1921
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
1921 points (99.5% liked)
People Twitter
6885 readers
2992 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My favorite "we had to regulate this" is coal mining. You see, the larger a coal mine tunnel, the more work and time it takes. So smaller tunnels will be more profitable. So in some places they preferred smaller women and children, so they could make make smaller, easier tunnels. This one I only ever found one source on, but supposedly one mine owner noticed that snags on clothing were slowing things down in the narrow tunnels so he insisted on sending them in nude. Nothing more capitalist than naked coal mining children.
I realy would like to fact check you on this, but i will definitely not search for "naked coal mining children". "Trust me bro" will have to do it for this one.
That miners often worked naked or partially naked is definitely true. That children, men and women worked together in mines is also true. If it's legally allowed, then it's going to happen basically.
That there were owners who preferred children/women over men, is probably false. They will have tended to do different jobs in the mines, but I can't recall having ever read anything about a mine that preferred to not employ any male miners.
That the workers worked naked because of owner mandates is also going to be false, because those miners used to be paid according to how much they extracted, so there was no reason for the owner to have such a mandate. Instead it was the workers their own choice: some clothes hinder them in their work (heat, snagging, dust) + the job eats up clothes + they have to pay for their own clothes = they're not going to be wearing many clothes at work.
The fact that these fucks were not regularly dragged from their mansions and beaten to death blows my mind
You're not dragging Trump out and beating him to death. So why expect of your ancestors what you can't do today?
I'm not shaming nor advocating btw, just explaining.
I mean a single rich guy owning a mine in a time pre-internet seems a lot more doable than the literal most protected guy in the country.
Plus my children aren't literally dying in the mines
That's because you view things like this as isolated acts done by a few people. But don't forget, only 1/3 of US voters tried to stop a man who openly declared himself a fascist, had already had a direct hand in the spread of a world wide plague that killed millions.
The "they didn't know what they were getting into" excuse is no longer valid. And yet 2/3 of voters were fine with him being reelected . The reason those people weren't dragged from their mansions and beaten to death was because of all the other monsters who were protecting them. The people who weren't committing atrocities themselves, but benefited from it enough to help it keep happening.
as humans, our arguably greatest trait is the ability to adapt to almost any circumstance. unfortunately that also often makes us accept unacceptable living conditions because changing them involves too high of a personal cost.