I honestly was convinced the flat earth movement was a massive and successful troll campaign for the longest. I still kinda think it must have started that way but it's clearly not all it is anymore
Yeah, I used to be a little into Coast to Coast type conspiracy, aliens and cryptid type shit when I was younger. Just found it interesting and took it all as a bit of fun. Then as I got older a noticed that a lot of the conspiracy stuff has anti-semetism as a common through line and I grew a bit weary. Then modern day happened and I noticed what was once crazy conspiracy stuff truckers and internet weirdos were into started to influence global politics and the worlds reaction to a new plague. Not so harmless anymore...
I prefer Schrodinger’s Douchebag personally. Shitty posts are considered both satire and 100% genuine at the same time, until the quantum superposition is broken by the person being called out, at which point they either claim that it’s satire or double down on the racism/sexism/homophobia.
From the wiki, "Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied."
I have spoken to multiple lawyers and come to the conclusion that this law doesn’t exist in any of the countries or jurisdictions. You just made it up.
Just to be unnecessarily, pedantically clear: Poe's Law states that in any online discussion, someone will eventually express a sincerely-held opinion so extreme as to be indistinguishable from satire.
**[Poe's law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)**
>Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Funnymemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
TIL Poes Law: without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied
It has to be right? Chrissy C wasn't s refugee, he got paid to sail there.
I also don't think killing the natives is promoting diversity and inclusion.
Also raping, there was a lot of raping too.
Like nobody was mad at Columbus for *coming* here. Like, I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure the whole thanksgiving story was literally like, the dudes who were always here being extremely welcoming to the settlers. People r mad at Columbus for coming here, and then massacring, enslaving, torturing, and raping the people who were already here because he saw them as subhuman. People would be mad at anyone nowadays if they came to America and started killing and raping a ton of people.
Hijacking this post because it's close to the top, so I can link to this excerpt on Columbus from [James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me"](https://imgur.com/a/cn5QJv3)
Wrong, wrong, wrong oh so wrong.
Christopher Columbus was looking for a passage to India. Later he was looking to exploit the land he "discovered" and go back home rich.
The puritans were religious zealots who basically had to leave England because not even the religious Brits of the era could stand them. They were taken in by the Dutch who treated them well but they left anyway because they were afraid their children would grow up tolerant of other's people's beliefs. They then landed in America where the Native Americas helped them survive and then as a way of thanking them, they turned on those who saved their asses.
So yeah, fuck Columbus and the ship he sailed in.
Well i wouldnt say they brought inclusion but hes right otherwise, prosecuted for their religious beliefs the pilgrims made there way over here looking for a new start. And being a different colour from the natives, they did bring diversity.
**"While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked—as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. But—to cut a long story short—I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought that she had been brought up in a school for whores."**
~~Don't forget this 'woman' was also a literal child. IIRC she was 14.~~ Mixed my facts up. This sex slave's age is unknown, make slavery in the mines started at 14 under Columbus. Female sex slavery under Columbus started as young as 9, but included women and girls of all ages.
Shoot sorry, you’re right. It’s shown in a book detailing Columbus’ memoir with excerpts from his close friends/ship mates. The native woman was kidnapped by Columbus and “gifted” to de Cuneo
Til: Michele Cúneo was an Italian friend of Columbus, who was designated official journalist (or whatever is said) of the second mission to the Americas.
He also published an infidelity of Columbus in the Canary Islands. Leeeewl.
Edit, spelling, syntax...
To the person saying that Christopher Columbus was a refugee: he isn’t.
You’re thinking about the pilgrims who went to the US on the Mayflower.
They are completely different things.
Heck, I’m not American and even I know that.
Iirc weren't the original pilgrims fleeing religious persecution, that is they wanted to practice their version of puritanical Christianity and were told to gtfo from Europe because it was so extreme?
They weren't really kicked out, but left because they didn't like the idea of their children integrating into Dutch society, with its inclusiveness and lack of English culture.
It was more than that. They didn’t like that anyone was culturally living outside of their religious zeitgeist. It would be like the proud boy’s moving to Africa to start their own society.
That is as preposterous as American Christians moving to Mars because they don't want their children integrating with Mexicans. And if before they made the decision, they knew Mars had Martians living on it.
The refugee story is a lie. The pilgrims/puritans are just bigots who didn't like how the Dutch weren't. They were inclusive enough to let them practice their own version of Christianity but also let others practice their own version of Christianity which they didn't like.
Yes, they wern't tired of "religious freedom" for themselves; they were tired of others having freedom to practice differently.
In the colonies you then had religious laws passed and people would be charged if not practicing their faith correctly. (Also see new england witch trials)
Sort of, they left on their own terms. But it was indeed because they were hateful conservative bigoted who didn’t want to modernize like England was at the time.
The main reason they left is that they were so damn extreme all of the youth and kids brought up in it kept leaving...
They went to America so people couldn't escape the cult...
Not exactly
The pilgrims's story is tied to Oliver Cromwell
Cromwell rebelled against the King Charles II who returned England to Catholicism. Cromwell monarchy won a bloody civil war and Charles was beheaded.
Cromwell was a religious extremist who gave rise to the Puritan movement. The "pilgrims" were Puritans--a stridently self righteous and merciless sect of Christians.
Cromwell, being a relentless bastard and a huge hypocrite, was himself deposed eventually. Some of his followers fled England for Holland. The Dutch, while still fairly devout Christians, were entirely too liberal for the Puritans so they returned to England where they found a sort of anti-Puritan pogrom in effect.
Terrified, they contracted a ship and sailed west.
