My history professor keeps calling this idea ridiculous, but

>>136042633
Since you are the one making a claim, maybe you should back it up with facts. And then let him give his reason why he think its wrong.

>>136042633
It's ridiculous as far as history is concerned because it's an over simplification. "Good times" for whom? "Hard times" for whom? The majority? Those in power? By whose standard are we measuring "hard" and "good"? Is weak physical strength? Emotional strength? Ruthlessness? All of it is subjective.

I think the basic message is fine but it has no historical value.

>>136042831

I disagree. If OP is making the claim, then yes, he is responsible for supporting it. However, the professor is also making a claim (regarding it's ridiculousness, so he's on the hook for supporting that claim.

You can't simply make a counter-claim and then scream, "You were first!!!!!!11111"

>>136043014
>"Good times" for whom?
uh the average person?

I mean, wouldn't you agree that someone from 2000 years ago is more 'tough' then the average person today, even if we don't have a good way of quantifying toughness?

>>136043014

Your post seems like a bit of an oversimplification itself. You're being intentionally obtuse concerning the plain meaning of the statement.

>>136042633
We're between 3 and 4 rn aren't we.

>>136042633
Obviously, if the idea had merit then it would suggest that leftism and everything like it is a decadent pasttime that ruins nations.

>>136043253
No, we're just at 3.

File: tips.png (48KB, 924x560px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 924x560px

>>136043087
You can if you're on reddit

This is r/k selection theory. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

https://youtu.be/ASUHN3gNxWo


Give your proff this link and tell him to watch it

>>136042633
it is the historical cycle of pretty much any empire ever.

Your professor is an idiot and is reflecting modern politics and ideals in to history

>>136043166
No, I wouldn't. It depends on where and when you're talking about and how you define "pussy." But if you are going for the average person, then the statement isn't true historically.

>>136043245
No, the plain meaning of the statement is exactly why it has no value historically, as I said.

>>136042633
Ignore her.

Invalid macro generalization.

>>136043908
>No, I wouldn't.
nigger what? Do you have any idea of what those guys did? Every generation had to fight and kill in horrific wars and daily life in general was a nightmare. Open a history book pleb

>>136044268
Who are those guys exactly? What culture are you talking about? There are plenty of wars going on RIGHT NOW. Also, 2000 years ago there were still pussy faggots, not all that much has changed. You should probably crack a book.

t. actual published historian.

>>136042633
This is what happened to ancient China too.

The Song Dynasty main budget was art and technology instead of the army and then they get wrecked by the Mongols.

>>136042831
well, Hard times (like war or before the war, the tension) creates a culture that approves being a leader, being masculine (strong men) and when the war dose happen, and it's over, the golden age happens, rather science (the nuke, completely changed the way we lived after ww2) or socially (the factories selling, tons of money) So now it's good times. But now the media and regular culture starts hating the "strong men traits" like being alpha or strong, or being a leader. This is where we are now, where the media is fucking with us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTyQgwVvYyc
now the culture is promoting being more women like, acting for yourself. This creat's hard times where the media now hate people (like white people here) and promotes disruptive behavior (being selfish) which then most likely leads to war (North korea as of right now) Then it repeats

>>136044268
War wasn't a constant thing in the past, it is not like plebs had to go through a cycle of rape and pillage every 10 years. Life was mostly peaceful for most, even in wars big battles were rarely fought

>>136042633
Becaise he's been propagandized. They don't actually teach them how to think.

Aside from all that, I think it's a built in survival mechanism, the fall of civilization.

>>136043014
If you can't figure it out then nobody cares about your retard "nuanced" opinion.

>>136045516
It's not a matter of figuring it out. As far as history goes, either make an argument or STFU. The statement isn't a complete argument, which is why it has no value. You can't say, "He died in 1812" and expect everyone to figure out who you talking about. It's on you to make your point.

>>136045784
Pssst, it's stability in civilized countries.

>>136042831
hes not the teacher

>>136045784
Oh yeah forgot to call you a stupid cocksucker. Fucking retard.

File: The Fate of Empires.jpg (278KB, 1000x976px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1000x976px

>>136042633

>>136043166
No, I absolutely would not agree to that. The average modern human is better fed and more physically fit and used to working longer hours than the average human from thousands of years ago.

