this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
562 points (98.4% liked)

The Internet in Ancient Times

1764 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the stone age... or the bronze age... or the iron age... heck, anything with an 'age' is welcome, except our modern age or any ages to come.

This is about what the internet was like thousands of years ago back when it all started. Like when Darius the Great hired mercenaries via Craigslist or when Egypt invented emojis.

CODE OF LAWS

1 - Be civil. No name calling, no fighting, keep your flint hand axes inside your leather pouches at all times.

2 - Keep the AI stuff to a minimum. It gets annoying and old fashioned memes are more fun for everyone.

3 - None of this newfangled modern 21st century nonsense. We don't even know what "21st century" means.

4 - No porn/explicit content. The king is sensitive about these things.

5 - No lemmy.world TOS violations will be tolerated. So there.

6 - There is no ~~rule~~ law 6.

Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. With the mighty weapons which Zamama and Ishtar entrusted to me, with the keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted. The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to bespeak justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 22 points 5 days ago (44 children)

...with weapons? Of course.

Unarmed? Fuck, no.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 30 points 5 days ago (24 children)

Unarmed? Absolutely. Humans are uniquely capable harassers. A gorilla would get winded after a short while and overheat not long after. The question isn’t whether the humans win, the question is how many people will die before the people start getting free shots at a barely conscious horizontal ape.

Unless the gorilla is windmill arming and people are just walking into the grinder, it’s always a win.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -4 points 5 days ago (19 children)

Really? And what exactly is a human naturally equipped with, that can do any kind of damage to a gorilla? Lol!

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk -3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

No one is saying that you're just chucking a Gorilla and a Human/group of humans into a ring.

if the human/humans know that they will be fighting a Gorilla then they can fashion weapons and strategies.

A single human could easily kill a gorilla if they could choose the time and place of the engagement.

It's how we became the dominant species on the planet

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The premise is and has always been 100 unarmed humans (I think men, specifically).

That is exactly what everyone has been saying the whole time. 100 unarmed humans in a ring with 1 gorilla.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I've not heard unarmed being specified. but that's not how humans fight.

You could start unarmed and then improvise a weapon

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Right, I don't know how you missed it, it's been unarmed the whole time. It's built into the premise of the original viral post.

It's a hypothetical. What you're saying right now doesn't matter. The hypothetical premise has always been "unarmed". Look it up lol.

Edit: i looked it up and cannot find the "original hypothetical premise" I claimed existed, so, fuck me.

That being said.. yeah. One man with a weapon bodies a gorilla. People are so fucking stupid.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Think about how stupid the average person is, and then remember that about 50 of them are stupider than that! Hahah

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

So the answer seems to be, "yes"? I'd agree seeing the trajectory of humanity...

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Exactly. Weapons are required.

Unarmed? Fuck, no.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Here. Watch someone who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about explain it to you. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cFf6YowOm7o

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)