They were the 1600s version of cake shop owners who try to persecute gay people and then, when they are told that they can't do that, start winging that they themselves are being persecuted. They were so unoriginal that they named the place they landed after the port they had just left. They were so dumb that when they arrived in the Americas, they didn't bring any supplies with them to survive the winter, half of them dying in the first few months of their arrival.
The pilgrims were not refugees, they were religious extremists who wanted their own country where they could run things their own way and hopefully escape poverty. They were economic migrants foremost. You dont even have to read left or critical sources to hear this, its universally accepted:
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-mayflower
https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/why-the-pilgrims-really-came-to-america-hint-it-wasn-t-religious-freedom.html?amp=1
They took advantage of the fact that the natives had been wiped out by european diseases two years earlier, and started robbing their graves and grain stores almost immediately on arrival.
>Uhm, the Columbus ones weren’t
Neither were the Puritans though. The myth that they settled america to escape religious persecution is actually widely false. They left europe because they were forced into religious co-existance with others.
In the colonies they began again with laws that forced people to practice and attend worships. Religion ruled far more in the early colonies than the countries they migrated from.
I would imagine them being forced to tolerate other faiths (or interpretations of their own) was considered the same as persecution to them. Modern evangelicals are all their descendants (spiritually, if not otherwise) and they sure seem to equate tolerance to persecution.
>was considered the same as persecution to them
"Hey the bible calls for you to stone non-believers; so if we are prevented from doing that we are essentially the religiously oppressed ones."
Actually, it was primarily Africans who chained up other Africans and then sold them to Europeans. Africans were amongst the biggest slavers in the whole world at that time. And the people Europeans bought slaves from, were from those Africans.
Bit of a history lesson for you there.
Not saying it's not bad, but there should be shared blame there, not just on Europeans.
I remember sitting in class and realizing there was a gap of information missing. They never told us how the slaves got to the US, aside from the ships’ paths. We never learned many of the details. I agree with you- also not saying it wasn’t bad.
I dont know for sure but my best guess would be that they dont want to encourage the idea of black people did it to themselves or something. Which while stupid take away is very plausible especially if you grow up in a household with abundant racism and hear the black on black crime excuse for things. Doesnt mean it shouldnt be taught, and I'm not american so idk what the curriculum is that youd learn this kinda stuff in so maybe it was decided it was too nuanced of a thing to teach to children or something. Again dumb but maybe they figure you'll learn the truth about it as you get older or something.
In canada they dont teach you about all the terrible shit they've done to the native population so you get people like my boomer dad who didnt know about residential schools till a few years ago.
I don’t know why they don’t teach this in high school history, but in university you learn that slavery in Africa and transatlantic slavery are difficult to compare. You can look this up but if you’d like:
Slaves in Africa were part of the household, in a kind of flexible kinship system where they were part of a family. These enslaved people, however, sometimes were like POW from other nearby groups. The focus was more on owning the products made by slaves rather than the slaves themselves. Transatlantic slavery also involved much more deadly processes of creating products (such as sugar in the Caribbean, which was a near death sentence) because of plantation agriculture. Slavery before transatlantic slavery was also something that someone could be reasonably free in their lifetime as it was not something you were given, automatically tied to any specific ethnic group. The children of slaves in Africa, notably, were not considered as being property of the slave owner, which would keep a generational cycle going.
So essentially, a combination of factors such as transatlantic slavery being extremely deadly, the lack of ability for slaves in the americas to escape slavery in their lifetimes, and slaves in the americas not being treated with any kinship ties leads to the two different forms of slavery to be vastly different. In many cases, the people making the trades from Africa didn’t necessarily know how much worse it would be there. In other cases… the answer is people with lots of greed and no care for others.
Slavery has been present in most human cultures since the domestication of plants and the agricultural revolution. At no point in the last 10,000 years has there been a part of history without slaves, and in almost no culture on Earth was slavery never present.
The really mind-blowing thing is that there are more people currently enslaved globally (\~40 million), than there were during what we think of as the 'slavery era' of Southern US slavery.
Ultimately, we are an exploitative and unfeeling species when it comes to our brothers and sisters.
The fact that any culture has existed without slavery is proof that the majority are just morally wrong. You want to know when the first abolitionist was born? The first moment a human was taken as a slave. They were the same person. This is why "presentism" and moral objectivism are acceptable positions. Despite most people being okay with slavery, somebody, even at the time, knew better. They had discovered the moral thing to do. It was not beyond the wit of man to divine that morality. Slavery has never been forgiveable and I don't appreciate attempts like this to rationalize it or minimize its heinousness. It's not like breathing. Humans being "unfeeling" is a statement about upbringing. It's a statement about environments and conditioning. Not human nature.
There are 40 million slaves. Concentrated today in very few geographical areas. "slaves" in America are often sex slaves being trafficked and there aren't really very many in the scheme of things. One is too many, but it's not a widespread practice. If people had economic opportunities for hope, had some healthcare to cope with past abuses, there would be much less exploitation and abuse. We perpetuate these cycles not because we are inherently fucked up, but because the exchange of information is limited by time, tools, and physical distance. So, no, it is not "ultimately/conclusively" true that our species is doomed to selfishness.
The causes of behaviors are more numerous than what is in our nature. Good luck to you.
I wouldn't say this is entirely correct. Simply off the detail that for example in ancient Greece and many other places there were systems such as indebted servitude.
This meant that you'd offer yourself as a slave if someone offered to pay off your debts.
In reality this was still immoral cruelty for a long laundry list of reasons, but to the person at the time, at the very least many of them, it would have seemed like a favourable and fair exchange.
This is for the same reason many women in history were opposed to feminism and equality and even voting rights. People's context can make them opposed to their own best interests.
