. Greece, Rome, Egypt and so were insanely gay and trans. What changed was introduction of Catholic church and Islam that squashed both with heavy prejudice. It is only in late 20th century we see rise of acceptance as it was during ancient times

Hell Alan Turning, guys responsible for ending WW2 quicker than would it be was chemically castrated because he was gay

Rome was not "insanely gay", and it was a dishonour for a man to be "passive", which does not reslly sound like the inclusive paradise you describe.
Also, i don't think using as paragon of virtue civilizations based on the few using the many as slaves is the win you think it is.
In athens, only real athenians had rights, and that was like a 10% of the population.
And to talk about transexuality, search eliogabalus to see how feninization was percieved.
Stop learning history on tumblr.

 

[Logiko]

He backed down because he couldn't do it lol

He is same as any other politician, rich fucks that don't give a shit for poor people and will say any rhetoric for votes

This is the great scheme of the far right. To make the working classe think that they are fighting for them when they are in reality rooting for the upper classes. Donald dumb, Bolsonarrow and Marine la haine are great examples of that.

The reality is that the right and authoritarians have been ruling the world for decade with a few exceptions..

We are in dire need of left assistance

 

[Adam 🍎]

Rome was not "insanely gay", and it was a dishonour for a man to be "passive", which does not reslly sound like the inclusive paradise you describe.
Also, i don't think using as paragon of virtue civilizations based on the few using the many as slaves is the win you think it is.
In athens, only real athenians had rights, and that was like a 10% of the population.
And to talk about transexuality, search eliogabalus to see how feninization was percieved.
Stop learning history on tumblr.

I learned history across 15 years of my education and Rome is one my favourite eras of history. Rome was heavy on gay stuff no matter if it was women women or man man action. Rome was insanely sexually free and open, on equal standing as today sexual stuff is.

But hey, let's see what an experts says

Stop the cap, Rome and Greece were gay as fuck

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

I learned history across 15 years of my education and Rome is one my favourite eras of history. Rome was heavy on gay stuff no matter if it was women women or man man action. Rome was insanely sexually free and open, on equal standing as today sexual stuff is.

But hey, let's see what an experts says

Stop the cap, Rome and Greece were gay as fuck

Oh yeah, the experts.
An american assistant professor is the lead expert on rome.
Tell me, friend. Have you ever even translated a latin piece of writing in your 15 years of education?

Meanwhile, from the first 30 rows of wikipedia, where the overall consensus is expressed, we quote:
Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free.

Literally what i wrote.
Maybe you should have spent better 15 years.
Because last time i recalled, being gay was not only being active in modern times.
And being passive in rome was akin to being a woman.

 

[Adam 🍎]

Oh yeah, the experts.
An american assistant professor is the lead expert on rome.

You say this

but then you quote wikipedia

Meanwhile, from the first 30 rows of wikipedia,

And it literally says they were free enjoy sex with other men, sometimes you take, sometimes you give, Rome was hedonistic society to the max, they preached of a lot of things yet would backstab their friends if it suited them

You are just pushing an agenda that suits you while hypocritically negating one source while praising other of same value that would suit you more.

And yes i have translated latin texts and i leaned latin in school and to this day i can converse in simple sentences


In short you are hypocritical and push agenda that suits you

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

You say this

but then you quote wikipedia


And it literally says they were free enjoy sex with other men, sometimes you take, sometimes you give, Rome was hedonistic society to the max, they preached of a lot of things yet would backstab their friends if it suited them

You are just pushing an agenda that suits you while hypocritically negating one source while praising other of same value that would suit you more.

And yes i have translated latin texts and i leaned latin in school and to this day i can converse in simple sentences


In short you are hypocritical and push agenda that suits you

Lol.
Wikipedia, while being not the truth, represents the consensus of the majority.
Consensus that if was not proved, would not be written there.
Let me list some sources:

Spoiler

https://oxfordre.com/politics/displ...lites exalted,by the expansionist Roman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

I am not negating sources, I am expressing the consensus of the majority of historians.
You state falsehoods that go against the consensus using an "assistant professor" opinion like it's some undeniable source.
So, if you want to question the status quo, either you bring some undeniable proof of falsification of the theory, or you just accept to be in the wrong.
I am not even bringing my point, I am just stating what is commonly accepted as truth.
So yeah, 15 years wasted.
Shame, you could have used them for something better.

But please, feel free to prove that being passive was the same as being active in ancient rome, I'll gladly admit to be wrong.
You know, some real proof, not some mental fanfiction of a literal nobody.