>>136045887
Psst, the lack of specific details is why it's not a good historical argument.

>>136043014
>"Good times" for whom? "Hard times" for whom?
yea.. I love the idea, because its rather simplistic. As I thought about it, I became increasingly skeptical about it. To name just one reason, if we define the "men and the times" as being specific to a nation. Then there is a certain overlap, One nation can have "good times" because another have "hard times". This will make it possible for "Strong men" to make hard times or vise versa for "weak men".

Nations and people compete with each other, constantly. If one nation becomes less competitive, another nation will have a competitive advances.

Are Greece, Russia, Syria or Russia, in hard or good times? if they are in Hard times is it then self-propagated, as a natural cycle. Or is it dependent on something beyond this cycle.

>>136046065
Underage are not allowed to post here.

>>136044268
You are utterly ignorant of the daily lives of average people throughout history. nice flag btw, you pathetic sniveling faggot shitposting on pol. deus vult indeed.

>>136042633
almost all of those terms are incredibly ill-defined.
inuit have adapted to a harsh climate.
are they "strong"? when did they ever create "good times"? did the aztec empire fall due to "weak men"?
and the last one is a truism. yes, if the entire male population of a nation is a bunch of sissies you can't expect much work from them.

>>136046284
It means stability. Replace good times with stability. You guys are retarded.

>>136045040
for some it was, just look at the germanic tribes for example.

>>136044532
How about the people of the steppe?

>>136043014

I like when humanities try to pretend they are all very precise, to overcompensate for the fact they are not real science.

We're currently in that cycle

>Hard times create strong men
WW2 generation endured the Depression and a massive war
>strong men create good times
The US winning WW2 brought us out of the depression and into economic prosperity
>Good times create weak men
The boomers were the weak men created by the good times. They've pacified gen x and Millenials since there were little to no hardships
>Weak men create hard times
We're in a shitty state as it is. The country is on the brink of an economic collapse while the middle class is shirnking. Eventually they'll be a massive war or economic depression to bring us back to step 1

It's like poetry it rhymes

>>136044698
The Mongols wrecked everyone, including the mussies who presumably got really good at fighting from conflicts with Christians. I'd say good for them for enjoying life before an unavoidable doom.

>>136044903
>So now it's good times.
Americans have been living in perpetual fear of a nuclear Armageddon since the 50s, and as soon as the cold war was over we got the gulf wars and 9/11 and are balls deep in multiple unwinnable conflicts and an economy that's been failing more and more every day for the last 30 years.

Where are these good times? iphones and endemic obesity mean good times?

>>136046005
>The Fate of Empires
Empires of the past, had much more in common, than nations of today. The US have less in common with the Persian Empire for example, than the Persian Empire had with the Mayan, Roman and Ming Empire.
It may have some relevance in explaining elements of history; but you cannot extrapolate it to present day and use this model to predict future events.

File: IMG_0205.jpg (66KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x480px

>>136043288
Ding ding ding!

>>136046162
It also ignores natural disasters. "Hard times" can easily be caused by a food shortage as a result of fire or drought. It's good as a tautology, but bad as a general rule. I think it would be easier to make the argument if you were specifically talking about political leaders rather than the general population.

>>136042633
It's a jewish forced meme to promote dispair/hopelessness

>>136046745
>How about the people of the steppe?
What about them?

>>136046754
No one thinks history is a science, but it is very precise when you get into higher levels. That doesn't make it a science.

>>136046457
you do realise each word in that picture is completely open to interpretation?

just because something happened one way in the past (and historically only one time, by the meme's argument) doesn't mean it would happen the same way in the future.

Especially not in the technology age, where power is wielded just as easily by weak men as strong men.

>>136046863
Not the Vietnamese. They prevented them from conquering the rest of Asia.

>>136047076
"Empire" and "Nation" are absolutely interchangeable when you apply Glubb's theory to the modern day.

>>136047659
That's more of an intervention from nature. Horse archers don't do as well in the jungle. I also won't give the Japanese credit for kamikaze destroying Mongolian ships.

>>136042633
He doesn't want to admit that he's a weak man

>>136042633
(((history professor)))
It's all lies. It's been infiltrated for centuries. When's the last time you read a history book that named the jew?