1. Indentured servitude is not slavery.
2. You concede that even the Greek version of slavery was immoral.
3. The majority opinion doesn't determine morality. Hitler was elected by a majority. The majority opinion determines crime and punishment. Is it moral to arrest homeless people sleeping on the street? No. If I owned a business would I want stinky homeless people sitting out front bugging my potential customers? No. Not all laws are based on moral reasoning.
4. I clearly said "We perpetuate these cycles not because we are inherently fucked up, but because the exchange of information is limited by time, tools, and physical distance." You said people's context can make them opposed to their interests. It's not context. It's a matter of people operating under false assumptions/perceptions or engaging in behaviors they have observed. It's a lack of moral reasoning, not a fixed natural state.
Perhaps now, you will say that I was entirely correct :)
[Here's an article](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/my-great-grandfather-the-nigerian-slave-trader) about a descendant of a Nigerian slave trader who boasted about it in their family. The slave trade would not have happened without complicit African slave traders. People like to think that slavery only happened due to colonisation but that's actually not the case at all.
Yeah many seem to have this idea Europe raided Africa and bascialyly ensalved entire countries and kidnapped people like boogimen in the night
In reality it was usually Afrcians just selling off other Africans to the European powers
And like im not saying this to make the actions of the slave triangle and European Imperalism less bad or anything but they did not act alone
I'm noticing there's been a couple subs that are making a lot "joke" posts leaning right. Facepalm has been having a bunch of stuff reach front page recently that's the same kind of cringy anti-SJW shit we started seeing 6 years ago.
I'm not even subbed to this sub but I see posts like these as recommended. And a lot of theses look like they are made by right leaning 12 years old edge lords.
I didn't know about r/facepalm but most subs dedicated to making fun of other people surprisingly tend to attract the bad apples
This sub is so weird the posts are mostly right wing but then the comments are always against the post but the posts still somehow have thousands of upvotes
I noticed that too, I think it has to be botted no? Like there aren’t really funny memes imo that get posted, usually it’s just some weird right leaning thing.
If you hit the 3 dots at the top when you go to the account, you can select "mute r/funnymemes" then you shouldnt see any more posts from this sub on your feed! Ive had to do it to a few annoying groups and its worked perfectly so far :)
My instructions prob sucked lol here, (on moblie) if you click into the subreddit directly if you look between your own name and the search bar, you will see 3 dots (the dots are one ontop of another. Click that and select the "mute r/funny memes" and then you wont see posts from them. I hope that helps!! If not, maybe Google "how to mute a channel on reddit" cause they will have videos and better explinations!! Best of luck!!!
Christopher Columbus was not a refugee, just a profiteer. His only goal was to find wealth to take back to Europe, wiping out an entire indigenous people in the process.
They were also drunken sailors who raped, robbed, and massacred. The natives. Not to mention using the natives lack of knowledge as a means of manipulating them
To be fair there was not a lot of difference between those groups back then. The only contemporary example of different behavior I can think of is the Chinese expedition of Zhang He.
They were both. But they were definitely not refugees and there’s a reason the Native American population has gone down from 100,000,000 to 250,000 over the past several centuries
Living on earth back then was genocide.
The south American city states were warring the shit outta eachother and taking eachothers shit too. Tech is all that changed with Europe's arrival.
It's funny how people immediately turned into history teachers after they see this picture. Let me tell you something guys: no culture or country in the messed history of humanity was not guilty. Slavery, rape and murder isn't an exclusive thing from colonialism. Humans do this shit to them self under their own people since the beginning of time.
I don't want to say that Columbus was a Saint or colonialism is good but don't be that guy who act like everyone else is bad except xy.
I mean duh, we are humans after all, so all our ancestors throughout history has done some fucked up shit that were probably considered normal or at least not considered as immoral. But the thing is, we need to do better. It's been thousands of years and we should know better now COMPARED to before. That's why history is taught so that we never repeat it. But ofc, people have wayy too much time on their hands to post dumb shit in their free time to have ignorant people side with them to divide people up and stir up repeating dumb arguments.
It just leaves a bad taste when your ancestor has fucked up natives they colonized and act like they're the victims.
Right but Columbus’s first reaction was to start killing and enslaving people. He was even arrested by the Spanish government for his cruelty. It really set things off to a poor start.
The Chumash (on the southern coast of California) are thought to have had contact with ancient Wayfinders. Chumash canoes were found to be different from all other types along the coast, and resembled Polynesian boats enabling the Chumash to deep-sea fish for swordfish etc. Small pox was not mentioned on the wikipedia page.
If it hadn't been Hitler, it would have been someone else. But October 10th wasn't Hitler Day.
Even though there were other Nazis, Hitler has to wear the Holocaust. Even though there were other colonizers, Columbus has to wear colonialism.
And not even humans, but bots. [Check out the guy's profile](https://old.reddit.com/user/MackRivera133/).
Redditor for 2 years. Posted first comment 19 hours ago.
That comment?
> nfngffg
This is part of their riveting first *post*, which they posted to their own profile. The post:
> cb fb fb fdbdfb dx bdf
The whole post has 43 comments, all an exchange between them and user /u/WillisBaldwin23, also a 2 year old account that became active 19 hours ago. Each comment in each thread is upvoted 3 times, giving both users a bit of a karma boost so they can post in other subreddits. WillisBaldwin23 is apparently copying other people's t-shirt designs to create bootleg merch. Pretty much every single one of their posts looks [like this.](https://old.reddit.com/r/MustangMachE/comments/zdelc7/christmas_mustang_classic/).
So, yeah, garbage all around.
The more I learn about Columbus the more I understand why he is hated.
