Towards the end of Roman civilization...

>Towards the end of Roman civilization, the populace took an extreme turn towards homosexuality
Actually, it swung way in the opposite direction: towards oppressively conservative christian culture.

The only people with the luxury to indulge in depravity would have been aristocrats, a tiny minority powerful property owners. The common person's only taste of it would have been the Coliseum.

> (fucking feminine looking men).
During its high period, beards and curly hair was considered fashionable for men. After the era of the barracks Emperors, we see a return to clean shaven and short, simple hairstyles.

> Does history really repeat itself?
No. History is a meandering path towards increasingly egalitarian forms, progress being made through trial and error. What repeats is the continuous process of unregulated markets growing strong, eating themselves alive, and then suffering hostile takeover when the culture withers under the oppression of a privileged class which has horded almost the entirety of a society's wealth.

>it looks like society is headed in the Same direction.
Every new generation dilutes the crazy of the previous generations.

I wouldn't say gay as fuck, just really degenerate in that it allowed for gay shit in the greek sense, as long as they eventually married women later and had kids.
Homosexuality was definitely still frowned upon, at least in the sense that if you wanted to marry a dude you were fucked up.

>History is a meandering path towards increasingly egalitarian forms, progress being made through trial and error
whig please go and stay go

Tories are made to answer for their stupidity when they stand in the way of progress

I was memeing, I agree with whig history an extent

>What repeats is the continuous process of unregulated markets growing strong, eating themselves alive, and then suffering hostile takeover when the culture withers under the oppression of a privileged class which has horded almost the entirety of a society's wealth.

Why do you feel the need to shoehorn these delusional political views into your comments? It makes you look retarded. I was taking your post seriously until you made it obvious to the whole world that you're a braindead liberal that is incapable of rational thought. Just keep quiet my man, let us black pilled folks do the thinking. Your life will be easier

If anything Rome would've turned away from homosexuality at the end because of the rise of Christianity

Of course, this is to ignore the fact that the decadent half of the empire survived while the austere half dissolved

The only one making this political is you. And the only retarded one in this discussion is the one who resorts to memes and ad hominens when logic and reasoning fails him.

During the Republic, the landed farmer class and the popular assemblies dominated society. The senate's power was strictly informal, and based off of a public trust, which more or less shattered permanently after the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Multiple sources attest to the corruption of the late republic and the gradual monopolization of political authority into fewer and fewer hands. By the last century of its existence the Republic was a gridlocked mess, dominated by hardline conservatives who violently refused to reform society, as they represented the interests of the aristocracy which benefited from the status quo. This eventually sparked a nationalist uprising which ended with one man consolidating the lion's share of capital within their society: Augustus Caesar,

The Empire in its heyday was a gigantic welfare state: the family of the emperor dominated the economy, similar to the way that the Saudi royal family dominates its country, and he basically paid the vast throngs of urban poor state bread and circuses to keep them from rioting, while the land itself was organized into great Latifundia, massive plantations worked by slaves. It worked beautifully for as long as they had other people's money to spend, and once they conquered the Dacians in the late 2nd century, they had no way of injecting capital into their economy, so the only people that the Romans had left to war on was their creditors, i.e. each other.

t. Francis "Democravengelist" Fukuyama
Social inequality is fundamentally a product of a society with a division of labor. Furthermore, in order to overcome innate differences in capabilities, sustained effort is required (which different people also have different levels of capacity for). What's your eschatology for the final "liberation" of sentient beings from the current state?

>Towards the end
>muh analogy
Wew

that's a profound analogy user...

America is the one who exported leftism to Europe not the other way around.

>Fukuyama
Neoliberal hack

>Social inequality is fundamentally a product of a society with a division of labor.
Of course it is, but like everything else in the world it's a question of dose, and too much of anything can kill you.

>What's your eschatology for the final "liberation" of sentient beings from the current state?
eschatology is for fatalists who can't into history. "Current" state is purely relative, a function of what you have compared to the people around you, and each new generation generates its own "current state" based on the material circumstances of their social arrangements, their only guide is the past, and their only method is trial and error.

the trend is towards societies which are larger, more complex, and on a whole much more egalitarian.

Hey guys I made this thread.
I made an assumption on why there's a new trend in feminine men fucking.

lets just ignore the fact that the Roman Empire survived another 1000 fucking years after the fall of the WRE

>get 1 dorra 26cents a day
GEE WHIZ I SURE AM HAPPY TO NOT BE LIVING IN ABSOLUTE POVERTY
>shits in ghetto shack

when your choice is that or being a subsistence mud-farmer barely clinging to life in some backwoods rural shithole, it's no surprise why the single largest movement of humans in history was the southern Chinese in the direction of those $1.26 cents a day jobs.

