that was the one about a gorilla in a jungle or something right
It was about Brandy Harrington, a spoiled anthropomorphic dog who was from a rich family, getting stranded in the Amazon Rainforest with Mr. Whiskers, a rabbit who was trying so fucking hard to be both SpongeBob AND Stimpy at once
Apparently, during the second (and final) season, it received a retool from crew members of the then-recently-canceled (but not yet revived) Kim Possible and its quality went up
However, it has since faded into obscurity and seems to survive only thanks to furries who think Brandy Harrington is hot
I only listen to dissected microreconstructional tone experiments, and only if said experiments were included in at least three entries into the Myst series as background music.
Well, it becomes consensual by the end, because anything for them ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle[…] And it worked out really well. That’s one of my favorite scenes I’ve ever done.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I'm home from that place where I do boring stuff for money
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Sadly my bank account is a bit on the fucked-up side at present. v_v
I am waiting for Mother to return home so that we may go to the bank and sort things out
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Aww.
*gives you a lollipop from Princess Meredith's private collection*
Well, it becomes consensual by the end, because anything for them ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle[…] And it worked out really well. That’s one of my favorite scenes I’ve ever done.
on one hand, he seems to be talking from the point of view of the character, who, from what I've heard, is pretty scumbaggy
but really, seeing how a large majority of the characters in the story are unlikeable in the first place, and from the sheer amount of violent crap that happens between them, it seems like the show just likes to pile on shock value towards the audience for its own sake
As a person who studies medieval history, I hate that series. I mean, come on, it just doesn't work. You can't have colonial-level oppression on medieval peasants unless the ones doing the oppression have other lands with peasants supporting them in those lands. Like William of Normandy and his Harrying Of The North and also his huge oppression of stuff. You can't oppress your own peasants beyond a certain extent, because beyond that extent, either they rebel, and given the size of midieval militaries, you cannot win that fight; or you require so such a large force to keep them in line that the resource gained from the peasants does not meet the resource spent on keeping them down. To have outside sources of resources, you need other lands that you aren't oppressing. Like Landswhatbelongedtoyou. If you have other lands, then you can have the military force to keep down the peasants (assuming you have Exampleland military as well, Exampleland's military + landswhatbelongedtoyou's military can keep down rebellious Examplish peasants).
You don't oppress your own peasants beyond a certain extent. You oppress the peasants of the lands you conquer, and survive because you still have a workforce from peasants in your other lands.
Rome could do this level of oppression because they had an outstandingly effective, widespread, efficient, and powerful military force/class.
Once gunpowder was invented, you can oppress a lot of unarmed (other than whatever they can grab) peasants with a relatively small number of gunpowder weapons. Also, bureaucracy and advanced infrastructure helps with the oppressing. John I of England simply lacked the infrastructure to oppress and cause death like Henry VIII, even though John had arguably greater resources.
The problem with oppressing your own peasants without having stupidly large resources, a stupidly good military, or other lands, is that you're cutting off the branch you're standing on.
In a very real way, in feudal europe, peasants had power to "vote with their feet".
I know it's a civil war, but yeesh. The thing about feudal civil war is that it creates chaos and damages the structure that keeps barons, earls, lords, and all that in power. It also leaves a nation vulnerable to her enemies. There's a flipping reason that Aelfgar and Siward, even when in a huge power struggle against Godwin, even after they'd raised an army and he'd raised an army and their armies were about to meet, decided to use diplomacy and reinstate Godwin as an earl, but with less power than he'd had before, and to do some of his demands (though they did kidnap Godwin's son, Wulfnoth, and spirited him to the Continent where he spent the rest of his life in captivity because SCREW YOU EDDIE CONFESSIE, YER A CHILD-KIDNAPPIN' ALBINO TWERP).
And, you know why Godwin was banished? Because he'd ticked off king Eddie Confessie by defending the rights of the peasants over the rights of Eddie Confessie's friends and relatives and allies; threatening Eddie's power. His army was, in fact, mostly made up of these peasants.
You can have feudal squalor and invasion-opression, or Elizabethan/Henry VIII-ian power politics, or Roman/Colonial opression but you can only have one of those three.
Look, feudal peasants, in a very real way, could, in fact, stymie kings.
You can't just combine the awful aspects of different eras of history into a hodgepodge of perfect crud.
Comments
Pop song making fun of pop songs about being glamorous and famous - HATE IT
There's just no pleasing you people.
I occasionally hear "Team" (Lorde's new single) but I don't really hear "Royals" anymore. But I like both of those, so maybe I wouldn't know.
Enjoy 5 Seconds of Summer when/if that band makes its way out of the US, by the way.
I'm at a McDonald's.
People tend to either love it or hate it.
Anyway, I have to get to class. Later everybody.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
As a person who studies medieval history, I hate that series. I mean, come on, it just doesn't work. You can't have colonial-level oppression on medieval peasants unless the ones doing the oppression have other lands with peasants supporting them in those lands. Like William of Normandy and his Harrying Of The North and also his huge oppression of stuff. You can't oppress your own peasants beyond a certain extent, because beyond that extent, either they rebel, and given the size of midieval militaries, you cannot win that fight; or you require so such a large force to keep them in line that the resource gained from the peasants does not meet the resource spent on keeping them down. To have outside sources of resources, you need other lands that you aren't oppressing. Like Landswhatbelongedtoyou. If you have other lands, then you can have the military force to keep down the peasants (assuming you have Exampleland military as well, Exampleland's military + landswhatbelongedtoyou's military can keep down rebellious Examplish peasants).
You don't oppress your own peasants beyond a certain extent. You oppress the peasants of the lands you conquer, and survive because you still have a workforce from peasants in your other lands.
Rome could do this level of oppression because they had an outstandingly effective, widespread, efficient, and powerful military force/class.
Once gunpowder was invented, you can oppress a lot of unarmed (other than whatever they can grab) peasants with a relatively small number of gunpowder weapons. Also, bureaucracy and advanced infrastructure helps with the oppressing. John I of England simply lacked the infrastructure to oppress and cause death like Henry VIII, even though John had arguably greater resources.
The problem with oppressing your own peasants without having stupidly large resources, a stupidly good military, or other lands, is that you're cutting off the branch you're standing on.
In a very real way, in feudal europe, peasants had power to "vote with their feet".
I know it's a civil war, but yeesh. The thing about feudal civil war is that it creates chaos and damages the structure that keeps barons, earls, lords, and all that in power. It also leaves a nation vulnerable to her enemies. There's a flipping reason that Aelfgar and Siward, even when in a huge power struggle against Godwin, even after they'd raised an army and he'd raised an army and their armies were about to meet, decided to use diplomacy and reinstate Godwin as an earl, but with less power than he'd had before, and to do some of his demands (though they did kidnap Godwin's son, Wulfnoth, and spirited him to the Continent where he spent the rest of his life in captivity because SCREW YOU EDDIE CONFESSIE, YER A CHILD-KIDNAPPIN' ALBINO TWERP).
And, you know why Godwin was banished? Because he'd ticked off king Eddie Confessie by defending the rights of the peasants over the rights of Eddie Confessie's friends and relatives and allies; threatening Eddie's power. His army was, in fact, mostly made up of these peasants.
You can have feudal squalor and invasion-opression, or Elizabethan/Henry VIII-ian power politics, or Roman/Colonial opression but you can only have one of those three.
Look, feudal peasants, in a very real way, could, in fact, stymie kings.
You can't just combine the awful aspects of different eras of history into a hodgepodge of perfect crud.