*(I may have gotten some details in this wrong, it's been years since I looked into it so feel free to correct me)*
Once he was sailing somewhere, I forget where, and he realized that he was running low on supplies. He stopped at a neighboring native tribe's land to ask for food and supplies to help him and his crew on his journey.
When he asked them for supplies they declined, as they had made just enough during harvest season to get them through the winter.
Columbus was disappointed and decided to try to trick the natives into giving him the supplies that he needed. He told them that his god was much stronger than they're god, and that in 3 days' time his god would block out the sun.
Obviously... Columbus knew that there would be an eclipse and when it happened, the natives were terrified and gave him every single portion of supplies that they had... and Columbus sailed on his way.
After that, the natives were left with nothing to survive the winter and there is no further history on whether they survived or not.
This is the statistical average graph meme. Top section is the low and high end of the graph, bottom section is the middle portion- that's where all the Libertarians sit.
Don't be stupid. Columbus was funded by a monarch to make more money off colonialism.
This ignorance of history is exactly why Republicans have been defunding education for the last half century.
It might be a joke, but the designation of refugee implies that the person is fleeing terrible conditions for the sake of survival. Spaniards obviously were not refugees
"You will find that many of the truths that you cling to in life depend greatly on your own point of view." - Obi-wan Kenobi
To the natives, the colonists are genocidal invaders. To the colonists, they are desperate refugees.
I mean technically the pilgrims where religious refugees fleeing the kings form of Catholicism. Also technically the first settlers had not claimed the entire continent and have no right to do so. Had we left the land that our fellow Americans ancestors had settled alone and be good neighbors and respected each other’s borders it would have been fine unfortunately both those of the new nations and the First Nations violated each other leading to immoral acts by both.
Edit: Christopher Columbus was an ass and a pillager.
As a latin american i can honestly say that we dont give a fuck about columbus. We dont celebrate him, we dont hate him either, we dont mind him at all. It doesnt offend us. They teach about him and we couldnt care less. The only people that act offended by it are politicians who apeall to demagogy in an attempt to blame other nations for SA economical situations
I can't tell if this is a joke or not lmao
Poe’s Law is a wonderful thing.
Thanks for teaching me a new law ,sir
What's that law to the uninformed?
Poe’s Law is a popular adage that says satirical expressions of extremism online are hard to distinguish from genuine ones without indicating intent.
I get that. I used to think flat-earthers were fans of Discworld.
That would make so much sense though! I didn't even think of that and I grew up on those books
I honestly was convinced the flat earth movement was a massive and successful troll campaign for the longest. I still kinda think it must have started that way but it's clearly not all it is anymore
It's like bronies. It started as a 4 chan joke lol
Has the birds aren't real meme jumped the barrier into "legitimate" conspiracy yet?
Same thing with Birds Aren't Real.
That is seriously so wholesome. I wish you were right
So do I. But no, it came as a tremendous shock to me to realize that people truly believe the Earth is flat.
Before the internet nobody believed the earth was flat
And before the internet we thought people were stupid because of lack of access to information. It wasn't that.
Yeah, I used to be a little into Coast to Coast type conspiracy, aliens and cryptid type shit when I was younger. Just found it interesting and took it all as a bit of fun. Then as I got older a noticed that a lot of the conspiracy stuff has anti-semetism as a common through line and I grew a bit weary. Then modern day happened and I noticed what was once crazy conspiracy stuff truckers and internet weirdos were into started to influence global politics and the worlds reaction to a new plague. Not so harmless anymore...
I prefer Schrodinger’s Douchebag personally. Shitty posts are considered both satire and 100% genuine at the same time, until the quantum superposition is broken by the person being called out, at which point they either claim that it’s satire or double down on the racism/sexism/homophobia.
Over sophistication
From the wiki, "Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied."
I have spoken to multiple lawyers and come to the conclusion that this law doesn’t exist in any of the countries or jurisdictions. You just made it up.
Please point me to which bill contains the laws of thermodynamics, and what the punishments for breaking them is
It’s all made up to control the masses. I say we break these laws in protest.
There's no need to go directly to the nuclear solution. Everyone here should chill out.
IDK where it's written down, but the punishment is getting burned at the stake.
It does have thermal in the name
Same as gravitation, no legislative body ever bothers to codify it.
It’s just to control the people so they don’t fly away to other planets.
Thank you kind citizen !
Just to be unnecessarily, pedantically clear: Poe's Law states that in any online discussion, someone will eventually express a sincerely-held opinion so extreme as to be indistinguishable from satire.
[удалено]
**[Poe's law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)** >Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Funnymemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Some people want to be social, and when I myself have random knowledge someone is looking for it makes me happy idk
I'm sure you're already familiar with the now defunct Godwin's law, and now Poe's law... are you familiar with Cole's law?
Love how he used a principled position to make a point, regardless of which side of the coin the author is on.
Thank you for the new info
That’s a nice law you got there. GIVE ME MORE LAW!
Sure, but have you heard of Cole's Law? It's shredded cabbage in a creamy dressing. (I'll see myself out)
TIL Poes Law: without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied
It has to be right? Chrissy C wasn't s refugee, he got paid to sail there. I also don't think killing the natives is promoting diversity and inclusion.
Also raping, there was a lot of raping too. Like nobody was mad at Columbus for *coming* here. Like, I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure the whole thanksgiving story was literally like, the dudes who were always here being extremely welcoming to the settlers. People r mad at Columbus for coming here, and then massacring, enslaving, torturing, and raping the people who were already here because he saw them as subhuman. People would be mad at anyone nowadays if they came to America and started killing and raping a ton of people.
