Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Is the Black Jarl In Vikings Valhalla Historical? The Truth" video.

  1. As to the idea about Vikings being more tolerant of LGBT-minorities. There is a historical insult in old Norse language that was considered so vile that in some places you were not only legally allowed to kill a person who called you this name, but you were OBLIGED to kill the person who called you this, or else the rest of society would assume that the insult is true and you would lose your social standing completely. This insult is "Rasragr". It's refers to a man who will adopt a sexually submissive position during intercourse with another man (I'll let you who read this figure out what that means in detail). A culture that promotes the killing of people who insult you by refering to you as homosexual will hardly be a very "tolerant" culture towards homosexuality in general.
    3700
  2.  @Nickname-hier-einfuegen  Yeah, basically "prison rape rules" applied. Active party does not engage in it for the sake of "love" or a healthy relationship but to humiliate and dominate another person. And we can all guess how positive or tolerant prisoners are towards gay people in general...
    181
  3. @Stirgid Lanathiel Just because various creation myths had gods perform feats of magic, it doesn't suggest or prove that people viewed some convoluted LGBT analogue of it to be neutral or positive. That's just wishful thinking from LGBT-activists like yourself. Christianity did not invent bigotry towards LGBT-people. There are far more non-christian cultures to choose fom to find it. Oh and bringin up indo-europeans only put your position onto even thinner ice than before. Because if you're going to argue that we simply do not know enough about the Norse to be able to make accurate statements about their opinions on anything, we know EVEN LESS about ancient indo-european tribes than we do about the Norse.
    35
  4. @Stirgid Lanathiel What "progress" are you talking about? Pro-LGBT values? No ancient culture or medieval culture on the face of the earth has ever shared the kind of values that you'd consider "progressive". As you said: "hate to break it to ya". What we have today in terms of tolerance and "progress" is an extreme outlier and furthermore it has only existed for about a blink of an eye, historically speaking. We who are alive today are not any kind of "norm". We are the exception.
    30
  5.  @herbertgearing1702  Oh yes, and as far as "inclusiveness" goes... We're talking about a point in time where people basically murdered eachother for pretty basic resources. Warfare in modern times can't really compare. We wage wars for more ambiguous and abstract concepts like geopolitics, idealism and all that crap. But during the Viking age it was more of "Either I go to this village, kill a bunch if people and take their stuff so me and my family can have enough food for the winter, or me and my family starve until the next spring harvest". When you're at that point making choices like that, modern values like "inclusivity" are so far down the bottom of your list so it's basically poking a hole on the other side of the earth. But idiotic modern television producers will try and have me believe that the Norse in that period actually gave a crap about ideology like that 🤣
    27
  6.  @oskariratinen1213  If people were completely fine with "gay couples" at the time... Why are there no records of any kind of same sex marriages? If homosexuality was treated as "perfectly normal" why would they have a problem with people of the same sex getting married?
    27
  7.  @oskariratinen1213  No, they were very much bigoted by our standards. Like most of the world was back then. You're just projecting your modern ideals onto history, that's all.
    22
  8. @revilo178 Common mortals had rivalries, family businesses and ambitions too. The patriarch of a peasant household would most definitely have a say and interfere with any marriage plans of his sons and daughters. Especially since even peasants abided by the custom of paying dowry. So don't make the mistake of thinking that only nobles married for political/business reasons while commoners were somehow allowed to "marry out of love", because that was most definitely not the case.
    19
  9. @Stirgid Lanathiel The fact of the matter is: the further back in time you go, the more bigoted and xenophobic people were in general. It rarely took long before anyone or anything being strange or deviant from the norm to be viewed with suspicion. Being "open minded" is more of a modernist trope which was a very alien concept to medieval people and pre-medieval people.
    18
  10.  Inspector Opus  No, there aren't any historical writings or depictions about Valkyries being lesbians either. I am having quite fun at seeing you cope over the fact that I called you out on having zero proof. And now, like a typical lefty, you resort to accuse me of homophobia because I embarassed you. 🤣 When you don't have an actual argument, just accuse your opponent's character saying he or she has an "-ism", isn't that right? 😁
    17
  11.  Inspector Opus  "Was known", "it's well known". I keep seeing cope from you, but no proof and no sources. 😁
    16
  12. @revilo178 That's incorrect. Marriage was primarily a political matter of joining forces and putting a stop to rivalry. The reasoning being that if two rival families have members that marry and have kids together, they won't go to war against eachother because they're all "family" by then. But children can also be sired throuch concubines in many cultures at the time, further negating the need for marriage to be an integral part to procreation.
