|
ghost emoji posted:
True Story: Many years ago, we were attending a con in San Diego. I was wearing my 1860 Victorian for the day. We were at the US Grant Hotel, a historic hotel in San Diego. They wouldn't let me in their restaurant, so I sat in the lobby while someone went to get McDonalds. People thought I belonged to the hotel as part of an 'immersion'-type thing. I told them no, but they could ask the people at the desk if they'd hire me. After seeing these people's pictures, I wouldn't want them stinking up my garden, either. He has no coat; her dress is ill-made and doesn't quite fit. That's a fascinator, not a hat. They are more 'peri-oid' than 'period'.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:I assume they cosplay as racist, misogynist, classist, and every other "ist", right? Since being a historical nobleman was basically prissing around whilst hating and condemning anyone different they cosplay as snobby twats who've never gotten closer to any form of historical anything than desperately jerking off onto their steampunk books they miss a few really key things about (what I understand about) Being Victorian: 1, a huge emphasis on social conformity. individual opinions differed, but the basic idea is Fitting In and being courteous to other people by not hanging out in your undies in public or whatever. also the pretty typical pressure to follow fashion and do things like other people (of your race/sex/especially class) do them. cosplaying like you live in a different time would only be excused if you were mega old and actually alive in that time. (and either rich or charmingly poor.) otherwise it'd just be being weird and disruptive for no reason and you'd be regarded as a troublemaking idiot. particularly because this couple make a GIANT PRODUCTION (according to their own testimony) of their cosplay. which is fuckin rude in any time. basically they coulda picked between "wear shittily made historical cosplay" and "more true to the spirit of the era" and they chose poorly 2, a general attitude that things are only getting better from here, and it's good to move along with social progress curiosity about the world and where it's going is part of this. freezing your attitudes as they were at one particular point is not this is also where a lot of actual Victorians ran into "aaa no all these immigrants are scary though I don't like this part" or what have you. fear of change and anything outside your comfort zone, which leads to comparatively more blatant racism, etc., than we're used to today they're also missing a couple things not particular to the Victorian era 1, any kind of awareness that behavior in their chosen time period wasn't perfectly uniform for the whole 64 years across all people everywhere. or that a whole world of human behavior outside of "prissy anglo-american honkies" existed while Victoria was on the throne i mean it's not like everyone alive during Victoria's long-rear end reign was terrified of black people and a card-carrying fun hater. or that the only countries that mattered were the U.S. and UK and the only class that mattered was middle class white people. these idiots are just like "reading is hard im gonna pretend to be what i think Victorians were like rather than confront the frightening complexity of humans" 2, any kind of self-awareness at all lmao just look at them not like im free of being a horrible awkward nerd myself. but these two fuckers particularly bother me i guess. i wouldn't give a poo poo if they wanted to wear terrible clothes everywhere and that was it. they just have the most obnoxious possible attitudes about everything and excuse it by going "but we're pretending to be Victorians" nah you two are pretending to be what you think Victorians were like, because you want an excuse to be assholes to everyone
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
I remembered this Vox article from last year that interviewed the female part of that whackadoodle couple. From what I remember, the whole thing started out as part of her academic life and then she just enjoyed aspects of the life that she emulated and kept up with it. For those playing along at home, they wash as frequently as someone in "Victorian times" would. Revisiting this, the thing that annoys me the most about this woman, other than the veiled racism and the way she says Gabriel all the time, is that it is not good historian practice to romanticize or cheerlead what you study. She seems to have made interesting and what would otherwise be poignant discoveries about certain aspects of life, like that her skirts serve as a way to help identify her surroundings, but by virtue of her finding only sturdy things left from 120 years ago, she is hung up on the fact that everything from that era was "sturdy" and everything now is "disposable" without having a critical eye to why that may be (the disposable poo poo of yesteryear was disposed). Also, this is what happens to your kids when you homeschool them. Marius Pontmercy has a new favorite as of 13:16 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
I mean, it would be fun to spend a week living that kind of lifestyle just for the sake of immersive research. I just can't see anyone deciding that it's actually preferable. Also, this part annoys me: quote:Modern commentaries on the past can get appallingly like the game "telephone": One person misinterprets something, the next exaggerates it, a third twists it to serve an agenda, and so on. Going back to the original sources is the only way to learn the truth. Yes, primary sources can be better than half-remembered and intentionally edited secondary sources from later. But you still need to account for those primary sources being wrong about poo poo sometimes. I have a book where a woman had to assemble an image of the daily life of medieval peasants from things like coroner's records, because nobody back then cared enough about the peasants to write poo poo down (and what they did write down wasn't a priority for being saved) and the surviving historical texts are generally biased royal opinions. chitoryu12 has a new favorite as of 13:22 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
