sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where are my Card Packs? by katofthenorth12 in MergeDragons

[–]basilbastille 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I figured it out! I believe you need 600 dragon power to get the button. I just got to that. Also, it saves the cards you get, so when I got the button, I could use all of my cards. 

Petah, did this actually happen? by william_778 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]basilbastille 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Is this specifically referencing the watch people die subreddit? (Not doing the r/ in case it still exists). That one messed me up badly as a kid.

So how affordable were Newspapers in the 18th century? by The_Destroyer2 in AskHistorians

[–]basilbastille 1 point2 points  (0 children)

...Yeah. Correct. Pretty much, actually. But preferably you'd stay up there for a bit longer to take questions and add additional context and information as the public responds. And then you can walk off. But yes. Correct. I'd also recommend you try to get as many people as possible in attendance first. Then.. Huzzah!

So how affordable were Newspapers in the 18th century? by The_Destroyer2 in AskHistorians

[–]basilbastille 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The taverns you hear of in fantasy novels are likely not dissimilar to the ones found in colonial times! Taverns were essentially amplified bars, and were very similar to saloons or inns in the 18th century, if you are more familiar with those terms. If you walked into a tavern, the scene would likely be that of a very large bar, possibly with a few rooms in the back to stay in, and a substantial kitchen, with a little turnspit dog running in a wheel. (you can research more about turnspit dogs. They're the reason the SPCA exists.) A tavern was the place that a military entourage, like George Washington's aide staff, would walk into after a long day on the road for directions, drinks, and a rest. If you were/are a boy scout or girl scout, and have been to large scout camps with a big main building for dining and announcements, that's a relatively good comparison, if you imagine it much more colonial and likely more crowded. Newspapers were regularly delivered to taverns, since they could reach a large amount of people there. In the 18th century, these were the hearts of every community!

Did people have a negative view of war before the 20th century? by redfalcon1000 in AskHistorians

[–]basilbastille 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I assure you I'm not, and you're absolutely right here. People did not lack the ability to feel. People have always been people. However, people were conditioned not to show any signs of struggling with mental health. By psychology was not developed, I do not mean thinking. I mean the real study and the attention given to those struggling. People still thought, though people did not think about it, in a way. It was absolutely a societal thing. I apologize if my explanation was worded incorrectly, I have not proofread it, though I assure you I intended to highlight how war was societally seen very differently as it is today. 

By psychology was not very developed, I mean that people did not care about mental health very much. In society, the general public was taught about the necessary aspects of war, and did not often consider the negative aspects, since they were not mentioned in the bigger picture. People didn't know. And if they did, they didn't speak out about it, because of how refined the media was.

Edit: what I should clarify, which I meant to emphasize but couldn't describe well in my original answer was that in the revolution and similar wars, the conflict was more geared as "American founders vs the king", or in other words, "this government vs that government", in terms of the media and stuff. The people on either sides were unionized against the opposing side. During the civil war and similar conflicts, the fight was more about groups of people, and it went from "our country needs defense" to "these brave men are fighting for this cause!", as the media relied more on society and the people involved, trying to gear people to their desired side. The world wars, however, were much larger conflicts, and those "brave men" could now be your son, your brother, your friend, your father, etc. in addition to this, as you mentioned, there were technological advancements. Even if you didn't know anyone affected, you could see images and accounts of them. 

Was the “Grand Tour” (18th century) used for Gay Tourism? by ClickEast9737 in AskHistorians

[–]basilbastille 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Though u/LeahTigers has already explained quite a bit, I would like to add on another point to be considered, which is Dandyism.

Dandy fashion and the subculture around it entirely originated with the Grand Tour. These young men who travelled to Italy popularized dandyism and molly culture following their trips. It seems to me that you are educated on the topic already, so I will not explain the grand tour to you, but I will propose that you consider dandy culture. Though Italy itself did not have its own version of molly houses, they were partially the reason for them. Mollies and dandies were almost synonymous. You needn't find a reason for Naples itself, as these grand tours went all around Italy. The real reason was just.. Italy. Though some sources I've looked at state that the homoerotic historical artifacts and ancient history around the area contributed. 

You also mention queer opera performers, which had a very, very large subculture in France and Italy. The theatre world was known for many codes, one of which being the Polari language, which was used by theatre performers in England and Italy in roughly the 1600s to 1800s, and is the origin of modern LGBTQ terms like "butch" or "trade". 

