Thhrang please post Proctor being a bigger fujo than Empraise thanks
"I moved my cans out of the room and now the ants are confused - they're running around confused"Pipkin Pippa
Banter/Off-topic Thread & Community Stoning Platform
- Thread starter The Proctor
- Start date
I never thought I would hear his name here. I second the recommendations as the points he lays out are very reasonable.
Hey look man you'd be surprise on how many vtuber fans are autists in History, Politics, and Weapons etc. I remember one time when Kiara had her 80's outfit reveal KFP Discord first salivating on the boobs then discuss how 1980's America shaped Austria's culture due to Arnold's movie and how Kiara knew American sitcoms and then back on salivating on Kiara's thighs. It comes natural.
Come for the hour long Powerpoints, stay for the well laid in dad jokes. He's also one of the few places you'll find a solid presentation that understands Logistics is Hard and making things is harder.
Since I admitted it on the Discord I might as well admit to it here. Its been long enough. Warning 
posting that will be something only a couple of people will "get" and be aware of the extent of the prank.
posting that will be something only a couple of people will "get" and be aware of the extent of the prank. 
Which girl is this for?Since I admitted it on the Discord I might as well admit to it here. Its been long enough. Warning
Mozumi Pichi
I'm sure I would watch just much of that as I've watched of his other videos.
The only winning move is not to play.
Trying to architect someone who regularly goes 24+hrs without eating is either incredibly stupid or incredibly dedicated.Since I admitted it on the Discord I might as well admit to it here. Its been long enough. Warning
Godspeed you magnificent bastard.
hey, people have tried to architect pippaTrying to architect someone who regularly goes 24+hrs without eating is either incredibly stupid or incredibly dedicated.
Godspeed you magnificent bastard.
they probably had a grand ole time when she revealed the size XL leggings
AbsolutelyTrying to architect someone who regularly goes 24+hrs without eating is either incredibly stupid or incredibly dedicated.
Godspeed you magnificent bastard.
If the debate hadn't been today, this would have been the funniest thing I've seen this week. Great work
Last edited:
Dude they are flannel leggings that shits hot on any femoid everyone gad grand ole time
Pulling this to the red-headed stepchild of the general threads because it is VERY off-topic.
The "civilized urbanite vs uncivilized redneck" concept is 100% universal, as far as I am aware, and has been one of the most consistent sources of conflict in the modern era. I'm not as familiar with the pre-modern period, but from what I know of ancient history (Rome, Greece. Egypt, etc.) the idea may well be baked into our DNA. The rednecks almost always lose out compared to urban populations, too. For example:
The French Revolution's War in the Vendée, and the Reign of Terror it sparked? Killed shit-tons of random rural people in the name of Jacobin (so, Parisian urbanite) ideals. My personal favorite being the hyper-insanity that was the so-called "Temple of Reason" and the subsequent Cult of the Supreme Being. All of which served as convenient distractions from the fact that urban Parisians had looted rural areas and Catholic churches to pay for their newly enlightened lifestyles. Paris itself lost 1500ish people to the Terror's purges: meanwhile the Vendée lost at least a fifth of the region's population.
Same with the Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks (who were almost entirely based in urban areas) took over the workings of the country, and started killing relatively wealthy peasants called Kulaks and confiscating their grain and property to fuel their own development. There was a whole system of rhetoric blaming the peasantry for capitalistic resource hoarding despite the fact that most Kulaks had very little money.
There are hundreds-if not thousands-of historical examples of bigotry against rural populations, and "redneck/hillbilly" is just the latest one in the anglosphere. I'm not sure if its because the population undercurrents you mentioned lead to cultural differences, or if its specifically something to do with the urban/rural divide, but you are very much onto something. It's a concept not openly discussed in a lot of academic circles (at least not in the US ones) either, because it has some very uncomfortable implications to it for the highly educated bigots out there.
Last edited:
I believe we need to kill all city slickers and urbanites
I'm not sure I'd agree with that part. See the barbarian invasions of Rome, the Mongol conquests, the Almohads, etc.
