I identify with one-third of those things.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
854 points (99.4% liked)
People Twitter
9988 readers
1017 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. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
OOP getting roasted in this thread by the oat gang (correctly so)
How do you survive off oats? I'm losing weight with BBQ.
Gladiators seemed to be fine with oats
Object Oriented Programming?
Original OP
Original original poster?
That's a bingo
Not a bingo bingo?
Hey man overnight oats are delicious!
I'm interested but know nothing about overnight oats. Are they special oats, or just the usual oats and it's about the cooking/prep?
Throw some oatmeal in a bowl with milk (or water) and leave it overnight. Then throw in some fruit and other things to make it tasty. It is actually quite good and very quick.
Aight, I will not stand for overnight oats slander.
Shit is delicious. Get your toppings and sweetner right, try it again and then come back.
No peasant had strawberries, bananas or blueberries to fuck around with. They ain't had maple syrup or Greek yogurt in that shit. No one thought to make butter from peanuts (I know it's mostly butter, shhh) and add that in.
We had berries just growing everywhere along the streets and forests as a kid. Where the fuck did they go?
Fairly sure that seasonal berries would have been on the menu.
Honey as a sweetener seems viable
Greek yoghurt seems pretty likely anywhere cows were milked
The feudal lords also dit not have giga-yachts, enough wealth to buy social media companies and own about 50 politicians.
Yep. Rich get richer. It was also easier to hang them back then.
But overnight oats are still bomb.
Healthy AF too!
Gruel isn't bad, it's just like a savoury porridge. Of course you can make it really shit, but you can do that with regular porridge/overnight oats, too.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'd be pissed if I didn't like gruel and living in tiny spaces.
and? i love me some gruel. get some cinnamon, a little bit of coffee, some weed and some hatred, that's a good breakfast there
That sounds like a great way to start the day.
That's a silly thing to say.
Peasants have land.
"Peasant" was basically a farmer. Some peasants had land, many didn't. If you were a tenant farmer not only did you not own the land, in many cases the land owned you. In many cases you were born on the land and you "rented" it from the manor lord. That meant that you were allowed to grow crops on that land, but you owed the lord for letting you use his land. You'd pay that back with shares of your crop and/or labour on his crops. In return, he was responsible for defending you... but that meant he'd conscript you into his army and you'd fight the invaders.
If you didn't like that deal, too bad, if you were a villein you couldn't leave the land without the lord's permission. You weren't a slave exactly, but you weren't free to go find work elsewhere.
There were peasants who did own land, but it wasn't common. The equivalent today would be if you rented from a landlord, but you had to use a uber-jobs app that required you to do odd jobs for your landlord for free for 1-2 days a week.
Yeah, there was nothing good about it. My great great grandfather was a serf as a kid until it ended at the end of the 1840s. Almost all of the food they produced was taken by their lord. The little bit his family was allowed to keep wasn't enough to stop them from being sickly from hunger. They lived in a tiny cabin, and slept on what effectively were picnic table benches - two people per bench with their arms and legs hanging down to the floor from each side. There were just a couple differences between that and being slaves. Slaves were legally considered dead, serfs were not. Serfs were bound to the land, slaves were not. That meant a serf could only be bought and sold with the land, and serf families could not be split apart. It also meant they could not legally be murdered or raped. But they were expected to work for and give almost everything they produced to the lord, and they were not paid. They could not leave because they were bound to the land.
A lot of rich capitalist billionaires really would like to bring that back.
Yeah, a lot of people bitch about capitalism without realizing that capitalism was a significant step up from feudalism / manorialism for most people. When they bitch about capitalism, a lot of what they hate is evidence it's actually drifting back towards feudalism. Renting instead of owning, for example. Or monopolies in control of things instead of there being healthy competition.
I'm all for the Star Trek future, which shares a lot in common with communism. But, it's a future where there is no scarcity. In the present where scarcity is a real issue, communism always seems to quickly become an elite ruling over a population that can't vote them out. Unless someone can prove that there's a system better than capitalism that we can actually get to from here, I'd rather focus on trying to fix capitalism than overthrow it and inevitably end up with something worse.
Pretty sure they usually worked/lived on the land owned by lords, no?
That would be serf, right?
Serfs were a subset of peasants from what i understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Honestly oats are one of my favorite foods though, I have binge eaten massive quantities of them before. I think I may have been a horse in a former life.
Or a gladiator!
"Joey, do you like films about gladiators?"
but i got an iphone, and it only took 100 payments of 9.99
"Everything is so expensive these days."
Says the person rocking the newest iPhone Pro Max (they literally just use it for Facebook and Temu).
Finance is a beautifully elegant con.
Yeah, I'm not sure why people think they need those. I've got a Moto G Power and I think it's great for the price. It's even waterproof. Budget phones are actually good these days - you don't need an expensive phone anymore.
That pfp is incredible
I've lived in both a large house and a tiny apartment, and there is just something super appealing about living somewhere that you can understand at a glance.
The only thing I didn't like about tiny studio apartments was the inevitable lack of noise isolation.
Now, my dream is to live in a house that probably is just a little too big to qualify as "tiny," but the house is on a decent piece of land. Basically a nice cabin in the woods sort of house, but without the horror movie connotation.
Everything within reach, everything in its proper place, quick to clean, minimal upkeep, don't have to walk half a mile to the bathroom, cheaper, much simpler ventilation control, it's just better and cozier to me dammit.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Smaller houses or apartments are actually great. Not like shed sized but 500-1000 sqft units are great for singles or couples on a budget. I've met a lot of retirees that downsize as well.
load more comments
(8 replies)
im a grits fan personally
I built and lived in a tiny home for 7 years. 330 sq/feet. I gutted and converted a 1952 Spartan Imperial Mansion. Put in hardwood floors, a bathroom with clawfoot and bidet, a full-sized bed, a pull-out guest bed... I had a full kitchen and fridge, and enough storage for food, guitars, and other things.
I chopped firewood every day because I heated my place with it in the winter via hardwood stove.
I miss a lot about that lifestyle. What I don't miss was the isolation.
I stayed a few nights in a spartan that had been saved and lovingly restored. Man, they sure don't make them like that anymore.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›