You forgot the /s.
Good find. It does say something however that of all the pictures that one would think are fake or ai, it was the lightshow of all things that was embellished lol. Wonder what I ought to replace that picture with if I ever update the post.
Anyone else notice how every post that is even slightly critical of "our greatest ally" always gets the same 7-12 downvotes almost immediately?
Since we're on the subject, a reading to quit porn for anyone who needs it: https://read.easypeasymethod.org/
Perhaps, but it is disconcerting to see how propaganda sticks provided it is repeated enough. For instance, even now there are still people in this site that buy into the WWII narrative even though we've seen how easily the media and government can warp the truth as they did with the coof and the 2020 election.
"However, the Iliad is hardly a romance. The abduction scene is only alluded to in the poem. The major theme is war, with the conflict approaching its tenth year."
You already know the article is going wrong when it's making the same mistake that the movie adaptation did in assuming the story was about the Trojan war. Literally the first line of the poem lays out that it's about the wrath of Achilles.
"There is an acute consciousness of the natural world in the Iliad. of its flux and fragility."
The purpose of the descriptions of nature and the pastoral life are supposed to serve as a contrast to the war. The mention of the pastoral life is key in the poem because that's how life was in the bronze age. It's like when Tolkien based the Shire in LOTR after the countryside of England. Every other interpretation that the article goes on about in regards to nature and the environment through the modern activist's lens is null.
"Of course, war means massive destruction to the environment, as illustrated by the deep trench the Greeks dig to defend their ships -- an encroachment which provokes the gods."
Talk about inserting your own agenda. It is stated outright in Book VII that the gods were angry because the Achaeans didn't offer sacrifices while constructing it and because they feared that its glory would outshine the walls of Troy, which Poseidon and Apollo built.
"The lion is a frequent simile in Homer and particularly apt because the European lion population had been ravaged during the classical period. So Hector's revenge is more complete when he is viewed through this imagery as an instrument of nature, contrasting human mortality with the boundlessness of the natural world."
So Homer, a pre-classical poet, mentioned lions not because they used to roam in antiquity and in his lifetime, but because they are a symbol of nature's revenge? So what does that mean when Homer mentions lions as trying to kill livestock? I guess the sheep deserved it huh?
"Achilles carries the onslaught into the river Scamander, which becomes glutted with corpses. The Scamander is also a god and objects to the violation, but Achilles continues in his frenzy... The mortal enemy cannot stop Achilles, but Scamander swamps him and he has to be bailed out by allied gods. Almost drowned by the angry river, a bedraggled Achilles trudges through fields disfigured by corpses and discarded armour, and recognises that the forces of nature are inviolable so should remain unviolated."
Scamander wasn't angry because Achilles was violating nature or whatever else this article is insinuating. He was angry because he supported Troy and took the opportunity to try to take out Achilles who was killing off the Trojan army at this point, using the whole corpses in the river situation as a pretext to get rid of Troy's most dangerous foe. Notice also how the author of this article conveniently leaves out the fact that Hera and Hephaestus did more damage to the river than Achilles ever did in Book XXI when they burned it up to subdue Scamander. Nature on Nature violence then? Also, the article makes it seem like Achilles was reflecting on his "violation" of nature when really he thought he was unjustly being robbed of his glory which had been promised to him. Funny also how the article leaves out that bit of info where right after he is saved from the river, the gods themselves encourage and help out Achilles further during the battle even though he is supposedly violating nature according to this article.
If this is how modern academics and the like are interpreting the classics, paired with the need to make everything a political or social commentary nowadays with a splash of diversity, I have no faith for any of the adaptations that will inevitably come.
Historical context is important here. The breast was seen as the seat of the heart in the ancient Greek world, hence why some descriptions of emotions are described as coming from the breast. Likewise, when the Greek goddesses or other women who are considered to be the ideal of beauty come in, it was natural that their general figure would be described, which included their breasts, so it wasn't Homer pulling his inner G.R.R. Martin. When it comes to battle wounds, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to given the inclusion of nipples, Homer is known for describing realistic battle wounds, and seeing that most of the armor of the time left people open on the side of the chest near the armpits, it would make sense that most wounds would come in the breast/nipple area.
There weren't any black warriors in the Iliad or any classical Greek canon for that matter. It's Memnon you're referring to (who wasn't even in the Iliad), and given that the same people who say he was black are also the same people who think that Achilles and Patroclus (along with the rest of Greek society) were gay, I wouldn't give much credence to something like that either.
This should really be a reminder to people to pick up on older literature if anything. There's a reason why works like the Iliad and the Odyssey survive almost three thousand years after their inception while any other given book or story eventually loses its appeal and becomes a "product of its time" so to speak. Plus, there have already been lackluster (and bastardized in my eyes) adaptions of the the two stories in the past which made more egregious changes than the simple race-swapping and obvious political changes which this film is starting off with. It says something about the original epics when even the past so-called film and book adaptations of them were, and still are, praised even though they each fundamentally differed (and even misunderstood important points) from the originals.
I know mate, just posting for fun.