    15
  13.  Inspector Opus  Norse is the correct term. "Viking" is a profession and not a culture or ethnic group.
    14
  14.  @Klee99zeno  Yeah, and even then, all he had to show for it was some written testimony of a Roman... Romans habitually made stuff up about non-Roman cultures in their writings (Roman propaganda basically). Now I might've been swayed if there were some findings in the form of runestones that described the practice, or the Sagas mentioning it somewhere. But there is no mention of it whatsoever. All we have is some professors (usually political activist professors) who cherrypick certain segments from the sagas and go "Well this could be INTERPRETED as homosexuality" or whatever, and the Hollywood film makers and their lefty friends latch on to these unfounded speculations and suddenly go "SCIENCE said that VIKINGS were bisexual and homosexual!" Pretty absurd, but then again political zealots are absurd.
    12
  15. @revilo178 Right, to procreate with members of families that were financially beneficial to one or both of those families. If all it was was about having another kid, why marry at all? Marriage was never "just about procreation" because people can easily procreate just fine without any marriage rituals involved. Marriage was about making ties between different families for reasons other than mere procreation.
    9
  16.  Inspector Opus  Source?
    7
  17.  @lbentosoares4  We don't know how "accepted" it was. There are no historical accounts from it from Scandinavia. But it doesn't really matter, seeing as how "bottoms" would risk getting killed for being bottoms. That's not indicative of a culture that approves of homosexuality.
    7
  18. Remember that time, when "racist" just meant that you treat a person like crap based solely on the colour of their skin, and it didn't matter what race the perpetrator or the victim of racism was? I miss those days. Wish we could go back to them...
    6
  19.  @Blue-jd8jf  There's not evidence of it ever occuring at least. So whenever anyone claims that homosexuality was normal among vikings it's speculation and nothing more.
    6
  20.  @Pytterr  Nice strawman. Unfortunately I don't engage with strawman arguments. 😁
    5
  21.  @legendary7957yahoo  I think I did manage to provoke a lot of weak and insane levels of mental gymnastics and cope from them here. Some of their posts are so pathetic they're not even worthy of responding to.
    5
  22.  @lbentosoares4  It doesn't really matter whether it has existed or not in this context though. The debate is about the attitudes towards it. And anyone who suggests that pagan norse society was "tolerant" towards homosexuality, is dealing in fiction, not history.
    5
  23.  @Ninjaananas  They did not care whatsoever about the ideologies that are talked about today. They had no concept of socialism, capitalism, "human rights" or "inclusivity". So no, I am not "mistaken" in the slightest.
    4
  24.  @mortenovergaard7397  In this day and age, it's hard to tell if you're sarcastic or not.
    4
  25.  @WoodenWizard  That's ONE SINGLE BLACK person who made that journey TO JAPAN, and not Scandinavia. And there are ZERO historical record of black people going to or living in Scandinavia during this time period. There are historical records of Yasuke. That's the difference. If you put black people in Scandinavia during the viking age, then you're no longer making a historical show but a fantasy show.
    3
  26.  @WoodenWizard  Then stop calling it "Vikings". It's offensive and insulting to my cultural heritage sticking a bunch of Africans into the setting.
    3
  27.  @WoodenWizard  This is not "art". This is political propaganda.
    3
  28. Yes, Norse settled outside of Scandinavia. And THOSE settlements are the ones you find any hints of multiracialism and multiculturalism in. The Norse didn't bring back a bunch of black people to Scandinavia and had kids with them. Whatever people they brought were slaves, and you don't marry and start families with slaves.
    3
  29. Yup, Scandinavia was certainly a multicultural place during the viking age. For starters, The Sami lived there. They are a different culture and ethnic group from the Norse. They would also have traders from the baltic states and from up the Volga. So slavic people. Again a different ethnic group and different culture. You would also have christians, both native scandinavian converts, and missionaries from Britain and France. Again, different ethnic groups and cultures. But of course, in the eyes of some woke Netflix showrunner, they don't see any diversity in these groups. All they see is "white people", as a monocultural end ethnically homogenous blob.
    3
  30.  @Ninjaananas  You tried to get me with a "gotcha"-moment by using a strawman. I never said ideology never played into it. I said that MODERN ideology NEVER played into it, which is a factually correct statement. And that's the last thing I will say to you, because you exposed yourself as a dishonest debater by trying to strawman me. I have no patience for it.
