Why did medieval peasants tolerate their exploitation for so long?

You forgot to mention that there is more then enough food to go around and plenty of cheap entertainment to distract people.

I guess I'll just have to find the 0.001% then.

>muh pretty Asian are all cosmetic dolls
No, around 10%~20% east Asians can naturally look like that. Fuck your western bias.

However that girl does look like with false eyelash.

Half Asian half White

Perhaps even 75% white

But it is.

The political landscape in many Western countries is in meltdown mode, with left and right wing populists surging.

because they didn't have the right to bear arms

Because they weren't as exploited and stepped on as people think today, it's a common misconception.

But their lives were miserable and offered no way up, while those born aristocrats consumed what they produced, offering little in return.

>But their lives were miserable
When famines struck, everyone's life was miserable regardless of class. When good harvests came in everyone ate well, nobles and peasants alike. If you're referring to them having to do physical labor to make a living you're probably a lanklet bitch.

>while those born aristocrats consumed what they produced, offering little in return
Absolutely not true. The aristocrats only took a small portion of what every peasant produced and in return provided martial protection from bandits and all other fiends, something invaluable in that day.

Attached: 1518050100908.png (733x464, 100K)

Because the proletariat are incompetent retards who for the most part don't delude themselves into thinking they could do any better running the government.

There was upward mobility in medieval society. You could be born a peasant and become a knight.

Social immobility can also be interpreted as security. If you are content with a home and a family and a means of sustaining them, then an arrangement which claims to secure these things for you may be fairly attractive, relative to the obligations and hazards of nobility (as advertised by the nobility). The ambitious and talented among the lower classes could and did often find ways to increase their relative status and wealth through business and trade. The world, including the free world, is still mostly like this.

I think the idea that peasants were miserable because they were peasants is probably misguided. I think that happiness is as much a function of expectations as anything else. If you expect nothing better for yourself or FROM yourself, the pressures and existential dramas that seem to torment modern people in mobile, literate societies would give a peasant little trouble. He would be most troubled by things that the other classes were exposed to as well: disease, warfare, affairs of the heart etc. When conditions became intolerable, for instance in famine or under cruel tax regimes (often both), peasants often did rise up to strike out at their masters. So it stands to reason that normal conditions of feudalism were often tolerable.

It's only recently that mobility has been a thing, let alone a perceived human right. Where it never existed it would likely not be much missed by most people.

>implying thats an issue.

I don't really think that the problem lies within the living conditions of the filthy peasants, rather, the problem was that they could potentially be exploited/abused by the nobles since muh rights were nonexistent during that time.

Or just Korean(after fuckton of operations).