▲ 962 ▼ Whoever invented the eight hour five day work week is Satan. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world 118 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) And if I worked less hours in my office job, all that would return? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (3 children) Your office job is incompatible with the pre-agrarian lifestyle you described earlier. You don't get modern luxuries AND the minimal hours required as a hunter gatherer, just as I can't get the speed of my car AND the cardiovascular benefits of my bike simultaneously. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) He's not talking about "pre-agrarian;" even medieval peasants got more time off than we do today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's mostly a silly meme that's been seized upon. When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you provide a citation for that, please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/medieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17104671983190&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsmith.org%2Fblog%2Fregulation-industry%2Fmedieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) You just cited an English capitalist propaganda think tank. Please provide an objective citation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* Yeah I don't think so ... We can both acknowledge progress and an extreme lack of what that progress should/could have been. All you have to do is look to countries like China and even Japan where people literally work themselves to death. Should we be working 40 hours a week? No but let's not pretend that the situation has only gotten worse... permalink fedilink source parent [–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) With an ebike you can! 25mph (more if you jail break it) And all the pedaling your heart desires! You can have both! Our insane productivity rises in the past century SHOULD have allowed us all modern luxuries and like half the current working hours. Corporate greed has robbed you of that while wages have stagnated permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Pedalling while the engine is doing the work isn't really the same cardiovascular workout. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're a crab in a bucket and so wrong. If you need to work to afford to live, you're being lied to about what's possible for a healthy and functioning modern society to thrive. Don't forget that in order for capitalism to stay alive, it requires poverty, manufactured scarcity and obsolescence. You should question why billionaires even exist in what you consider to be a just and modern society. You should also look up a visual representation of just how much larger 1 billion is from whatever your gross annual income is if you still think it's reasonable that they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You okay? I wrote about pre agrarian societies and you went with a semi hinged rant about capitalism and billionaires? If you meant to respond to my point though, I'm super curious how you think a society where almost everyone spends their work time getting food ALSO develops the luxuries of modern life, like a washing machine. Everyone work 2 jobs? That seems pretty against the whole free time thing. So, uhhh, help from Aliens or Jesus? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your post was a view point that we couldn't work less while maintaining modern conveniences and luxuries, at least that's how it's coming across. If your point was simply that in pre-modern times they didn't have what we have today and that it was due to working too much for sustaining life to develop, then ok I guess. Maybe I misread the thread. The main post was about the fact we're working too many hours in our current society though so.. yeah. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I really appreciate that response and I think it's a good example of what I love about Lemmy. In my head, the thread was about OP's addition to the image, which was "whoever invented the 8 hour 5 day work week is Satan." Where, ehhh, 8 hour work day feels like an improvement on most of history. Original image, I more agree with you. I think we do have technological surplus that could be better allocated towards labour/leisure/all our modern conveniences. But, I am keenly aware it is capitalism/civilization/whatever that got us here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Fair enough! From that view point I definitely understand where you were coming from now, my bad! permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The person you're responding to gave no reason to think this mountain of accusations permalink fedilink source parent [–] anarchyrabbit@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago 1 billion in pesos or rupees? Asking for a friend permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (3 children) Your office job is incompatible with the pre-agrarian lifestyle you described earlier. You don't get modern luxuries AND the minimal hours required as a hunter gatherer, just as I can't get the speed of my car AND the cardiovascular benefits of my bike simultaneously. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) He's not talking about "pre-agrarian;" even medieval peasants got more time off than we do today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's mostly a silly meme that's been seized upon. When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you provide a citation for that, please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/medieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17104671983190&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsmith.org%2Fblog%2Fregulation-industry%2Fmedieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) You just cited an English capitalist propaganda think tank. Please provide an objective citation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* Yeah I don't think so ... We can both acknowledge progress and an extreme lack of what that progress should/could have been. All you have to do is look to countries like China and even Japan where people literally work themselves to death. Should we be working 40 hours a week? No but let's not pretend that the situation has only gotten worse... permalink fedilink source parent [–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) With an ebike you can! 25mph (more if you jail break it) And all the pedaling your heart desires! You can have both! Our insane productivity rises in the past century SHOULD have allowed us all modern luxuries and like half the current working hours. Corporate greed has robbed you of that while wages have stagnated permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Pedalling while the engine is doing the work isn't really the same cardiovascular workout. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're a crab in a bucket and so wrong. If you need to work to afford to live, you're being lied to about what's possible for a healthy and functioning modern society to thrive. Don't forget that in order for capitalism to stay alive, it requires poverty, manufactured scarcity and obsolescence. You should question why billionaires even exist in what you consider to be a just and modern society. You should also look up a visual representation of just how much larger 1 billion is from whatever your gross annual income is if you still think it's reasonable that they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You okay? I wrote about pre agrarian societies and you went with a semi hinged rant about capitalism and billionaires? If you meant to respond to my point though, I'm super curious how you think a society where almost everyone spends their work time getting food ALSO develops the luxuries of modern life, like a washing machine. Everyone work 2 jobs? That seems pretty against the whole free time thing. So, uhhh, help from Aliens or Jesus? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your post was a view point that we couldn't work less while maintaining modern conveniences and luxuries, at least that's how it's coming across. If your point was simply that in pre-modern times they didn't have what we have today and that it was due to working too much for sustaining life to develop, then ok I guess. Maybe I misread the thread. The main post was about the fact we're working too many hours in our current society though so.. yeah. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I really appreciate that response and I think it's a good example of what I love about Lemmy. In my head, the thread was about OP's addition to the image, which was "whoever invented the 8 hour 5 day work week is Satan." Where, ehhh, 8 hour work day feels like an improvement on most of history. Original image, I more agree with you. I think we do have technological surplus that could be better allocated towards labour/leisure/all our modern conveniences. But, I am keenly aware it is capitalism/civilization/whatever that got us here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Fair enough! From that view point I definitely understand where you were coming from now, my bad! permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The person you're responding to gave no reason to think this mountain of accusations permalink fedilink source parent [–] anarchyrabbit@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago 1 billion in pesos or rupees? Asking for a friend permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) He's not talking about "pre-agrarian;" even medieval peasants got more time off than we do today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's mostly a silly meme that's been seized upon. When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you provide a citation for that, please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/medieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17104671983190&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsmith.org%2Fblog%2Fregulation-industry%2Fmedieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) You just cited an English capitalist propaganda think tank. Please provide an objective citation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* Yeah I don't think so ... We can both acknowledge progress and an extreme lack of what that progress should/could have been. All you have to do is look to countries like China and even Japan where people literally work themselves to death. Should we be working 40 hours a week? No but let's not pretend that the situation has only gotten worse... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's mostly a silly meme that's been seized upon. When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you provide a citation for that, please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/medieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17104671983190&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsmith.org%2Fblog%2Fregulation-industry%2Fmedieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) You just cited an English capitalist propaganda think tank. Please provide an objective citation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you provide a citation for that, please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/medieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17104671983190&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsmith.org%2Fblog%2Fregulation-industry%2Fmedieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) You just cited an English capitalist propaganda think tank. Please provide an objective citation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/medieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17104671983190&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsmith.org%2Fblog%2Fregulation-industry%2Fmedieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) You just cited an English capitalist propaganda think tank. Please provide an objective citation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) You just cited an English capitalist propaganda think tank. Please provide an objective citation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which of their claims or points do you feel is inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm saying they are a conservative capitalist propaganda think tank. They are an organization who's primary purpose is to create propaganda for capitalism. They are not a credible source on pre-capitalist labor. Please provide an objective source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Again, what is the specific point with which you disagree? Please provide a claim of theirs with which you disagree. Edit: Also, fyi, you also mean whose. Who's = who is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's not even any kind of sourced document, just an entirely baseless opinion article. No evidence, no references. I'll repeat again. You have provided a link to the website for a think tank that generates conservative pro-capitalist propaganda. Please provide a legitimate objective source on your claims about pre-capitalist labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Is this just your way of saying "I refuse to read the article" ? They simply point out that the 150 days nonsense comes from a study that ignores large swathes of labour. You are welcome to look at the original study, which they link. It's pretty basic stuff. Yet again, with what specific part do you disagree? I'm not wild about searching through academia for a probable source troll When you refuse to engage with the material in a meaningful sense, not just "I dislike the source and that's enough for me!" It doesn't really inspire any hope this will be a productive conversation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It's a conservative think tank. Feel free to admit that your only source is propaganda. I'm asking you to provide any kind of backing for your claim. As a trans person, as a woman, as a decent human being, a conservative think tank is not a valid source that I'm going to respect. Not even mentioning that again it is an opinion piece. They have provided literally no backing for their statements whatsoever. Provide me an actual source and I'll respond to it. All the typing you've done, and assuming that you're basing your statements on factual evidence, I'm sure you could've found at least 1 legitimate objective non-propaganda source based on any kind of scholarly or academic analysis of historical records. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here were my claims: When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. And if the harvest wasn't good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. And that's not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) Or looking after farm animals etc. The only stuff that's counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. With which of these claims do you disagree? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not arguing with your claims. I'm asking for a source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago When they worked, it was from dawn to dusk doing hard labour. Read Witold Rybczynksi's Home when he talks about medieval life, pages 24 - 36 in my copy. And if the harvest wasn’t good, they died because the Lord took his tithe regardless. That's how feudalism worked. And that’s not to mention the household labour, all of which we take for granted (consider chopping wood every time you wanted heat, mending clothes or the ridiculous process of cleaning them.) These are pretty self evident. Unless you think they had chainsaws and washing machines in the dark ages? The only stuff that’s counted in that 150 days silliness is working the land which was only a portion of their real labour. This is linked in the source I already provided, you can look at the original study: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* Yeah I don't think so ... We can both acknowledge progress and an extreme lack of what that progress should/could have been. All you have to do is look to countries like China and even Japan where people literally work themselves to death. Should we be working 40 hours a week? No but let's not pretend that the situation has only gotten worse... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) With an ebike you can! 25mph (more if you jail break it) And all the pedaling your heart desires! You can have both! Our insane productivity rises in the past century SHOULD have allowed us all modern luxuries and like half the current working hours. Corporate greed has robbed you of that while wages have stagnated permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Pedalling while the engine is doing the work isn't really the same cardiovascular workout. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Pedalling while the engine is doing the work isn't really the same cardiovascular workout. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're a crab in a bucket and so wrong. If you need to work to afford to live, you're being lied to about what's possible for a healthy and functioning modern society to thrive. Don't forget that in order for capitalism to stay alive, it requires poverty, manufactured scarcity and obsolescence. You should question why billionaires even exist in what you consider to be a just and modern society. You should also look up a visual representation of just how much larger 1 billion is from whatever your gross annual income is if you still think it's reasonable that they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You okay? I wrote about pre agrarian societies and you went with a semi hinged rant about capitalism and billionaires? If you meant to respond to my point though, I'm super curious how you think a society where almost everyone spends their work time getting food ALSO develops the luxuries of modern life, like a washing machine. Everyone work 2 jobs? That seems pretty against the whole free time thing. So, uhhh, help from Aliens or Jesus? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your post was a view point that we couldn't work less while maintaining modern conveniences and luxuries, at least that's how it's coming across. If your point was simply that in pre-modern times they didn't have what we have today and that it was due to working too much for sustaining life to develop, then ok I guess. Maybe I misread the thread. The main post was about the fact we're working too many hours in our current society though so.. yeah. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I really appreciate that response and I think it's a good example of what I love about Lemmy. In my head, the thread was about OP's addition to the image, which was "whoever invented the 8 hour 5 day work week is Satan." Where, ehhh, 8 hour work day feels like an improvement on most of history. Original image, I more agree with you. I think we do have technological surplus that could be better allocated towards labour/leisure/all our modern conveniences. But, I am keenly aware it is capitalism/civilization/whatever that got us here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Fair enough! From that view point I definitely understand where you were coming from now, my bad! permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The person you're responding to gave no reason to think this mountain of accusations permalink fedilink source parent [–] anarchyrabbit@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago 1 billion in pesos or rupees? Asking for a friend permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You okay? I wrote about pre agrarian societies and you went with a semi hinged rant about capitalism and billionaires? If you meant to respond to my point though, I'm super curious how you think a society where almost everyone spends their work time getting food ALSO develops the luxuries of modern life, like a washing machine. Everyone work 2 jobs? That seems pretty against the whole free time thing. So, uhhh, help from Aliens or Jesus? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your post was a view point that we couldn't work less while maintaining modern conveniences and luxuries, at least that's how it's coming across. If your point was simply that in pre-modern times they didn't have what we have today and that it was due to working too much for sustaining life to develop, then ok I guess. Maybe I misread the thread. The main post was about the fact we're working too many hours in our current society though so.. yeah. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I really appreciate that response and I think it's a good example of what I love about Lemmy. In my head, the thread was about OP's addition to the image, which was "whoever invented the 8 hour 5 day work week is Satan." Where, ehhh, 8 hour work day feels like an improvement on most of history. Original image, I more agree with you. I think we do have technological surplus that could be better allocated towards labour/leisure/all our modern conveniences. But, I am keenly aware it is capitalism/civilization/whatever that got us here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Fair enough! From that view point I definitely understand where you were coming from now, my bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your post was a view point that we couldn't work less while maintaining modern conveniences and luxuries, at least that's how it's coming across. If your point was simply that in pre-modern times they didn't have what we have today and that it was due to working too much for sustaining life to develop, then ok I guess. Maybe I misread the thread. The main post was about the fact we're working too many hours in our current society though so.. yeah. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I really appreciate that response and I think it's a good example of what I love about Lemmy. In my head, the thread was about OP's addition to the image, which was "whoever invented the 8 hour 5 day work week is Satan." Where, ehhh, 8 hour work day feels like an improvement on most of history. Original image, I more agree with you. I think we do have technological surplus that could be better allocated towards labour/leisure/all our modern conveniences. But, I am keenly aware it is capitalism/civilization/whatever that got us here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Fair enough! From that view point I definitely understand where you were coming from now, my bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I really appreciate that response and I think it's a good example of what I love about Lemmy. In my head, the thread was about OP's addition to the image, which was "whoever invented the 8 hour 5 day work week is Satan." Where, ehhh, 8 hour work day feels like an improvement on most of history. Original image, I more agree with you. I think we do have technological surplus that could be better allocated towards labour/leisure/all our modern conveniences. But, I am keenly aware it is capitalism/civilization/whatever that got us here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Fair enough! From that view point I definitely understand where you were coming from now, my bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Fair enough! From that view point I definitely understand where you were coming from now, my bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The person you're responding to gave no reason to think this mountain of accusations permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anarchyrabbit@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago 1 billion in pesos or rupees? Asking for a friend permalink fedilink source parent