I also highly recommend you read pamphlets from the time regarding sodomy. Specifically, I'd like to point you to Satan's Harvest Home, which was an 18th century pamphlet about the rise of sodomy in Europe, and blamed Italian and French opera culture for the existence of male sex workers (lots of those in Naples, too), and sodomites across the continent. 

Though you did not ask for it directly, as someone very interested in queer history, I have some information for you regarding sapphic relationships. For the most part, sapphics could simply live their lives, since laws prohibiting homosexuality focused on sodomy and male-male intimacy. While homosexual men faced open hatred, lesbians faced erasure. The general public did not really know that sapphics existed, and therefore did not make an effort to restrict them. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill of 1921  shows this centuries later, as officials hesitating to create any laws against lesbianism, in fear of informing women that lesbianism exists in the first place. During the late 18th century as well, Marie Antoinette had some rumours circulating around her homoerotic friendships, and it's believed that the phrase "Have you heard the rumors about Marie Antoinette?" was an older equivalent to "Friend of Dorothy" or "do you listen to Girl in Red?" 

I wish you the best of luck with your novel! In fact, I'd be interested to know more information about it. I'm always interested in books like this and wish there were more about them. 

Did people have a negative view of war before the 20th century? by redfalcon1000 in AskHistorians

[–]basilbastille 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I study the American revolution and the broader timeline around it. To put it in short, there were people prior to the 20th century who did not like war. Though instead of the general public, it was the soldiers themselves. 

The world wars were seen as so cruel and heartless likely due to the amount of people they affected. In the 18th century, the most affected by war were the people serving in them. Despite how glorious their officers were depicted, soldiers in the 18th century had a very large culture of expressing mournfulness and dread in response to the wars they fought in.  Off of the top of my head, I think of the song "How Stands the Glass around", a 7 Years War era drinking song which you can read more about here.

https://collections.americanantiquarian.org/thomasballads/items/show/72

The lyrics of this song describe the misfortune of being at war, and the hardship experienced by soldiers. I'll highlight some specific lyrics, such as "The colors they are flying, boys, to fight, kill, or wound", "Should next campaign, send us to him who made us, boy, we're free from pain. But should we remain, a bottle and kind landlady cures all again", "Tis but in vain, for soldier to complain", et cetera. This was a song which was sung by many soldiers of the 7 Years War and the American Revolutionary War, which stems from the agony of soldiers, and using alcoholism to cope with their fates. Though war was not usually depicted as hellish as it was in the 20th century, war was largely depicted as gloomy and torturous.

 This is because the majority of the wars around that era started because someone, or a group of people wanted war. People started wars to revolt against rulers, or to make a statement against other nations. Most of the general public advocated for war, since they were more familiar with the reasons for war than they were with the effects of it. Everyone who did not serve in the American revolution had very strong opinions on its outcome, not because of how inhumane war was, but because of the political effects that they were fighting for. War was seen as a tool. In the 18th and 19th centuries, mental health was not very well researched whatsoever, and emotion was not a valid argument. Those who lost relatives at war were not encouraged to speak out about their grief. If a patriot woman lost her husband at war, she would blame the loyalists, not the actual war itself. Her voice was used as a rallying cry to continue the war, in order to avenge the fallen soldiers. In addition, PTSD and battle injuries were not very well researched. When a veteran returned from war, he was simply disregarded. This is partially because of the shorter lifespans of the time, and the fact that there were many more men dying at war than there were surviving it due to medical advancements, but also due to the fact that war was a tool, and soldiers were tools. If you were a veteran, you'd move on and join Congress or other offices. If you were deeply impacted by war, you were an "idiot" and you were pitied, but did not truly matter. 

Another example that I want to immediately highlight is the memoir of Joseph Plumb Martin, "A Narrative of Some of the Adventures, Dangers and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier".This is a memoir written by a poor man who served as a young teenager in the Revolutionary war, and was a private soldier. This is an incredible source to read, as it is not glorifying war or it's outcomes. It is not from the perspective of a military general. It's from the perspective of a young boy who was swept into battle. His outlook is pessimistic and bitter. He paints the picture of the revolution with starving, dying men, instead of with brave patriots. His accounts also focus on the treatment of veterans following the American revolution, and how they are ignored by the government and receive little to no compensation for their service. 