There are aspects of reliving historical experience that can be enlightening and instructive, like military reenactors or the people who work at historical museums and dress up and show how people did stuff. There's youtube channel where a guy cooks 1700s recipes that is way more engrossing than it has any right to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM3d8W34anQ Going through life half-assedly aping another time, poorly, and saying that things were unilaterally better then, on the other hand is probably not the same thing. hogmartin has a new favorite as of 13:52 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Khazar-khum posted:True Story: Many years ago, we were attending a con in San Diego. I was wearing my 1860 Victorian for the day. We were at the US Grant Hotel, a historic hotel in San Diego. They wouldn't let me in their restaurant, so I sat in the lobby while someone went to get McDonalds. People thought I belonged to the hotel as part of an 'immersion'-type thing. I told them no, but they could ask the people at the desk if they'd hire me. The first time I heard about them, I expected to be horribly jealous of her wardrobe, but everything she wears is frumpy and ill-fitting and boring. If you're going to wear a costume every day (which they are - if your three year old wears a superman costume every day, you don't say "oh, it's not a costume, it's just how he dresses"), you should at least have fun with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Experimental archaeologists are the best thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
No joke, just this weekend I ended up waiting for a bus with a guy in a goggled top hat, suit jacket and skull-topped cane from the halloween store. I was on my way to a comic art show myself so I asked if he was heading there as well. He said no, he just likes wearing that outfit while going about his day. Then we stood there awkwardly until the bus arrived. I'd call him a weirdo but at least he seemed to understand why people would think he's odd for dressing like that, unlike that victorian couple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
The STDH is coming from E/N:Iron Crowned posted:Nah, actually it was the previously mentioned creepy teacher. Dude was openly hitting on all the girls around him, I told him that he was being creepy and to knock it off. He grumbled about me being an rear end in a top hat before continuing to make sure all the girls knew he taught at an all girl high school for 20 years that he was fired from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:40
|
|
NO, get the gently caress out of here!
I'm going to call security on you.
If you touch someone again, you're out of here!
|
what the
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
As some people have mentioned, the biggest aspect of that lady (and presumably also her husband) that I find distasteful is that she seems to honestly believe that the Victorian era was a better time period than the present and seems to base her opinions on the era off of writings depicting wealthy upper class white people. It crosses the line between merely thinking some aspects of a past culture were neat/interesting and flat-out fetishizing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:As some people have mentioned, the biggest aspect of that lady (and presumably also her husband) that I find distasteful is that she seems to honestly believe that the Victorian era was a better time period than the present and seems to base her opinions on the era off of writings depicting wealthy upper class white people. It crosses the line between merely thinking some aspects of a past culture were neat/interesting and flat-out fetishizing it. That's the core issue with all of the idiotic fandoms based around poo poo from that time. Whether it's steampunk, dieselpunk, or just Victorian fetishism, everyone plays like they would have been the top .01% instead of the rest of the bitter, poor, and oppressed masses. That Era sucked poo poo for anyone not well off and white/European. Go ask India how awesome the Victorian Era was, huh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
The victorian-cosplaying people should try making GBS threads in the streets and dying from cholera, gotta have that period-accuracy Also they both look like sofas
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
The Snoo posted:Also they both look like sofas This is perfect, they look like sofas your grandma would have, I can't not see it now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
A nitpick- shoudln't he like, not be wearing a wedding ring? I thought dudes wearing wedding rings was like a post WW2 thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
sweeperbravo posted:A nitpick- shoudln't he like, not be wearing a wedding ring? I thought dudes wearing wedding rings was like a post WW2 thing a man chooses, a slave obeys
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Reminders of those Victorian people gave me the rage I needed to finish this day, so I posted something on Facebook to this effect and ruined three more people's day reading about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
sweeperbravo posted:A nitpick- shoudln't he like, not be wearing a wedding ring? At first I forgot the context and thought of a different picture entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
If the couple's that obsessed with how much better everything was back in ye olde Victorian times, you'd think they'd get off the internet and, I don't know, make all their complaints by telegraph or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
"I'll be making a complaint to your corporate offices - now tell me what village they're in so I can dispatch a messenger boy at once!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
My absolute favourite quote from the whole debacle. quote:Sadly, we encounter dreadful ignorance and intolerance all the time … But, in spite of it all, we refuse to let other people dictate how we should live our lives. We hold firm to our principles and our ideals. ~~help help we're being oppressed~~
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Your stdh.txt is meant to make you look cool, not like more of a creepy loser.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Cut the rear of the tube off. Use a small scrapper or spatula to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Clean about 1/4 inch into the rear of the tube with a bit of alcohol so that it is bare and allow to dry. Use a straightening iron to re-seal the tube. Depending on the material of the tube, a food safe adhesive could also be used. Shouldn't take more than 10 minutes and all that is left is the residue on the plate. Analogy destroyed!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
mostlygray posted:Cut the rear of the tube off. Use a small scrapper or spatula to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Clean about 1/4 inch into the rear of the tube with a bit of alcohol so that it is bare and allow to dry. Use a straightening iron to re-seal the tube. Depending on the material of the tube, a food safe adhesive could also be used.  The analogy isn't actually about literal toothpaste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Bertrand Hustle posted:
The analogy is now "With appropriate tools and manipulation, you can make people forget about how you hurt them before."
