Jump to content
IGNORED

Seewalds 25: Jessa is allowing Spurgeon to "jump for joy", er, dance


samurai_sarah

Recommended Posts

I think "wage-slave" means a person who is not able to get ahead on their wages and is essentially "owned" by their employer.  When they essentially can't quit, or do anything else.  People who put up with anything because they just need the pay check.  I suppose they would rather everyone work for themselves.  

I recently was reading about this concept from the 1840s and the politics of the time.  People in the factories were often called wage slaves because they were thought to be essentially owned by their employers.  Back when company stores were a thing that did happen, you could actually not quit because you were in debt to your employer.  It was way less common than share cropping, which was the same idea but for farms, but it was a thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 596
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah, I do accept that Wage Slavery is a thing and was also a major issue in the past. I just don't think that a Botkin would actually have any idea about that. So, it probably means that you don't work directly for Jesus or something. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, justoneoftwo said:

I think "wage-slave" means a person who is not able to get ahead on their wages and is essentially "owned" by their employer.

Well, yes.  But that is normal usage not Botkin-speak.  Rufus knows what they think it means. :D

Young Lucas Botkin may be guilty of employing a few wage slaves himself.  I did a quick search and this newish article on T-Rex Arms came up.  He says he has 16 employees.  This may need a literal trigger warning before you click.  Those appendix holsters look as though they would be mighty dangerous to the testicular regions.

https://loadoutroom.com/28220/the-man-behind-t-rex-arms-lucas-botkin/

I'm not sure exactly what the other brothers are doing these days.   AS and S are still pontificating about beautiful womanhood, although their little behinds are firmly planted on the shelf of virtuous spinsterhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gillyweed said:

Henry really reminds me of Josiah in that pic! Anyone else see it?

I think he looks like an M kid honestly. He's a cutie pie for sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

I don't know what's going on here but Henry looks quite done with it all!

As is Jenny, she's like "I got you. this is some shit ain't it."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I think he looks like Henry VIII. I have high hopes for this child.

Six marriages? Beheadings? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He kind of reminds me of Marcus but I think its the lightly blonde hair and round heads. The M's look like Anna, especially Marcus. All the Grand-Duggars have been really adorable..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Six marriages? Beheadings? LOL

But also he was like "fuck this religious thing we've always done, I'm doing my own thing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Six marriages? Beheadings? LOL

Marrying Spurgeon's wife :o 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love jokes about Henry VIII and the Church of England, but the truth is that he did not found a new religion based on his narcissism, his horniness, or his insanity. He was desperately in need of a male heir and his wife was unable to produce one. His father Henry VII was only King by 'right of conquest' (basically... he stole the throne), and there were a boatload of other people circling around with claims that were probably stronger. The circumstances were truly dire. Basically, there were a few reasons driving his split with Rome:

-The extremely real need for a legitimate male heir meant he needed to be allowed to annul his marriage to Catherine and marry a younger woman, and the Pope was forbidding it.

-The Pope/Catholic Church had enormous power and influence in England and Henry wanted more authority and autonomy for himself.

-After splitting with Rome, he was able to confiscate a huge amount of wealth from the monasteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

he did not found a new religion based on his narcissism, his horniness

Ok narcissism is a strong word, however I think you have to be a little narcissistic to believe that you and your seed are entitled to govern a whole country by right of birth in the first place. And you have to be a little narcissistic to buy into the idea that Kings derive their authority directly from god, especially when it goes against the history of the monarchy you were born into. All of your other points are totally true, but I stand by my armchair diagnosis. Henry VIII was a self-absorbed dick. 

Let's not forget that his decision didn't exactly create a stable succession anyway, and loads of people died for their faith during the whiplash between Protestantism and Catholicism following his death. So it had its benefits, and might ultimately have been what was best for England in the long run, but his motivations were not purely for the good of his people. Even if they were, he fucked over a lot of them as a result. 

ETA: Ok this sounds really smug, so I just want to say this is slightly tongue in cheek. I'm not a historian, I just love talking about history and I think Henry VIII was a hilarious fuckup. The best thing he ever did was create Elizabeth I, and I will talk about it any chance I get!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hashtag Blessed said:

Ok narcissism is a strong word, however I think you have to be a little narcissistic to believe that you and your seed are entitled to govern a whole country by right of birth in the first place. And you have to be a little narcissistic to buy into the idea that Kings derive their authority directly from god, especially when it goes against the history of the monarchy you were born into. All of your other points are totally true, but I stand by my armchair diagnosis. Henry VIII was a self-absorbed dick.

That's just the way it was. Henry VIII was not unique in that belief. He would have been extremely unusual and would probably have been considered dangerously insane if he did not believe all the things you listed. It was the 16th century. Of course England was ruled by a King. Of course Kings were ordained by God. It's not like his father rode in and created the monarchy. Someone was going to be King, Henry VII believed it was his right, so obviously his son by extension believed that it was his right.

I do think Henry VIII was narcissistic, but not really for any of those reasons, and I don't believe his split with Rome was driven mainly by his narcissism.

6 minutes ago, Hashtag Blessed said:

Let's not forget that his decision didn't exactly create a stable succession anyway

Right, but he couldn't predict the future, and his goal was to create a stable succession.

6 minutes ago, Hashtag Blessed said:

and loads of people died for their faith during the whiplash between Protestantism and Catholicism following his death.

Yeah, but that was almost certainly coming anyway. The Protestant Reformation was in full swing, and it was bubbling up in England long before Henry VIII started making trouble with the Catholic Church. 

Anyway, tl;dr, my opinion: Henry VIII was a narcissist, but his narcissism is not what led him to create the Church of England. And that's my essay for today. :pb_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also let's recall that Henry's mother Elizabeth of York died in childbirth trying to give birth to another boy after Henry's older brother Arthur, Prince of Wales died. Henry VII was equally worried about the Tudors keeping the throne because it wasn't truly stable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Greendoor said:

@singsingsing - got it sister, it was in the works before he divorced Katherine of Aragon.  Defender of the Faith he was, but much more interested in power, and the wealth that brought. 

 

Tudor history is like my personal dog whistle, I swear. I think if someone went into the bathroom and turned all the lights off and said 'Thomas More' in the mirror three times in a row, my face would appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, singsingsing said:

Of course England was ruled by a King. Of course Kings were ordained by God

Haha sorry but I still have to quibble. The idea that kings were god ordained and therefore had the same authority as the Pope is what I meant. That was a new idea in England and pissed off quite a few important people. But in every other way I concede your point. He couldn't see the future. So yeah he couldn't have known that in spite of all his best efforts, his succession would still be a bloody mess. I still reserve the right to blame him in retrospect because he was a big dumb jerk! :pb_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • samurai_sarah locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.