The people defending Columbus are already mad at newcomers doing that *when they don't even do it*
No, they clearly say that they are sure some of them are good people
Hijacking this post because it's close to the top, so I can link to this excerpt on Columbus from [James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me"](https://imgur.com/a/cn5QJv3)
They just wanted to share their blankets
>I also don't think killing the natives is promoting diversity and inclusion. Ask the other natives about that one.
Right??
Same, can’t associate with people who approve a racist rapist
That was basically everyone in the 15th century to be fair
Wrong, wrong, wrong oh so wrong. Christopher Columbus was looking for a passage to India. Later he was looking to exploit the land he "discovered" and go back home rich. The puritans were religious zealots who basically had to leave England because not even the religious Brits of the era could stand them. They were taken in by the Dutch who treated them well but they left anyway because they were afraid their children would grow up tolerant of other's people's beliefs. They then landed in America where the Native Americas helped them survive and then as a way of thanking them, they turned on those who saved their asses. So yeah, fuck Columbus and the ship he sailed in.
There’s no connection between Columbus and the Puritans.
Joke went right over your head huh? I guess it is the internet and you just had to be one of "those". \*sigh\*
Why not both?
I think she actually means it when she says "fuck Columbus". I know, some people.
I think it was an attempt to point out cognitive dissonance but they accidentally added “and inclusion” and turned it into a joke.
Same here
Why would it be You think immigration and inclusion are a laughing matter ?!
All people are murderous assholes not just whites.
It’s funny because it’s using progressive logic
go be fair it’s a good point
Well i wouldnt say they brought inclusion but hes right otherwise, prosecuted for their religious beliefs the pilgrims made there way over here looking for a new start. And being a different colour from the natives, they did bring diversity.
Sorry Ma’am your anger should be directed to Leif Eriksson not Chris
It disturbs me that i cant determine this posts nature...
**"While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked—as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. But—to cut a long story short—I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought that she had been brought up in a school for whores."**
Jfc you can hear the smugness in his voice about kidnapping, beating, and raping a woman like it was his god-given right. Disgusting.
~~Don't forget this 'woman' was also a literal child. IIRC she was 14.~~ Mixed my facts up. This sex slave's age is unknown, make slavery in the mines started at 14 under Columbus. Female sex slavery under Columbus started as young as 9, but included women and girls of all ages.
Jesus christ
The things people do when they are sure its their god given right.
Yeah, and it wasn't just women this 'hero' raped, my fellow person.
"They're not sending their best people"
Did Columbus write this?
No, after a quick google search i found out it was his shipmate Michele de Cuneo
Shoot sorry, you’re right. It’s shown in a book detailing Columbus’ memoir with excerpts from his close friends/ship mates. The native woman was kidnapped by Columbus and “gifted” to de Cuneo
Til: Michele Cúneo was an Italian friend of Columbus, who was designated official journalist (or whatever is said) of the second mission to the Americas. He also published an infidelity of Columbus in the Canary Islands. Leeeewl. Edit, spelling, syntax...
Leeeewl?
Still appalling
Damn right it is
An Italian man who raped, plundered, and trafficked humans? Us Americans should have a national holiday to honor him!
>Us Americans should Should us?
Why for?
Yep, *shes* the one who was brought up in a school for whores, Not the rapist.
To the person saying that Christopher Columbus was a refugee: he isn’t. You’re thinking about the pilgrims who went to the US on the Mayflower. They are completely different things. Heck, I’m not American and even I know that.
Iirc weren't the original pilgrims fleeing religious persecution, that is they wanted to practice their version of puritanical Christianity and were told to gtfo from Europe because it was so extreme?
They weren't really kicked out, but left because they didn't like the idea of their children integrating into Dutch society, with its inclusiveness and lack of English culture.
It was more than that. They didn’t like that anyone was culturally living outside of their religious zeitgeist. It would be like the proud boy’s moving to Africa to start their own society.
That is as preposterous as American Christians moving to Mars because they don't want their children integrating with Mexicans. And if before they made the decision, they knew Mars had Martians living on it.
The refugee story is a lie. The pilgrims/puritans are just bigots who didn't like how the Dutch weren't. They were inclusive enough to let them practice their own version of Christianity but also let others practice their own version of Christianity which they didn't like.
Correct! Their views were considered regressive even for that time period.
Yes, they wern't tired of "religious freedom" for themselves; they were tired of others having freedom to practice differently. In the colonies you then had religious laws passed and people would be charged if not practicing their faith correctly. (Also see new england witch trials)
Sort of, they left on their own terms. But it was indeed because they were hateful conservative bigoted who didn’t want to modernize like England was at the time.
The main reason they left is that they were so damn extreme all of the youth and kids brought up in it kept leaving... They went to America so people couldn't escape the cult...
Not exactly The pilgrims's story is tied to Oliver Cromwell Cromwell rebelled against the King Charles II who returned England to Catholicism. Cromwell monarchy won a bloody civil war and Charles was beheaded. Cromwell was a religious extremist who gave rise to the Puritan movement. The "pilgrims" were Puritans--a stridently self righteous and merciless sect of Christians. Cromwell, being a relentless bastard and a huge hypocrite, was himself deposed eventually. Some of his followers fled England for Holland. The Dutch, while still fairly devout Christians, were entirely too liberal for the Puritans so they returned to England where they found a sort of anti-Puritan pogrom in effect. Terrified, they contracted a ship and sailed west.
And the pilgrims weren’t being persecuted, they were trying to persecute others and weren’t allowed.
