Satirizes Victorian hypocrisy

>satirizes Victorian hypocrisy

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Oddly specific and oddly baseless criticism

>has uninformed and basic opinions and views about all culture across all time and space before 1969
>all Victorians were prudes
>everyone in the Middle Ages ate dirt and was stupid

>The dark ages weren't dark meme

Yeah, they weren't outside of Europe.

kek i think this was the subject of every paper i ever wrote for my classes on the 19th century

fuck those victorian cunts with their ----- street and unreliable narrators observing the action and high concept magic gimmick that is also a blunt metaphor for 'bad stuff'

>satirizes 1950s American hypocrisy

...

Satire in general is embarrassing.

Samuel Butler is GOAT tier wtf are you talking about?

>satire of any sort

literally the snarky, passive aggressive, smartass reddit attitude in media form

t. alberto barbossa

t. John Green

>weird, paranoid conviction that modern middle class white nuclear families are somehow dysfunctional, and unhealthy
Where does this shit come from? Did daddy not give you enough allowance?

wrong

Post-modernism, baby. Fuck things that actually work.

The dark ages were profoundly shit during Europe, what on Earth are you talking about. The most prominent civilizations of the time were throughout Eurasia. Are we to call the Dark Ages not Dark to be more politically correct to our local /pol/ demographic.

Nobody's even making criticisms you irritating pseud; we're literally just insulting things we don't like. Not every post on Veeky Forums is part of your eternal internet battle for intellectual self-esteem

What pray tell, makes me a psued for criticizing you on it? You're using that word awfully liberally.

psued (n): anything that fat autists on Veeky Forums get triggered about

hope i helped

I consider your assumption that this thread is attempting to be rigorous dialectic to be disingenuous. I think you knew perfectly well that people were blatantly shitposting and not trying to debate the merits of satire any respect, but still you pretended we were in an academic environment and everybody but you had just failed some sort of test--100% pure pseudery.

youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8

That chart has more bullshit per square inch than a cow's diaper.

>the dark ages myth: an atheist reviews

wrong

It comes from them not working you alt-right sperg.

cows don't wear diapers idiot

filtered

If cow's don't wear diapers, what's your mom doing?

preparing my tendies

You're a champion of the ideals of the white race, sloth and gluttony.

better than being a tripfag

>hating gb shaw
>still being pissed eliza leaves
kek it's levels of beta beyond omega

The "Dark Ages" weren't dark. The transition from the late Roman Empire to the Medieval Era was smooth. There was no huge collapse, the Empire became a Gothic kingdom with minimal fuss. By the time Rome was sacked it was a ghost town, and half of senior Roman military commanders were already German mercenaries. Fundamental institutions of Western intellectual life such as universities were invented during the Medieval Era. Your idea of a "Dark Age" comes from Renaissance era snobbery and the Medieval's own perception that they were living in a "Middle Age" between Antiquity and the Second Coming of Christ. Since they had received Christ's word, but had not yet welcomed him back to earth, they were living in a dark time.

If you took college level history or medieval studies instead of jacking off on the internet you would know this. In this case, /pol/ is right.

>Rome was a ghost town
>no dark ages guys!

>The "Dark Ages" weren't dark. The transition from the late Roman Empire to the Medieval Era was smooth. There was no huge collapse

The trillion plus actual historians disagree. I'm sorry, I'll be more politically correct towards European history, I don't want to trigger our minority /pol/ demographic. They don't seem to like that.

>However, from the mid-20th century onwards, other historians became critical of even this nonjudgmental use of the term for two main reasons.[9] First, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved,[40] means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether.[41]

gotcha

This isn't suggesting the dark ages weren't shit, just the ways it was shit or degree it was shit was relatively different. The vast majority of historians and people capable of paying attention in school understand that the dark ages were shit.

The Dark Ages were still shit. The rest of the Eurasian world was doing better than Europe at the time. Disease ravaged Europe, this isn't even considering the Bubonic Plague.