Destroying History

[Speaker to Animals]

Let's break this down..

This is a movement of people mostly influenced by women (the priestesses).

There was a freedwoman called Hispala Fecenia, a noted courtesan...who gave a full account of the origin of the mysteries. "At first," she said, "those rites were performed by women. No man used to be admitted. They had three stated days in the year on which persons were initiated among the Bacchanalians, in the daytime. The matrons used to be appointed priestesses, in rotation. Paculla Minia, a Campanian, when priestess, made an alteration in every particular, as if by the direction of the gods.

These women encouraged the idea that there exists no kind of sexual or social more, and created their own counter-value that nothing should be unlawful (which is essentially what our SJWs mean when they misuse the word "toleration": they believe no kind of degeneracy should be even frowned upon).

To think nothing unlawful was the grand maxim of their religion.

The cult led towards further degeneration, including "men polluting one another" and men becoming effeminate.

There were more frequent pollution of men with each other than with women.

And yet it would be less alarming if their evil courses had merely rendered them effeminate - that was in great measure their own personal disgrace - and if they had kept their hands from crime and their thoughts from evil purposes

In the first place, then, a great part of them are women, and they are the source of this evil thing; next, there are males, scarcely distinguishable from females.

But, please, tell us what Livy really meant.


We have our own analog to these people today. It's quite clear, Bjorn. Stop being such a massive faggot.

[BjornP]

It's complicated. Ironically the root of the problem is the extensive privatizations that Sweden has gone through the last decades. Major constructions used to be handled by the state but is now subcontracted to private firms. In their bids they have to put aside funds to cover the costs for archaeological examinations and eventual excavations. They have to do that. Problem is that when they make a large find they haven't set aside enough money for conservation and for some reasons the museums aren't allowed to accept raw finds. It falls between chairs.
I blame the ultra left leaning ministry of Culture and their warped prioritizations.

Marknadstänkande . "Market-thinking" or "business-thinking". The archaeologist in the article's point about pottery being able to be saved because it costs less to conserve would lend credence to a non-ideological motive, and more of a strictly miserly (though culture-ignorant) motive.

Has that Svenska Dagbladet article from the archaeologist recieved any sort of greater attention by Swedish media or the public at large since it was published? It's a somewhat provocative article, after all.

[Hastur]

It's complicated. Ironically the root of the problem is the extensive privatizations that Sweden has gone through the last decades. Major constructions used to be handled by the state but is now subcontracted to private firms. In their bids they have to put aside funds to cover the costs for archaeological examinations and eventual excavations. They have to do that. Problem is that when they make a large find they haven't set aside enough money for conservation and for some reasons the museums aren't allowed to accept raw finds. It falls between chairs.
I blame the ultra left leaning ministry of Culture and their warped prioritizations.

Marknadstänkande . "Market-thinking" or "business-thinking". The archaeologist in the article's point about pottery being able to be saved because it costs less to conserve would lend credence to a non-ideological motive, and more of a strictly miserly (though culture-ignorant) motive.

Has that Svenska Dagbladet article from the archaeologist recieved any sort of greater attention by Swedish media or the public at large since it was published? It's a somewhat provocative article, after all.

It's an opinion piece, not an article. There is a lot of debate internally among the concerned. Not so much among the general public. Everyone is focusing on mad Danish inventors kidnapping and killing young, pretty, female Swedish journalists and dumping them in the sea from their home made submarines.

[BjornP]

But, please, tell us what Livy really meant.

Still not getting that what I'm critiquing, and has been critiquing from the start, is your use of Livius as a source on Spartacus... My first post in this interaction was in reply to your ridiculously unfounded assertion that Spartacus was some sort of extremist proto-SJW bent on destroying Roman civilization.

Again, Spartacus was not Roman. He did not worship Dionysus, and if he had a Thracian "prophetess" wife, she was no Roman either. Meaning, even IF we accept your story that those Bacchus cults sought the complete overthrow of Roman civilization, the emancipation of slaves, gender and social equality, etc., Spartacus would not have been part of that.

[BjornP]

It's an opinion piece, not an article. There is a lot of debate internally among the concerned. Not so much among the general public. Everyone is focusing on mad Danish inventors kidnapping and killing young, pretty, female Swedish journalists and dumping them in the sea from their home made submarines.

I know. Newspapers here lapping that up, too. Newspaper this morning said they discovered a disembodied female torso floating off, I believe, Amager Beach, near Copenhagen. It's almost unbelievable in a, dramatic and complex murder in "Broen" kinda way. The submariner told reporters at one point he had an accident on board... some accident if that floating torso turns out to be your journalist.