 

[Adam 🍎]

Lol.
Wikipedia, while being not the truth, represents the consensus of the majority.
Consensus that if was not proved, would not be written there.
Let me list some sources:

Spoiler

https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1243;jsessionid=8ABDB43FE6F5FA61A4D033AC862F2E46?rskey=MxnrBV&result=20#:~:text=Whereas classical Greek elites exalted,by the expansionist Roman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

I am not negating sources, I am expressing the consensus of the majority of historians.
You state falsehoods that go against the consensus using an "assistant professor" opinion like it's some undeniable source.
So, if you want to question the status quo, either you bring some undeniable proof of falsification of the theory, or you just accept to be in the wrong.
I am not even bringing my point, I am just stating what is commonly accepted as truth.
So yeah, 15 years wasted.
Shame, you could have used them for something better.

But please, feel free to prove that being passive was the same as being active in ancient rome, I'll gladly admit to be wrong.
You know, some real proof, not some mental fanfiction of a literal nobody.

Why would I continue to converse with someone who will reject what doesn't suit them and cherry pick what suits them?

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Why would I continue to converse with someone who will reject what doesn't suit them and cherry pick what suits them?

I happily will admit to be wrong if you can produce me some tangible proof.
You know, some piece of literature where it's not frowned upon to be passive, or some contemporary talking about it.
Even on Pompey's wall writings there is people being ridiculed for being passive, if I am not wrong.

I am not cherry picking, I have produced multiple piece of evidence, shown you the consensus. You have produced a video of a literal nobody.

 

[Adam 🍎]

I happily will admit to be wrong if you can produce me some tangible proof.
You know, some piece of literature where it's not frowned upon to be passive, or some contemporary talking about it.
Even on Pompey's wall writings there is people being ridiculed for being passive, if I am not wrong.

I am not cherry picking, I have produced multiple piece of evidence, shown you the consensus. You have produced a video of a literal nobody.

You already yourself dismissed something I showed because it didn't suit your agenda only to provide another evidence that again says men could and had sex with other men.

You also totally ignored the fact Romans as a nation were highly hypocritical and while preaching of traits they would break them over and over.

You are just pushing your agenda and dismissing everything that doesn't suit you.

Taa daa kiddo

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

You already yourself dismissed something I showed because it didn't suit your agenda only to provide another evidence that again says men could and had sex with other men.

You also totally ignored the fact Romans as a nation were highly hypocritical and while preaching of traits they would break them over and over.

You are just pushing your agenda and dismissing everything that doesn't suit you.

Taa daa kiddo

So you are saying the propaganda of Rome is to not be believed because a heavily militarised state?
Look, I even agree on that?

But since we only have their propaganda to actually build history from, we must take it as an accountable reconstruction.
And again, you are wasting your time, and just look like you are climbing on mirrors.
I have asked you to present tangible proof, not opinion.

And you failed to produce me any evidence again, I'll be glad to continue when you have something you know, roman, to prove what you say about the romans.
Not what a politicised she/her progressive assistant can say today.

 

[NAMELESS]

So you are saying the propaganda of Rome is to not be believed because a heavily militarised state?
Look, I even agree on that?

But since we only have their propaganda to actually build history from, we must take it as an accountable reconstruction.
And again, you are wasting your time, and just look like you are climbing on mirrors.
I have asked you to present tangible proof, not opinion.

And you failed to produce me any evidence again, I'll be glad to continue when you have something you know, roman, to prove what you say about the romans.
Not what a politicised she/her progressive assistant can say today.

Quite a few Roman Emperors were openly gay.Ancient Greece and Rome were more gay than current Europe.
[automerge]1701523561[/automerge]

Lol.
Wikipedia, while being not the truth, represents the consensus of the majority.
Consensus that if was not proved, would not be written there.
Let me list some sources:

Spoiler

https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1243;jsessionid=8ABDB43FE6F5FA61A4D033AC862F2E46?rskey=MxnrBV&result=20#:~:text=Whereas classical Greek elites exalted,by the expansionist Roman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

I am not negating sources, I am expressing the consensus of the majority of historians.
You state falsehoods that go against the consensus using an "assistant professor" opinion like it's some undeniable source.
So, if you want to question the status quo, either you bring some undeniable proof of falsification of the theory, or you just accept to be in the wrong.
I am not even bringing my point, I am just stating what is commonly accepted as truth.
So yeah, 15 years wasted.
Shame, you could have used them for something better.

But please, feel free to prove that being passive was the same as being active in ancient rome, I'll gladly admit to be wrong.
You know, some real proof, not some mental fanfiction of a literal nobody.