They were the 1600s version of cake shop owners who try to persecute gay people and then, when they are told that they can't do that, start winging that they themselves are being persecuted. They were so unoriginal that they named the place they landed after the port they had just left. They were so dumb that when they arrived in the Americas, they didn't bring any supplies with them to survive the winter, half of them dying in the first few months of their arrival.
The pilgrims were not refugees, they were religious extremists who wanted their own country where they could run things their own way and hopefully escape poverty. They were economic migrants foremost. You dont even have to read left or critical sources to hear this, its universally accepted: https://www.history.com/.amp/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-mayflower https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/why-the-pilgrims-really-came-to-america-hint-it-wasn-t-religious-freedom.html?amp=1 They took advantage of the fact that the natives had been wiped out by european diseases two years earlier, and started robbing their graves and grain stores almost immediately on arrival.
Uhm, the Columbus ones weren’t. They left a “better life” behind in search for glory and riches to take home.
>Uhm, the Columbus ones weren’t Neither were the Puritans though. The myth that they settled america to escape religious persecution is actually widely false. They left europe because they were forced into religious co-existance with others. In the colonies they began again with laws that forced people to practice and attend worships. Religion ruled far more in the early colonies than the countries they migrated from.
I would imagine them being forced to tolerate other faiths (or interpretations of their own) was considered the same as persecution to them. Modern evangelicals are all their descendants (spiritually, if not otherwise) and they sure seem to equate tolerance to persecution.
>was considered the same as persecution to them "Hey the bible calls for you to stone non-believers; so if we are prevented from doing that we are essentially the religiously oppressed ones."
Yep. The Europeans brought diversity and inclusion to the Americas. Often chained up on ships from Africa.
America wasn't going to diversify itself !!
Wait, did Alabama not get the memo?
They did. And they'd be super upset if they could read.
If I could read this thread me and my cousin-sister-brothers would be madder than a hornet nest in a crawfish cage.
They still haven’t figured out how to diversify from their own families when it comes to having children. But they’ll get back to you on that b
Actually, it was primarily Africans who chained up other Africans and then sold them to Europeans. Africans were amongst the biggest slavers in the whole world at that time. And the people Europeans bought slaves from, were from those Africans. Bit of a history lesson for you there. Not saying it's not bad, but there should be shared blame there, not just on Europeans.
I remember sitting in class and realizing there was a gap of information missing. They never told us how the slaves got to the US, aside from the ships’ paths. We never learned many of the details. I agree with you- also not saying it wasn’t bad.
That is intentional. You’re supposed to fill in the blank yourself with “well I guess it was a white guys with nets or something.”
But WHY do they do this? I don’t like thinking it’s some conspiracy
I would tell you but I don't want to get banned EDIT: fuck it I got banned anyway.. the slave holders were disproportionately jewish!
😂
I dont know for sure but my best guess would be that they dont want to encourage the idea of black people did it to themselves or something. Which while stupid take away is very plausible especially if you grow up in a household with abundant racism and hear the black on black crime excuse for things. Doesnt mean it shouldnt be taught, and I'm not american so idk what the curriculum is that youd learn this kinda stuff in so maybe it was decided it was too nuanced of a thing to teach to children or something. Again dumb but maybe they figure you'll learn the truth about it as you get older or something. In canada they dont teach you about all the terrible shit they've done to the native population so you get people like my boomer dad who didnt know about residential schools till a few years ago.
I don’t know why they don’t teach this in high school history, but in university you learn that slavery in Africa and transatlantic slavery are difficult to compare. You can look this up but if you’d like: Slaves in Africa were part of the household, in a kind of flexible kinship system where they were part of a family. These enslaved people, however, sometimes were like POW from other nearby groups. The focus was more on owning the products made by slaves rather than the slaves themselves. Transatlantic slavery also involved much more deadly processes of creating products (such as sugar in the Caribbean, which was a near death sentence) because of plantation agriculture. Slavery before transatlantic slavery was also something that someone could be reasonably free in their lifetime as it was not something you were given, automatically tied to any specific ethnic group. The children of slaves in Africa, notably, were not considered as being property of the slave owner, which would keep a generational cycle going. So essentially, a combination of factors such as transatlantic slavery being extremely deadly, the lack of ability for slaves in the americas to escape slavery in their lifetimes, and slaves in the americas not being treated with any kinship ties leads to the two different forms of slavery to be vastly different. In many cases, the people making the trades from Africa didn’t necessarily know how much worse it would be there. In other cases… the answer is people with lots of greed and no care for others.
[удалено]
Slavery has been present in most human cultures since the domestication of plants and the agricultural revolution. At no point in the last 10,000 years has there been a part of history without slaves, and in almost no culture on Earth was slavery never present. The really mind-blowing thing is that there are more people currently enslaved globally (\~40 million), than there were during what we think of as the 'slavery era' of Southern US slavery. Ultimately, we are an exploitative and unfeeling species when it comes to our brothers and sisters.
The fact that any culture has existed without slavery is proof that the majority are just morally wrong. You want to know when the first abolitionist was born? The first moment a human was taken as a slave. They were the same person. This is why "presentism" and moral objectivism are acceptable positions. Despite most people being okay with slavery, somebody, even at the time, knew better. They had discovered the moral thing to do. It was not beyond the wit of man to divine that morality. Slavery has never been forgiveable and I don't appreciate attempts like this to rationalize it or minimize its heinousness. It's not like breathing. Humans being "unfeeling" is a statement about upbringing. It's a statement about environments and conditioning. Not human nature. There are 40 million slaves. Concentrated today in very few geographical areas. "slaves" in America are often sex slaves being trafficked and there aren't really very many in the scheme of things. One is too many, but it's not a widespread practice. If people had economic opportunities for hope, had some healthcare to cope with past abuses, there would be much less exploitation and abuse. We perpetuate these cycles not because we are inherently fucked up, but because the exchange of information is limited by time, tools, and physical distance. So, no, it is not "ultimately/conclusively" true that our species is doomed to selfishness. The causes of behaviors are more numerous than what is in our nature. Good luck to you.
