this really happened SOURCE: me, Albert Einstein who is also clapping
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
999 points (95.4% liked)
memes
15450 readers
4094 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nothing ever happens
It would be pretty weird for a teacher to get excited that a child doesn't hate their moms
Actually just has dead, wrapped up Egyptians in his basement.
I know a decent amount of weird historical facts to know that the looted corpses are usually stored in the attic in Europe. There is also a non zero chance that if you live in an old enough house in Europe there could still be a corpse in the attic.
Welcome to the Aitre St Maclou in Rouen! The cemetery was full in the XVIth century, so they built a nice building to keep the old corpses on the upper floors, all windows opened to everything can be nicely ventilated. 200 years later, they turned it into a school.
For when he gets snacky
If this wasn't posted by a right winger farming anti lgbt sentiment I'd probably cringe at the school being excited to parade the kid around for being accepting of lgbt people.
I hope Islam gets slept by JDM so I can laugh at people like this guy.
The Japanese domestic market?
Good to know I wasn't the only one to think the same.
Jeffrey Dahmer Meats, (Inc.)?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is the main objection to polygamy that having multiple sex partners is immoral or that the whole arrangement is subjugation of women (because usually it's multiple wives not husbands), or some other reason?
Muslim men can have multiple wives (maximum 5 I believe) as long as they can provide for them. Muslim women are only allowed to have a single husband.
The joke is that the school thought that the kid’s family was super progressive meanwhile in reality it was super patriarchal
load more comments
(11 replies)
If someone supports gay marriage they have no basis for opposing polygamist or incestuous marriages outside of how it subjectively makes them feel. Marriage is historically a religio-cultural institution. Without that context there can be no restrictions that don't also violate foundational secular values such as personal freedom. Secularity and modernism gatekeeping marriage is a hilarious mental gymnastics routine. These days marriage is just something to keep lawyers in business anyway. The government should just get out of the marriage business entirely at this point.
I generally agree with you, but I've heard reasonable arguments like
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn't
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn't
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don't think they're equivalent discussions.
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn't
First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren't equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.
Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. "Patriarchy is bad" says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is "bad" isn't it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren't compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it's lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn't
Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?
Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us "comfortable" undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?
Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why "modern marriages" should exist at all. "Taxes" is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)
You can oppose both polygamist or incestuous marriage if it's in a context of religious and sexist oppression, which tend to be the case in most instances of those two types of marriages.
I wouldn't have complains about polyamory incestuous marriage of free people. But sadly most of practical cases are not like that.
Your view is an intellectually honest one from a modernist perspective. I would go further though and say that marriage should have no secular existence at all.
A bit of both. The Greeks and Romans had a cultural taboo against polygamy which Christianity inherited, which means that Christians have historically been opposed to polygamy (which was not the case in Pre-christian northern Europe) on moral grounds. There is also the issue that historically polygamy has been associated with patriarchal societies in which men are allowed or expected to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to do the same. Additionally, it is also culturally associated with treating women as property of the husband. Personally I don't have any issue with polygamy if everyone is free to do whatever but the way most cultures practice it, it's unfair to women. Then again, that could also he said of "traditional" marriage in a lot of monogamous scenarios too.
These days there is also a tax reason why you can't marry multiple people. It would have a fair amount of tax negatives as well.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Find me just one example of a Muslim woman with two husbands.
That wasn't the ask though? They were asking about polygamy in general...
It’s an easy one-sentence way to point out the inherent subjugation of women.
load more comments
(15 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
Probably depends on who you ask. I'm polyamorous and I think in almost all cases where someone says polygamy and not polyamory they're engaging in an immoral power dynamic. My experience being poly though I'd say most people take offense to the multiple partners thing and polygamy is just what they're familiar with as a concept
It's not the multiple partners that are a problem in my opinion (You do you. Polyamory is not for me, but no hate), it's the many-to-one relationships. Even in cases where an immoral power dynamic doesn't exist, you're still setting up for societal shenanigans if it's consistently many women to men, or vice versa, which seems prudent to avoid.
That being said, monogamy in a legal sense has probably only persisted so long because involving more than 2 people would be a massive headache for the courts lol
Probably only works in countries where one "partner" has more rights than others.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›