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

memes

14440 readers
3711 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 [email protected]

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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
598
13th century vs 21st century (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day 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. @[email protected] has it right.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day 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%.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 54 points 2 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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 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".

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (19 children)

Have you tried cycling?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (17 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?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh I am very aware and compassionate towards the dire state of mobility in the US. It's just that you were dismissive of biking as if it had inherent insurmontable problems, whereas alternatives to cars are viable but have been suppressed politically.

Second point, it is not realistic to bike 3h one way to go to a far away park. But the question would be: does it make sense to go that far for a single day getaway? Wouldn't it make more sense to have nice spaces in or around cities that people could go for an afternoon, but not expect to have true natural reserves commodified? People should have the right to accessible natural spaces, but the priority of reserves should be the nature, not the people. A massive presence of humans does damage.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

... Do you not understand the context that arose to the comment I made?

Person 1: Its dumb that you need a parking pass, for a car, to use isolated national parks in WA, most of which are very far away from civilization.

Person 2: Just bicycle to national parks.

Me: Disabled people cannot bicycle tens or hundreds of miles to a national park, nor is that really reasonable for non disabled people generally, that is a ludicrous suggestion.

You: sp3ctr4l is obviously using disingenuous anti bkcycling, pro car strawmen arguments.

... Please learn to read before you wildly throw out nonsensical accusations.

The entire discussion here ... it inherits the details and context of its parent comments.

The discussion is particular to a specific set of circumstances in Washington state, USA.

Proposing bicycling as a universal transit solution, or long distance solution, or a solution to get to remote areas, in a highly mountainous region... is wildly impractical.

I don't know for 100% certain, but you have a .nl user account, which to me implies a decent chance you live in the Netherlands.

... A place that is about 1/4 the size of WA, and is extremely flat.

This would be like proposing bicycling as a reasonable long distance travel solution for... basically the southern half of Norway if you bisected its area at the appropriate latitude line.

That is about the same size and has comparable elevation extremes, although the climate varies much more in WA, from temperate, to temperate rainforest, to a literal desert on the east side of the Cascades.

(Indeed, this is why WA has a very sizeable population of Norweigian ancenstry, because much of the state reminded them of much of Norway.)

... Finally: Many, many people who live in WA fairly regularly do indeed go on 3hr trips to visit a distant national park for either one day, or a weekend. Mt St Helens, the Hoh Rainforest, vist the Grand Coulee Dam, etc.

I have actually known a decent number of people in my life, living in WA, who have a, 2+ hour daily commute to work, 2+ hr commute back, either by car, or involving a ferry ride, or via public transit.

I myself had such a commute via bus routes at one point.

I agree with you that truly set aside for civilization, natural parks... should indeed be difficult and remote and hard to access.

... Which is why I mocked the idea of bicycling being proposed specifically as a way to get to them.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

A library card can get you free access, at least the Vancouver one can.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What are “the commons” in this case?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Bit we have social media.now

So things are MUCH better.... right?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

And no plagues!

oh wait

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Keep going.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Elaborate if you're educated about it

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Progress will never fail landlords

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not even close.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Elaborate?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You know serfdom basically still exists in parts of the world. Why not go to one of those places and ask if they'd rather live there or in the USA?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

One person's pain does not diminish another's.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm just saying the whole premise of the meme is extremely flawed. It's made to imply that modern life is in any way as bad as medieval serfdom and that is just not true. For example, did you know that most medieval peasants didn't own their own ovens and were forced to take the food they produced to someone else to cook it if they weren't eating something that could be cooked on a simple hearth? Or that they literally weren't allowed to leave the land they were assigned to without permission from their lord? Yeah things are bad today but they were way worse back then.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

The meme isn't literally saying modern life is 'just as bad' as medieval serfdom - it's highlighting that despite almost unimaginable progress and development since then, economic and social conditions for the average person are becoming increasingly shit - and that the overlap in this venn diagram is a shameful rebuke of our complacency and the failings of the current system/those which are disproportionately benefiting under current uncertainty and exploitation.

In any case, suffering isn't a competition - someone who's circumstantially stuck in their shitty apartment paying off a lifetime of debt might be (more) free from the TB concerns and formal landlord permissions that medieval serfs had, but it doesn't for a second mean that people are guaranteed a healthy, happy, prosperous life - or that anybody in a developed country has the ability or the capital to do what they want or go where they please. Shit, I can't have 2 days to my fucking self without the ordained holy approval of my moron manager, in practice I'm no more free to venture or travel without affecting my livelihood when it comes to needing someone's say-so.

Amazon workers pissing in bottles to raise their children in a society which increasingly expects the individual to bear all costs of life but will gladly subsidise corporate malpractice is a crappy situation - and farmers in 12th century England having it worse doesn't diminish the shittiness of the situation for people alive today. I agree that historical literacy is important, but the meme doesn't exist to insult the serfs, it begs us to avoid their plight with infinitely more resources, having won hard-fought battles to avoid that sort of lifestyle.

I don't want to wait for the economic outlook gets even worse until we're all living in Meta/Tencent company towns and sleeping in pod hotels eating gruel for a comparison to become fully valid.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I’m just saying the whole premise of the meme is extremely flawed. It’s made to imply that modern life is in any way as bad as medieval serfdom and that is just not true.

The image is just drawing a few parallels between modern life and medieval serfdom, not implying that one is equally as bad as the other. I think the larger point that the image is trying to make is that landlording is something we should have abandoned when we got rid of serfdom.

load more comments
view more: next ›