There's quite a lot of examples of an uncivilized rural people conquering a decadent urbanite civilization.
The kicker is that those same rural people tend to adopt the ways of the ones they replace. Again, see the Franks adopting Latin, the Mongols converting to local religions like islam, all the different foreign Chinese dynasties eventually becoming more and more Chinese the longer they were in power.
The urbanites tend to have cultural power and that can help them last even after defeat.
Fair, although I would point out that those examples are pre-modern, and still reinforce the idea of general conflict between urban/rural populations. Also, some of those "uncivilized rural" peoples were actually independent states on par with their enemies, but the people who recorded their exploits thought of them as uncivilized. The big one there is the "barbarian invasions," Roman historians essentially called everyone who wasn't Roman or Greek a barbarian. The Sasanids were very much a "civilized" urban force invading Roman territory as a hostile state, for example; the Goths were arguably the same as well, so I'm not 100% certain that the Roman stagnation applies. With that said I'm not particularly familiar with pre-modern history, and the "unwashed savage" rhetoric is certainly there.
The Mongol conquests and the Almohads are definitely interesting to think about in the context of this discussion though. It would probably be more accurate to say that in MODERN history, rural populations are generally suppressed by the urban ones.
It definitely dates to at the very least classical Greece, which had plays mocking the illiterate rural population, and where the Aetolian League (which had no major poleis and was derided for consisting entirely of rural hicks).
Although the Aetolian League kept winning until it finally got smacked down by the Romans (their erstwhile allies. Just... never trust a Roman).
Republican era Romans had a very high and idealised opinion of rural life, but well, that was the idealisation. In practice, they sucked resources out of the countryside to support the cities, and rural citizens seldomly got the opportunity to participate in the political process on account of Rome's political system effectively limiting it to residents of Rome. Not legally, and there were opportunities to get around the logistical difficulties for some, but in practice.
The term pagan originated as a term for, well, hillbilly. And because all those hillbillies couldn't understand the glory and truth of that newfangled Jewish God that the citydwellers were starting to worship, the meaning of pagan eventually transformed into what we use it as today.
This being said, specifically in the American context, it's a pretty new phenomenon. Thomas Jefferson practically idolised rural life, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt benefitted immensely from their rural backgrounds/roleplaying as having one for a while.
American media still focussed heavily on rural life as archetypical and ideal throughout the 1950s and 1960s. It was in the late 1960s to early 1970s that this shifted decisively in favor of the city, simply as a consequence of the relatively growing percentage of the urban population (and its greater per capita income), making it a more attractive market to cater to.
Bit of a difference between states duking it out and resource conflicts within a state.
That aside, "Barbarian" successes were the exception, not the norm. And without exception, they succeeded due to their targets undergoing a severe crisis beforehand. When it was unified and not fighting itself, China routinely smashed the tribes to the north. It was only when China was divided or engaged in one of its hilarious civil wars that the tribes ever had a chance.
And in Rome's case, the problems started with the crisis of the 3rd century, which sharply reduced wealth generation, while the Germanic tribes along the Rhine and Danube got the opportunity to coalesce into proto states and the Sassanids formed into a credible threat exceeding the preceding Parthians.
The 4th century saw the rise of Christianity, the establishment of monastic orders, a return to piety. It also saw ever growing deurbanisation, with the rich citizenry fleeing the cities in favor of rural estates, and monetary interests interfering with the state's ability to collect taxes or to conscript soldiers.
Rome at its most urbanised and decadent was the Rome of the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD. This was the Rome of Lucullus and Crassus, of Caligula and Nero.
This Rome never stopped growing.
The Rome that fell was a Rome of bishops and monks, of rural estate holders desinterested in supporting the state over their own wealth, disincentivised from releasing their labor force for the army.
It was the least decadent, least urbanised Rome had been in six centuries.
And the richer, more urban, more decadent half of the empire?
That was the one to survive for another thousand years.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