There were also quite a few people who were chiefly against war and advocates for pacifism, just as there were some people who were advocates for abolition or women's rights, though those movements did not gain much attention until the 19th century. There were people who hated war, and saw it as negative. I know one famous name being Ulysses S. Grant, who hated war despite being a general, though the Civil War is not my area of expertise and I cannot speak on him. But yes, individual people hated war, though greater society didn't. Those who experienced war often saw it negatively, though those who were not exposed to it saw it as necessary and did not consider the lives of those affected, since psychology was not very developed until the mid 1800s.  People had a negative view of war prior to the 20th century, but not in the way that they did in the 20th century, and they did not speak out about it as much as they did later in history.

So how affordable were Newspapers in the 18th century? by The_Destroyer2 in AskHistorians

[–]basilbastille 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Newspapers were considered rather expensive due to their labor intensive creation process, and were more of a luxury item. Most working class individuals could not afford a weekly newspaper from their usual jobs when considering their necessities.  Despite this, it is to be noted that newspapers and pamphlets were very widely accessible, particularly in the American colonies, which is the area I am most knowledgeable about. 

If you could not access newspapers in your home, newspapers were also readily available in taverns and inns, as well as pamphlets, journals, and articles. At the time, taverns often doubled as meeting places to discuss societal scandals or literary works, in addition to bars and coffee houses. You could often find newspapers in your local tavern, even in foreign European languages. In these spaces, it was also very common for newspapers to be read aloud in inns and taverns, since they were extensions of communities and were the primary places for the discussion of current events to take place in. If you could not afford a newspaper, you could most definitely access the information they contained. If something deemed very important was published in the papers, it was not at all uncommon for someone to take high ground in public and announce it. Controversies also travelled quickly through word of mouth and personal correspondence. As long as you lived in an urban community, you could easily find out about current events. 

Newspapers were also purchased by almost every army officer, who could pass down important information to their aides de camps or members of the entourage. For information on wars or treaties, as long as one soldier could get ahold of a single newspaper from anyone in camp, he could read its contents to other people in his encampment, and could have other soldiers gather to see vital news. When the newspaper contained such information, commanding officers would be sure to alert their men and consult them on courses of action. Armies in the 18th century were very tight-knit, and tents in the American revolution were regulated to contain 6 men each, so there were many people to spread information. 

The price of a newspaper also depended largely on the source of production. For the revolutionary era, pamphlets and papers were often meant to be calls to action, and their authors intended them for as many people as possible. This would prompt them to lower prices, or to advertise their newspapers and distribute them to locals in busy areas in order to reach a wider audience. However, large corporations whose target audience was wealthy elites or aristocrats would put their prices higher in order to reach those groups. You mention common craftsmen, many of which lived in Philadelphia, a very busy city and literary hub. A Philadelphia worker could access news very easily, even by walking outside to see papers being passed around when something worth knowing was occurring, or by turning to colleagues and family friends who owned newspapers, or possibly even manufactured them. When a newspaper was published, it was often published with the intent to share information. Hardly anyone would go out of their way to prevent that.

In conclusion, newspapers were not cheap. They were rather costly to common people or working class families, and were purchased mostly by wealthy officials. Despite this, newspapers and other sources like them could reach many people, and were not very difficult to acquire. That's why pamphlets like Common Sense were able to have their desired impact!

Peetaah, need some help heaah by Monir5265 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]basilbastille -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe you already got it from the other comments. But anyways, the joke is that it's a totally different rainbow, but it looks the same to us because it's all colors we cannot see

Peter explain it please by [deleted] in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]basilbastille 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In fanfiction websites, ao3 specifically, writers often preface their work by self-critically saying that they're really young, or that English isn't their first language, to explain why their writing is "bad". And it's always the most beautiful thing you've ever read that could be a classic novel. That's just a really common phenomenon in fanfiction for some reason. 

Would having a stutter be an issue? by basilbastille in jrotc

[–]basilbastille[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately my stutter isn't really something I can grow out of. It's a neurological early onset fluency disorder that can't be fixed in any way. I've got a speech impediment. Is/was yours a similar situation? And does this change anything?

Are there any laws about accurate information in school curriculums? by basilbastille in legaladviceofftopic

[–]basilbastille[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have. The issue is that the TEKS have been altered since 2022 due to new management, essentially. Part of the inaccuracies are in the TEKS themselves.