[Speaker to Animals]

But, please, tell us what Livy really meant.

Still not getting that what I'm critiquing, and has been critiquing from the start, is your use of Livius as a source on Spartacus... My first post in this interaction was in reply to your ridiculously unfounded assertion that Spartacus was some sort of extremist proto-SJW bent on destroying Roman civilization.

Again, Spartacus was not Roman. He did not worship Dionysus, and if he had a Thracian "prophetess" wife, she was no Roman either. Meaning, even IF we accept your story that those Bacchus cults sought the complete overthrow of Roman civilization, the emancipation of slaves, gender and social equality, etc., Spartacus would not have been part of that.

Now you are fucking lying to weasel out of it. I did not use Livy as a source on Spartacus, you lying sack of shit.

[katarn]

But, please, tell us what Livy really meant.

Still not getting that what I'm critiquing, and has been critiquing from the start, is your use of Livius as a source on Spartacus... My first post in this interaction was in reply to your ridiculously unfounded assertion that Spartacus was some sort of extremist proto-SJW bent on destroying Roman civilization.

Again, Spartacus was not Roman. He did not worship Dionysus, and if he had a Thracian "prophetess" wife, she was no Roman either. Meaning, even IF we accept your story that those Bacchus cults sought the complete overthrow of Roman civilization, the emancipation of slaves, gender and social equality, etc., Spartacus would not have been part of that.

Now you are fucking lying to weasel out of it. I did not use Livy as a source on Spartacus, you lying sack of shit.

Ah, finally! You address the main point of argument. But, from one POV, you kind of did. You connected Spartacus to the Bacchus cults that Livy described.

Now I do see one way both of you could be right and arguing different things. You mentioned the Servile Wars in general at first, of which there were three. Thus, if you were talking about one and two but not three, Bjorn is right, but off topic. However, if you are talking about Spartacus' war, read through Bjorn's posts. Clearly you glanced at one to respond to his main point, but I don't yet believe you have read them all (because you have said you won't), which most people know is something you should do before calling them a "lying sack of shit". Again, if you and he are arguing past each other, he is mistaken, but not lying. Poisoning the Well is just as bad as Ad hominem and betrays frustration.

Isn't this same behavior characteristic of the radical left you hate?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Damnnn

[Speaker to Animals]

LMFAO

Bjorn has been nothing but wrong and lying from the start. I don't think any of you read his wordwalls either. I stopped reading them about two of his wordwall posts back after I realized they were nonsense. Why would I? Who reads that?

Let's recap what he did post up till that point:

I argued that the closest analog to SJWs in antiquity were the people involved in the various Bacchanalia cults. I provided the text of Livy describing their moral degeneracy, which really is little different from our own SJWs, though perhaps more severe with the murders (though Antifa seems destined to catch up with the Bacchanalia in the near future). I pointed out that at least two of the three servile wars were in fact fomented by the Bacchanalia, with the first one being led by an alleged prophet of Dionysus, and the third one (Spartican revolt) was led by the husband of a Dionysian priestess.

Bjorn came in here like a massive cunt shitting all over what I wrote with wordwall #1. Let's be clear that his first big complaint was that Spartacus had nothing to do with the Dionysian cults and his wife was not a priestess of Dionysus. I referred him back to the quoted text from Polybius (which he never bothered to read and probably still has not read) which explicitly stated this was the case. Then he started moving goal posts for the first time by saying OMG Polybius wasn't actually there!!! But neither was Bjorn, and Bjorn presented exactly ZERO sources or evidence to back himself up. Are we supposed to believe him that Polybius was wrong or lying but we are supposed to believe Bjorn instead? On faith in Bjorn? Fucking hell no. That guy is a fucking clown.

Let's not forget this entire debacle stems from my arguing that the closest match to SJWs in antiquity were these cultists. The Spartacan comments, though factually correct and backed up by sources, were merely an aside to show just where this kind of mentality can lead. Yet Bjorn disputes all of this, and when he gets cornered in his lies and nonsense, he deliberately tries to obfuscate with more lies about me using Polybius to describe the Bacchanalia (when I used Livy). When he replies to my posts using these texts, he actually deletes all the quotes of Livy and then responds as if I made it all up.

If you think that's convincing, then more power to you. I want to walk back enfranchisement because of shit like this.

[Okeefenokee]

Sorry Bjorn, I don't think you should be voting in our elections either.

/snicker.