"One of the more moving stories I find myself returning to is an account of the lives of Sauron and Saruman, who were both defeated in the third age 3019.
Though many still celebrate Saruman’s death (and Sauron’s physical death) and believe the Last Alliance of Elves and Men to be heroes, Sauron was the real working class hero, creating a multicultural army with creatures who’ve had a long history of being ostracised and discriminated against.
We’re inclined to believe that orcs and Uruk hai are evil, unintelligent creatures, but has one stopped to consider that maybe they have chosen darkness as they’ve been forced to live in abhorrent living situations, whilst elves, humans and hobbits prospered?
That maybe Sauron wanted to coat the world in darkness because orcs cannot tolerate the sun, and he’s simply looking out for his bros?
And they too, were both technically fathers, with Saruman learning of Sauron’s secret IVF methods through the Palantir.
Imagine if the Uruk hai were able to read, and could see your memes (though they do seem to know what a menu is??)
And then you have Frodo Baggins, a privileged hobbit whose uncle not only just left him a house but priceless jewellery as well. Are we to expect that he is somehow the hero in this story?
Those details are worth bearing in mind as some people seek to cast his killing as a tale of justified, or at least understandable, fury against faceless greed.
Pictures of Frodo, who played an integral part in Sauron’s demise, have also elicited a fair amount of oohing and ahhing on social media over his obscenely large blue eyes and propensity to wear wigs.
Sauron may no longer exist in a physical form but it will remain a model for how a talented and determined Maia with humble roots as a servant to a dark lord can still rise to the top without the benefit of a generous uncle."
Some links to show how modern circumcision differs in regards to ancient circumcision:
Circumcision: Then and Now https://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/
Circumcision in Reverse: https://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/
In sum: In ancient times, only the bit of foreskin beyond the tip of the glans was removed. The added procedures of "Periah" (which removes the entire foreskin) and of "Metzitzeh" (the sucking of blood from the wound) are rightfully seen as heinous and are in no way commanded in the Bible.
This also brings up the fact that circumcision should not have continued anyway after the second covenant, hence why the apostles did not encourage new converts to be circumcised. Even if it was only the original form of circumcision from ancient times that endured, the simple fact remains that the Bible encourages rather the "circumcising of the heart," thus nullifying whatever religious argument people use today in favor of circumcision.
Considering that Arnold "Screw your freedoms" Schwarzenegger and Madonna are listed there, I wouldn't lend much, if any, credence to that list.
They're reflecting, sure, but instead of thinking to themselves, "Are we the ones in the wrong?," or something along those lines, they're going on about what the dems should have done differently. The bulk of these users admitted that they voted for Cackles knowing full well she was inept only because she wasn't OrangeMan, and they probably still would have voted for Biden knowing full well that the guy was senile. Oh sure, some of them have just realized that reddit was an echo chamber, but they're not going to connect the dots and realize that the media and whatnot has also been doing the same thing. They're not going to take that step and really reflect on themselves; that would destroy their whole worldview. Instead, their whole reasoning is that the left should have been nicer and appealed to more people instead of focusing on Trump and antagonizing anyone who had any semblance of agreement with him. These people still voted for clown world; they still absolutely believe in furthering immorality; and if the election was miraculously held again today, they'd still vote for Cackles. Regardless of their current mood at the moment, I guarantee they'll revert back to screeching and whatnot by the time Trump comes into power come January.
Pretty much this. By all means go out and vote if you want to, but we need to realize that the actual issue at hand is our morally corrupt society; our corrupt government and institutions are merely a reflection of this greater issue. Even if it turns out that Trump was playing his cards close to his chest and merely pretending to go along with certain political and moral compromises to ensure a maximum amount of votes (which brings up the whole question of whether we should appease the godless for votes), that still doesn't change the fact that half of the country actually believes in all the degeneracy and godlessness. The tenets of democracy hold that the voice of the majority and the commons is supreme, so what do we see when that same majority is made up of child-murderers and degenerates, especially when everyone else isn't willing to directly oppose them lest they lose votes? I do hope I am merely over-blowing this issue and that all these concerns will be proven wrong should Trump get elected, but considering that we have seen the major players of the right make political concessions on basic moral questions like abortion, child mutilation, and sexual degeneracy, I do think there is a majority in the nation (outside of the typical screeching leftists) that do sincerely hold to these immoral practices or at the very least tolerate them. If this wasn't the case, then why would these politicians have made concessions in the first place instead of doubling down on their virtues and values?
But then again...
"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity."
-- Bullet Tooth Tony
And what makes all this sadder is that the majority of the country will still be stuck on the "picking the lesser evil" and "playing the political game" mentality. It's either "BuT soCiaLism" and our "GrEateSt AlLy" from the right or leftists screeching on about "faScisM" and "UkRaIne." Two sides of this same coin. Uniparty. One side promotes abortion while the other side remains silent so as to not lose votes, thus making that side complicit through cowardice. One side condoned the jab while the other (shocker) also condoned the jab, making both guilty of the countless that died because of it. They both support sexual degeneracy, just go over to TheDonald and see how they support Scott Presler and silence anyone who points out one shouldn't associate with degenerates. They both go on about foreign affairs (again either Ukraine or our greatest ally) instead of putting it in stone that our country will come first before anything else, and then proceed to silence anyone that points this issue out (looking at posts like this one for example: https://unscored.arete.network/c/TheDonald/p/1995LqvS4p/).