    3
  31. I guess there's also a statistical probability that Shaka Zulu was actually a white Englishman who wore make up and infiltrated the Zulu and made himself into a king...
    2
  32. Jeb Stuart clearly didn't study history. He did some inventive reading and interpretations of history to satiate his confirmation bias.
    2
  33. I don't think money is on their mind to be honest. The Netflix stock has completely tanked over the last few months and is struggling to find investors. The more they push woke social justice content, the less their stock is valued. They're losing money on this, but don't seem to care.
    2
  34. @Stirgid Lanathiel Look up the word itself and it's history and you will find your sources. My point still stands: it is dumb to assume that Norse society was in any way, shape or form "LGBT-positive". This idea is a fiction created by left wing culture warriors in the film production industry and has nothing to do with reality.
    2
  35.  @andersandersen6295  Submissive = the bottom bitch of the intercourse. Happy now?
    2
  36. @Stirgid Lanathiel And this conclusion you get from the same sources who claim that women were "female viking warriors" based on misinterpretations of grave findings as well? 😉 In the meantime, all serious historical fact confirms that positive attitudes towards homosexuality has not "waxed and waned". But I forgive you for making this mistake since we all know that western academia is currently under siege by regressive left wingers and activist professors who have long since abandoned any pretenses of scientific study.
    2
  37.  @Dussmasterzero  "Woah! Now we might go to other people's homes to pillage, rape, burn, maim and kill for our personal benefit at the expense of their lives... But being non-inclusive towards gay people, now that's just going too far!" -Vikings according to leftists and some people who responded to my comment
    2
  38.  Inspector Opus  Sorry but "it's well known" does not cut it as evidence. Unless you can point to a saga or runestone or some foreign testimony of the sexual habits of the Norse, then you've got no proof whatsoever. You need to stop basing your historical understanding on the depictions of moronic, leftwing hollywood writers and learn to find actual proof.
    2
  39.  Inspector Opus  Well I have pagan ancestors. Real pagan ancestors that is. And not the silly, fairytale version that "neo-pagans" engage in today.
    2
  40.  @Laurelin70  These gender activists will interpret any line of text as being some sort of proof that homosexuality was common 😁
    2
  41. @revilo178 Wrong. The very purpose of concubines is to create an heir to the throne without necessarily tying the monarch down to a marriage. So no, children to concubines were not officially regarded as "bastard children".
    2
  42.  @wisedragon173  That's because "modern day" people are dumbasses who confuse the word "Viking" with "Norse". The Scandinavian people were NORSE. Some Norse were Vikings, but not all Norse were. In fact the majority of the Norse weren't since they had farms and estates to tend to and couldn't run off to raid and pillage in other places.
    2
  43.  @robrobroblol  False
    1
  44.  @paulodelima5705  I think you need to read my posts again. I'm arguing against the idea that marriage was an emotional affair during these times, but a more pragmatic one, used to tie family lines together for mostly economical reasons.
    1
  45.  @ManiacMayhem7256  Err no, I destroyed every snivelling little opponent who came at me here, Mr. "Ukranian Flag in Bio" simp
    1
  46.  @Gozzu9195  It means both. Linguistically and culturally they made no distinction.
    1
  47.  @susanli7149  Absolutely factual comment. It wasn't used for lesbian women adopting submissive roles after all. It only applied to men being sodomized by other men.
    1
  48.  @missrebel634  Yes?
    1
  49.  @SusCalvin  Yeah, but if someone publicly said this word about you, you'd be seen as a massive bitch if you waited and complained at the thing rather than slaying the blabber mouth on the spot.
    1
  50.  @jasminejacob1870  There is no proof whatsoever that confirms it was somehow "totally okay" in Norse society to be a pitcher either.
    1
  51.  @jasminejacob1870  Yes. But I don't see much reason to assume that Norse society was "fine" with homosexuality in general. If that was the case there would be more records about homosexual couples and it being described as a normal, everyday occurence. Either from the Norse or from people who interacted with the Norse. But we do not. The only romantic relationships described are married couples and heterosexual exploits. No gays mentioned anywhere. So it would be an unfounded assumption to say that the Norse were completely fine with homosexuality.
    1
  52.  @jasminejacob1870  That's true. You didn't. Used to be that colleges had a mission to try and find snd publish truth and facts. But they've grown increasingly untrustworthy over the years, thanks to also being hotbeds for ideology, and that's a damn shame.
    1