No,being "passive" meant the one taking the pounding was badly seen(effeminate),while the other dude banging was "masculine".

Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality wasactive /dominant /masculine andpassive /submissive /feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome, though professional prostitutes and entertainers might remain sexually available well into adulthood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
[automerge]1701523922[/automerge]

This is the great scheme of the far right. To make the working classe think that they are fighting for them when they are in reality rooting for the upper classes. Donald dumb, Bolsonarrow and Marine la haine are great examples of that.

The reality is that the right and authoritarians have been ruling the world for decade with a few exceptions..

We are in dire need of left assistance

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Quite a few Roman Emperors were openly gay.Ancient Greece and Rome were more gay than current Europe.
[automerge]1701523561[/automerge]

No,being "passive" meant the one taking the pounding was badly seen(effeminate),while the other dude banging was "masculine".

Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality wasactive /dominant /masculine andpassive /submissive /feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome, though professional prostitutes and entertainers might remain sexually available well into adulthood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
[automerge]1701523922[/automerge]

It is exactly what i am saying?
Or are you saying that today we see passive homosexual as effeminate?
Saying that rome was "gay as fuck" implies that there were openly gay couples, which is not true by mothern standards.
You would fuck LESSER men, because since they were passive they were not men.
This is not what we consider gay today, and this is exactly my point.
[automerge]1701525895[/automerge]

Quite a few Roman Emperors were openly gay.Ancient Greece and Rome were more gay than current Europe.
[automerge]1701523561[/automerge]

No,being "passive" meant the one taking the pounding was badly seen(effeminate),while the other dude banging was "masculine".

Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality wasactive /dominant /masculine andpassive /submissive /feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome, though professional prostitutes and entertainers might remain sexually available well into adulthood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
[automerge]1701523922[/automerge]

Like.. did you even read my messages?
I literally pasted the same quote as you.

 

[Adam 🍎]

Rome - has literal laws that enable men have as much gay sex as they want

Gaimon - ROME WASN'T GAY

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Rome - has literal laws that enable men have as much gay sex as they want

Gaimon - ROME WASN'T GAY

Nice strawmanning my friend :)

Still waiting for you to prove that being passive was not considered a dishonour like I always stated.
I never once said men could not have sex with other men, jsut that they taking it was considered a dishonour.
But you just show that you are advertising an agenda, and arguing in bad faith :)

 

[NAMELESS]

It is exactly what i am saying?
Or are you saying that today we see passive homosexual as effeminate?
Saying that rome was "gay as fuck" implies that there were openly gay couples, which is not true by mothern standards.
You would fuck LESSER men, because since they were passive they were not men.
This is not what we consider gay today, and this is exactly my point.
[automerge]1701525895[/automerge]

Like.. did you even read my messages?
I literally pasted the same quote as you.

Both are gray,bro.Passive and active bullshit was just ancient cope.If you want to stick your d into another man,you are gay.As for open couple.there were Emperors that were openly gay and even did gay stuff in public.

 

[Adam 🍎]

Still waiting for you to prove that being passive was not considered a dishonour like I always stated.

Lemme tell you something, straight men and men in denial will use any mean possible to justify gay sex.

If you fuck a guy regardless of what, YOU GAY

 

[NAMELESS]

It is exactly what i am saying?
Or are you saying that today we see passive homosexual as effeminate?
Saying that rome was "gay as fuck" implies that there were openly gay couples, which is not true by mothern standards.
You would fuck LESSER men, because since they were passive they were not men.
This is not what we consider gay today, and this is exactly my point.
[automerge]1701525895[/automerge]

Like.. did you even read my messages?
I literally pasted the same quote as you.

yeah,i missed some posts.
[automerge]1701526697[/automerge]
Gay was always a thing,but obviously it wasn't the standard anywhere in any time period.

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Lemme tell you something, straight men and men in denial will use any mean possible to justify gay sex.

If you fuck a guy regardless of what, YOU GAY

Yes?
But culturally, the roman shamed the passive gays. Which is not as today. It is even worse than hating gays. Is basically dehumanising passive men.
Are you slow? Can you understand what other people write?
[automerge]1701526779[/automerge]

Both a gray,bro.Passive and active bullshit was just ancient cope.If you want to stick your d into another man,you are gay.As for open couple.There were Emperors that were openly gay and even did gay stuff in public.

Yeah but culturally is not the same as saying "rome was hella gay".
If you were passive you were an half man, completely shamed.

 

[Adam 🍎]

But culturally, the roman shamed the passive gays

Oh i am sure they shamed them until it came their turn to take it LUL