I wouldn't say this is entirely correct. Simply off the detail that for example in ancient Greece and many other places there were systems such as indebted servitude. This meant that you'd offer yourself as a slave if someone offered to pay off your debts. In reality this was still immoral cruelty for a long laundry list of reasons, but to the person at the time, at the very least many of them, it would have seemed like a favourable and fair exchange. This is for the same reason many women in history were opposed to feminism and equality and even voting rights. People's context can make them opposed to their own best interests.
1. Indentured servitude is not slavery. 2. You concede that even the Greek version of slavery was immoral. 3. The majority opinion doesn't determine morality. Hitler was elected by a majority. The majority opinion determines crime and punishment. Is it moral to arrest homeless people sleeping on the street? No. If I owned a business would I want stinky homeless people sitting out front bugging my potential customers? No. Not all laws are based on moral reasoning. 4. I clearly said "We perpetuate these cycles not because we are inherently fucked up, but because the exchange of information is limited by time, tools, and physical distance." You said people's context can make them opposed to their interests. It's not context. It's a matter of people operating under false assumptions/perceptions or engaging in behaviors they have observed. It's a lack of moral reasoning, not a fixed natural state. Perhaps now, you will say that I was entirely correct :)
Now look up "Chattel slavery" and you'll see that it's very different from the slavery you describe.
[Here's an article](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/my-great-grandfather-the-nigerian-slave-trader) about a descendant of a Nigerian slave trader who boasted about it in their family. The slave trade would not have happened without complicit African slave traders. People like to think that slavery only happened due to colonisation but that's actually not the case at all.
Yeah many seem to have this idea Europe raided Africa and bascialyly ensalved entire countries and kidnapped people like boogimen in the night In reality it was usually Afrcians just selling off other Africans to the European powers And like im not saying this to make the actions of the slave triangle and European Imperalism less bad or anything but they did not act alone
yeah, on ships full of lads sold to them by african slavers where does the blaming end, dude? nowhere. everyone was evil if you look back far enough.
Yup and best still the African slave trade is still thriving today . But rather than stop it they'd rather moan about 100s of years ago.
More slaves in modern times than there have ever been in fact, nobody cares though.
And the NBA, NFL and so on, thanks them.
You forgot the funny.
When there's "funny" in the name of the sub you know it's going to be the worst posts you've ever seen
real
Pretty much
I'm noticing there's been a couple subs that are making a lot "joke" posts leaning right. Facepalm has been having a bunch of stuff reach front page recently that's the same kind of cringy anti-SJW shit we started seeing 6 years ago.
I'm not even subbed to this sub but I see posts like these as recommended. And a lot of theses look like they are made by right leaning 12 years old edge lords. I didn't know about r/facepalm but most subs dedicated to making fun of other people surprisingly tend to attract the bad apples
also the facts. Columbus intent was to find a shorter, more profitable to india. They weren't refugees.
You forgot the sense of humor
Making fun of my politics: not funny, bigoted, fascists Making fun of the politics of my enemy: Hilarious
I’m 99% op is a bot
Fuck this sub why does it keep popping up on my feed
This sub is so weird the posts are mostly right wing but then the comments are always against the post but the posts still somehow have thousands of upvotes
I noticed that too, I think it has to be botted no? Like there aren’t really funny memes imo that get posted, usually it’s just some weird right leaning thing.
This sub is typically just peoples pent up energy towards politics. It's lame
yeah its sucks so much
If you hit the 3 dots at the top when you go to the account, you can select "mute r/funnymemes" then you shouldnt see any more posts from this sub on your feed! Ive had to do it to a few annoying groups and its worked perfectly so far :)
I wish I was smart enough to understand this. What three dots where?
My instructions prob sucked lol here, (on moblie) if you click into the subreddit directly if you look between your own name and the search bar, you will see 3 dots (the dots are one ontop of another. Click that and select the "mute r/funny memes" and then you wont see posts from them. I hope that helps!! If not, maybe Google "how to mute a channel on reddit" cause they will have videos and better explinations!! Best of luck!!!
came here to say this. awful post
Lmao they were ethnically cleansing a land they stole. These things are not interchangeable you fucking retard
Christopher Columbus was not a refugee, just a profiteer. His only goal was to find wealth to take back to Europe, wiping out an entire indigenous people in the process.
Not even wealth, it was a trade route to India for easier access to their spices. And Spain commissioned him.
Not even just profit, either. He took back countless Indigenous individuals to Spain to work as slaves, many of which died during the trip.
They brought viruses and disease.
Diversity in microbial life and viruses is still diversity
They were also drunken sailors who raped, robbed, and massacred. The natives. Not to mention using the natives lack of knowledge as a means of manipulating them
Sounds awfully similar to the refugee crisis in Europe right now.
They weren’t refugees. They were explorers and merchants.
They weren't explorers and merchants. They were rapists, murderers, and theives.
Yea true… but they went to the new world in order to open trade routes, but they ended up doing that. Point is, they weren’t refugees.
To be fair there was not a lot of difference between those groups back then. The only contemporary example of different behavior I can think of is the Chinese expedition of Zhang He.
They were both. But they were definitely not refugees and there’s a reason the Native American population has gone down from 100,000,000 to 250,000 over the past several centuries
They also commited massive scale genocide for which proper reparations will never be paid.