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:At first I forgot the context and thought of a different picture entirely. well they are assholes
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Khazar-khum posted:After seeing these people's pictures, I wouldn't want them stinking up my garden, either. He has no coat; her dress is ill-made and doesn't quite fit. That's a fascinator, not a hat. They are more 'peri-oid' than 'period'. hogmartin posted:There are aspects of reliving historical experience that can be enlightening and instructive, like military reenactors or the people who work at historical museums and dress up and show how people did stuff. There's youtube channel where a guy cooks 1700s recipes that is way more engrossing than it has any right to be:
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:There are aspects of reliving historical experience that can be enlightening and instructive, like military reenactors or the people who work at historical museums and dress up and show how people did stuff. There's youtube channel where a guy cooks 1700s recipes that is way more engrossing than it has any right to be: That channel is the poo poo. I have some recipe cards from the US Navy from the 1950s and 1960s that I want to try out to see how they tasted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Hardcordion posted:No joke, just this weekend I ended up waiting for a bus with a guy in a goggled top hat, suit jacket and skull-topped cane from the halloween store. I was on my way to a comic art show myself so I asked if he was heading there as well. He said no, he just likes wearing that outfit while going about his day. Then we stood there awkwardly until the bus arrived. He was silently begging you to ask follow-up questions, and you didn't, and that owns. Wait, I mean: I found your continued reticence in the light of what was--even to the layman--extraordinarily anomalous behaviour quite pleasing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Yeah, no way there was an actual dragon in her shower. How the hell would it fit??
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
why do the couples in these fake letters never actually use each others' names? it's always "husband" or "sweetie" or "babe"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Cut out the last 3 lines and this probably happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
i hope the next bug in the shower goes on the girl. like she looks down and it's right on her feet. a long house centipede of a bug.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Someone Awful! posted:why do the couples in these fake letters never actually use each others' names? it's always "husband" or "sweetie" or "babe" I know when I write a note for my wife of 12 years, I always start it with, "Sweetest Beloved Wife" and not "Yo, Jessica" because she is imaginary
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Someone Awful! posted:why do the couples in these fake letters never actually use each others' names? it's always "husband" or "sweetie" or "babe" Because the letter was written by the poster to put on the internet and they want to remain anonymous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
trickybiscuits posted:She also isn't wearing enough petticoats (Yes I know, she's doing ca. 1890, it still applies). Her skirt looks like limp sad old curtains. There is so much good information available that ignoring it in favor of killing the sofa for the cloth is inexcusable. I once wore my Spanish Renaissance gown to a grad-level class on Renaissance lit as part of a presentation. What fascinated people the most wasn't the corset, the handwork, or even the ruff. No, what got these graduate students excited was the idea that you could walk into a store, get fabric, and then make something out of it. Not a single one of them had ever sewn anything in their lives, nor had the slightest idea that it was possible for someone to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
sweeperbravo posted:A nitpick- shoudln't he like, not be wearing a wedding ring? I thought dudes wearing wedding rings was like a post WW2 thing Wedding rings go way back. She always wore one, he might or might not, depending on time, place and culture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:34
|
|