This has already been said before by many users but votes won't get us out of this situation when you consider that it isn't just the state of the government but also how immoral the country in general has become. We can go on about the uniparty working against our interests, but we must remember that half of the country actually believes in furthering degeneracy and the globohomo agenda. Have we really won when we had to appease the baby-killers, the sexual degenerates, and literally everyone else that is godless under the sun just to get elected? Consider also, as you noted, that all that effort and moral compromises would have been done just for everyone else in power (along with half of the brain-dead populace) making it a thing to sabotage any attempt to get things fixed.
Edit: Lol, this whole topic reminded me of this thread in c/christianity: https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/199OB3TlKt/50-of-christians-dont-vote-if-we/c/4ZFBMwkFuHI.
One point was whether the 50% of christians that don't vote are lukewarm and cowardly for not voting for a candidate that they don't 100% agree with. But consider this: say someone like Trump doubled down on his stances and completely condemned abortion (instead of dismissing it as a state issue) and made it his thing to return to the nation to its biblically moral roots. He for sure would have gotten more, if not all, christians to vote for him. But he didn't, because he knew doing so would have lost him the votes of everyone else in the country (again bringing up that the real issue at hand is not a question of voting but rather our immoral and subverted country). Let me ask, who is really the lukewarm one here, the person that remains unwavering in his convictions and morals, or the person that will compromise his morals so as to get ahead in the political game? There's a reason a born-again christian, or even simply a moral person, can't get ahead in the political game without making moral compromises. The political game has always been rigged in favor of the morally corrupt; plus, there are other ways to make change in the world that don't revolve on one sacrificing his morals and appeasing the godless.
There's nothing smug about having a basic sense of morals. The fact that many still see it as a matter of politics and "compromising" to make sure the other side doesn't "win" is why we're still in this mess (especially when the only real solution that will fix things on a general level is the type of thing that would get one banned on the internet). What the user you're replying to has been saying is that the real issue is between right and wrong.
The whole voting for the lesser evil thing in politics is a false dichotomy; they are both sides of the same coin. Yes yes, let us see our political choices: the candidate who approves of the murder of the unborn, or the one who stayed silent on it by delegating it as a state issue, knowing full well that addressing it would have lost him votes. The candidate who approves of genital mutilation, or the candidate who approves of genital mutilation (but only as long as the parents approve!). The candidate who supported the poison jab, or the candidate who supported the poison jab. The side that approves of sexual degeneracy, or the side that approves of sexual degeneracy (I'm always seeing posts and comments approving of Scott Presler and his "orientation" on TheDonald nowadays).
The fact that we need to appease the millions of people that approve of the murder of the unborn and all the other degenerate stuff shows that the root issue at hand clearly isn't a matter of politics. I have no doubt that Trump doesn't agree with all the degeneracy, but is only conceding for the sake of votes. But that's the thing; the country is already lost morally speaking when we have to "compromise" and concede to basic moral issues just to obtain a semblance of power, moral issues that our ancestors would have unhesitatingly gone to war over. And what's worse is that these compromises are done for the mere hope of some future greater good, a greater good mind you that will never be permanently assured. I'm not sure about you, but I don't think I could sacrifice on basic moral issues like this knowing full well that God is going to start asking me questions on this stuff one day.
This probably explains why many mirror instances like Invidious and Piped haven't been able to load videos recently.
Exactly. Somehow the vote excuse is worse than every other argument used by raging leftists in favor of abortion. Like that's going to hold up when God starts asking people why they tolerated and voted for the murder of the unborn. "bUt hOw ElsE wEre wE sUpPoSeD to vOte in PaTrioTs?"
Ignorance is one thing, but willingly voting for people who'll keep silent on such an issue is not only cowardice but complicity. Doing so is ceding ground to the immoral leeches in power today only for them to take back what they "allowed" (and more) tomorrow.
It probably is knowing CNN...
"Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you"
Achilles and Patroclus were basically battle buddies in the Iliad, hence their close brotherly connection and the reason Achilles goes berserk when Patroclus dies. The people today that claim they were lovers are simply projecting as per usual. These type of people have clearly never experienced an actual brotherly connection (or even friendship) with someone so all they can think of is "tHeY mUsT hAvE bEeN GaY!" This also reminds me that they also pulled these wacky reasonings with Frodo and Sam in LOTR.
I think it's also more so that novelty is confused for originality these days. Modern "artists" and authors are novel in that they create outlandish and flowery stories not because the story or medium demands it, but for the sake of getting attention by being "different" and "unique." It's like a cubist painting in contrast to a Rafaellian fresco, or a modern abstract sculpture compared to Michelangelo's David. But since originality demands actual experience and imagination, along with volumes of time, effort, and technique, which modern creators are either lacking in or aren't willing to commit to, novelty has unfortunately become the norm.