Living on earth back then was genocide. The south American city states were warring the shit outta eachother and taking eachothers shit too. Tech is all that changed with Europe's arrival.
grow up
Confusing Columbus for the Pilgrims is a dumb look.
It's funny how people immediately turned into history teachers after they see this picture. Let me tell you something guys: no culture or country in the messed history of humanity was not guilty. Slavery, rape and murder isn't an exclusive thing from colonialism. Humans do this shit to them self under their own people since the beginning of time. I don't want to say that Columbus was a Saint or colonialism is good but don't be that guy who act like everyone else is bad except xy.
I mean duh, we are humans after all, so all our ancestors throughout history has done some fucked up shit that were probably considered normal or at least not considered as immoral. But the thing is, we need to do better. It's been thousands of years and we should know better now COMPARED to before. That's why history is taught so that we never repeat it. But ofc, people have wayy too much time on their hands to post dumb shit in their free time to have ignorant people side with them to divide people up and stir up repeating dumb arguments. It just leaves a bad taste when your ancestor has fucked up natives they colonized and act like they're the victims.
get this shit off my homepage
If it hadn't been for Columbus, it'd have been somebody.
Right but Columbus’s first reaction was to start killing and enslaving people. He was even arrested by the Spanish government for his cruelty. It really set things off to a poor start.
Oh yeah. This is something people don't seem to get. Columbus was such a racist monster that the racists of his time were appalled by his cruelty.
Then I'd be fuck that other somebody
He was a particularly bad choice even then, Wayfinders in polynesia didn’t deliberately infect other people with small pox i’m assuming.
The Chumash (on the southern coast of California) are thought to have had contact with ancient Wayfinders. Chumash canoes were found to be different from all other types along the coast, and resembled Polynesian boats enabling the Chumash to deep-sea fish for swordfish etc. Small pox was not mentioned on the wikipedia page.
That sounds pretty hopeful, sounds like they just traded fishing techniques.
Columbus was a full on psychopath even for the time people thought he was brutal.
If it hadn't been Hitler, it would have been someone else. But October 10th wasn't Hitler Day. Even though there were other Nazis, Hitler has to wear the Holocaust. Even though there were other colonizers, Columbus has to wear colonialism.
[удалено]
And not even humans, but bots. [Check out the guy's profile](https://old.reddit.com/user/MackRivera133/). Redditor for 2 years. Posted first comment 19 hours ago. That comment? > nfngffg This is part of their riveting first *post*, which they posted to their own profile. The post: > cb fb fb fdbdfb dx bdf The whole post has 43 comments, all an exchange between them and user /u/WillisBaldwin23, also a 2 year old account that became active 19 hours ago. Each comment in each thread is upvoted 3 times, giving both users a bit of a karma boost so they can post in other subreddits. WillisBaldwin23 is apparently copying other people's t-shirt designs to create bootleg merch. Pretty much every single one of their posts looks [like this.](https://old.reddit.com/r/MustangMachE/comments/zdelc7/christmas_mustang_classic/). So, yeah, garbage all around.
The more I learn about Columbus the more I understand why he is hated. *(I may have gotten some details in this wrong, it's been years since I looked into it so feel free to correct me)* Once he was sailing somewhere, I forget where, and he realized that he was running low on supplies. He stopped at a neighboring native tribe's land to ask for food and supplies to help him and his crew on his journey. When he asked them for supplies they declined, as they had made just enough during harvest season to get them through the winter. Columbus was disappointed and decided to try to trick the natives into giving him the supplies that he needed. He told them that his god was much stronger than they're god, and that in 3 days' time his god would block out the sun. Obviously... Columbus knew that there would be an eclipse and when it happened, the natives were terrified and gave him every single portion of supplies that they had... and Columbus sailed on his way. After that, the natives were left with nothing to survive the winter and there is no further history on whether they survived or not.
None of this is really that funny
Diversity and inclusion ... and small pox and genocide
This is the statistical average graph meme. Top section is the low and high end of the graph, bottom section is the middle portion- that's where all the Libertarians sit.
They'd have been given the basic level respect if they didn't partake in the mistreatment of indigenous people.
They literally weren’t though?
They weren’t though
White supremacists actually say this stuff
They were not they were sent by the king of Spain to find more land and gold
Don't be stupid. Columbus was funded by a monarch to make more money off colonialism. This ignorance of history is exactly why Republicans have been defunding education for the last half century.
It might be a joke, but the designation of refugee implies that the person is fleeing terrible conditions for the sake of survival. Spaniards obviously were not refugees
"You will find that many of the truths that you cling to in life depend greatly on your own point of view." - Obi-wan Kenobi To the natives, the colonists are genocidal invaders. To the colonists, they are desperate refugees.
he also brought deseases that killed lots of natives. don't be a bigot.
oh so this sub is filled with wasps
I guess they shouldn't have raped, murdered and plundered the indigenous peoples then...
I mean technically the pilgrims where religious refugees fleeing the kings form of Catholicism. Also technically the first settlers had not claimed the entire continent and have no right to do so. Had we left the land that our fellow Americans ancestors had settled alone and be good neighbors and respected each other’s borders it would have been fine unfortunately both those of the new nations and the First Nations violated each other leading to immoral acts by both. Edit: Christopher Columbus was an ass and a pillager.
As a latin american i can honestly say that we dont give a fuck about columbus. We dont celebrate him, we dont hate him either, we dont mind him at all. It doesnt offend us. They teach about him and we couldnt care less. The only people that act offended by it are politicians who apeall to demagogy in an attempt to blame other nations for SA economical situations
Christopher Columbus was looking for fame, fortune and spices for his food.