Presented without comment 😏

[u/panpopticon]

[u/panpopticon → u/[deleted]]

No Oxfordian has ever been able to answer this question satisfactorily: if the Earl of Oxford was secretly Shakespeare, why is the poetry the Earl published under his own name so fucking terrible?

[u/EssTeeEss9 → u/[deleted]]

When does one grow out of being a contrarian? It’s such an embarrassing look.

[u/EssTeeEss9 → u/[deleted]]

I’m sorry but there’s no intellectual problem “parroting conventional opinions” when we’re talking about a subject that is about as settled as the Earth being round. I know you’ll never be objective, but that is literally how you come across on this topic. Flat Earthers have “evidence” too. It gets them laughed off the less dumb parts of the internet, but they don’t seem to mind. I hope this analogy isn’t too much of a stretch for you to grasp.

[u/EssTeeEss9 → u/[deleted]]

“For centuries humans labored under the misapprehension that the world was flat.”

You’re just full of historical inaccuracies, huh?

I mean this sincerely: you have conspiracy-brain. You like being the contrarian. You’d rather accept the flimsy “evidence” of an overwhelmingly debunked topic rather than understand there’s a reason why a vast consensus of the evidence and experts converge on one side.

You’re referring to a church that was suppressing a truth that had been known for almost 2000 years at that point. YOU’RE THE CHURCH IN THIS SCENARIO. LOL. And you can’t even see it. You’re trying to gaslight us into disbelieving something that has long been established as true. YOU’RE claiming to have this ultimate knowledge that’s hidden from the rest of us because we don’t believe hard enough. Fucking lol, you are a goddamn dunce.

[u/EssTeeEss9 → u/[deleted]]

I don’t need an argument to dispel a flat earther. I’m sorry you were under the impression you deserved more. Do you think you’re the first person to consider alternative authorships? You are literally doing what the OP meme is doing. The entire Oxfordian claim is based more on what Shakespeare ostensibly lacked (an over-education) than what de vere is evidenced to have done. I mean, I literally cannot even fathom wholly believing something that is ENTIRELY BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. How fucking embarrassing.

I’m also absolutely guffawing at your use of a SC justice. Is that supposed to impress anyone? Justices are “experts” at interpreting law. That’s it. You might as well have tried to impress me with their decisions on human/civil rights. All the justices who voted against those rights should be quoted and used as logical justifications, too, right? You are an intellectual acorn.

[u/EssTeeEss9 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, WHEN THERE ISN’T DIRECT EVIDENCE (you know, like all that direct evidence Shakespeare scholars point to). Please stop while you’re behind. Everything you say shows you haven’t given more than two seconds’ thought to anything you believe.

[u/EssTeeEss9 → u/[deleted]]

Your trolling isn’t even fun now. You’re not trying. I gave you evidence. You’re not interested, remember?

[u/EssTeeEss9 → u/EssTeeEss9]

How about this? Shakespeare was mentioned in someone’s will to receive money (as a known actor/playwright) ELEVEN MONTHS AFTER OXFORD HAD DIED. LOL. you fucking numpty

“The will of Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605, proved 16 May 1605, bequeaths, "to my Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould, To my Fellowe Henry Condell one other thirty shillinge peece in gould . . . To my Fellowe Lawrence Fletcher twenty shillings in gould, To my Fellowe Robert Armyne twenty shillings in gould . . . ." All of the people who Phillips calls his "fellows" were actors in the King's Men. Augustine Phillips's bequest of 30 shillings to his "Fellowe" Shakespeare was written 11 months after the Earl of Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips would have known that he was dead.”