It's all relative

>Of course it is, but like everything else in the world it's a question of dose, and too much of anything can kill you.
Are you saying that there should be a balance of social equality and inequality or that inequality is a necessary evil that should ideally be eliminated?
>the trend is towards societies which are larger, more complex, and on a whole much more egalitarian
What is the basis that allows egalitarianism to increase? What is this egalitarianism you want to pursue? If you mean social egalitarianism is supported by the upsurge of technology and market forces unleashed by the industrial revolution you are being absurd. First of all, relative inequality persists, meaning that the average worker is much much much poorer than the billionaire even if he has access to wealth per capita unimaginable two centuries ago. The rich, even with the greater amount of absolute wealth available, has maintained (and presently increasing) their immense percentage/share of the economic pie. Relative wealth distribution is fundamentally inequal and is showing no signs of going away. Second of all, social inequality!=economic inequality. For example, in hunter-gatherer societies, social stratification is prominent even there is economic equality. Differences of religious position, leaderships roles, gender, age, etc still are factors in social status.

>Are you saying that there should be a...
I'm saying that on one level social inequality is not bad, but can even be desirable: people's desire for wealth and status is what drives their entrepreneurial spirit, what inspires them to put in long, shitty hours just to make it in the career field of their choice, or reward the ones which chose less risky career paths with stability. Immigrants aspire to become working citizens, working people aspire to put their children in college, college grads aspire to good paying jobs with the intent of building up enough credit and capital to enter the property-owning class. People in the property owning class invest a lot of resources into fewer children, making sure that they are prodigies or great creative talents or the next generation of business owners, their ranks mostly being replenished by the nouveau rich coming up from below. And it's possible at any point for a family to go tumbling back down the ladder, but the fact that it's still there inspires them to resume climbing.

These are healthy effects of social inequality

However, beyond a certain amount of inequality, people aren't actually inspired to work harder, they give up as opportunities gradually vanish, as more and more wealth collects into the hands of fewer and fewer families who leverage their position over the economy to entrench themselves as a privileged class. The lack of money/capital stretches the ladder rungs out of reach

Going back to the topic at hand, the process of Romanization breaks down during the imperial era. Virtually the only way that a pleb could achieve wealth in these times was through betting. Virtually the only thing keeping him alive was Caesar's daily bread. Families at the top saw their youths degenerate into idle debauchery, while people at the bottom were kept as permanent second class citizens. That's why when the Germanics took over, they saw no need to perpetuate a state which never even pretended to care about them

>being this ignorant

Chadism was rampant towards the fall of the Empire, homosexuality/homosociality was on the way out thanks to {{{Christianity}}} brrrrrr0ther.

>What is the basis that allows egalitarianism to increase?
new technology doesn't liberate or enslave us, that's a choice humans make for themselves.

Slavery was only made profitable by a labor-saving device known as the Cotton Gin. Before the cotton gin, having slaves pick the seeds out of cotton by hand was a laborious, inefficient task and not even worth the cost of keeping the slave.

But what new technology does do, is allow us to more expediently transmit information to one another. Better informed humans make better informed decisions. The social arrangements allowing for slavery only work when the slave is deprived of information and kept constantly terrified of punishment.

When we go all the way back to the Roman Empire, we find an economy utterly dependent on slave labor. It was systematic, institutionalized, and seen as the natural and normal way of things. Attempting to limit the influence of slavery on society was a great way to get the plantation owners whipping up their conservative stooges whom they were bankrolling in the senate, to steamroll you politically because they had more or less taken over the government.

In the modern day, slavery has an extremely limited influence, and generally only happens in the worst areas.

I agree with your assessment of the breakdown of Romanization. I'm tired right now I'll respond to your other point tomorrow.

*points

I hope you are fucking meming. Unions were not allowed in the US until much later in 20th century after WWI, while most of Western Europe legalized them by the end of the 19th century.

KYS you uneducated jealous Yuropoor scum.

The later Roman Empire was very staunchly conservative. I have no idea where people get the idea it was some kind of decadent 24/7 orgy.

America's stupid decolonisation policies is what started this 56%er.

What do unions have to do with homosex you cockcraving burgerfaggot?

>Accuses the other guy of being brain dead
>unironically believes in pilling

>Americans
>having a culture
Pick one

Yes, this is exactly what I think as well, not just Rome, some Chinese dynasties also had same situation, and it's also exactly why I think we should stop this rampant lgbt degeneracy and "sex liberation" bullshit at all cost! Because this time it's not just poisoning one or two empire but the entire human world right now.

Say NO to faggotory!

American culture is western culture.You dont recognize it because youre steeped in it, You can't see the forest for the trees

And you can clearly witness all those closet-fag posters trying so hard to defend their perverted and degenerated "brave new world" agendas. This is exactly the self-evidence that proves how terrible the situation has already become.

The opposite happened actually,chr*stians banned homosex.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Youre crying over spilled milk. There is absolutely NOTHING you can do to stop it. Nothing. Think about that.

Nothing.

>chr*stians banned homosex.
And finally Eastern Rome Empire was able to out live the WRE for more than one thousand years.

Then we all gonna fall, simple.