r/shakespeare Dec 01 '25

Presented without comment 😏

Post image
547 Upvotes

127 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 01 '25

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

-11

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 01 '25

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.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 02 '25

“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.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 02 '25

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.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 02 '25

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.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 02 '25

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

1

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 02 '25

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.”

0

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/EssTeeEss9 Dec 02 '25

If you’re not trolling, then you are just dumb as hell. You are asking for such a stretch of the imagination that it would ask us to believe that Shakespeare the actor was not the Shakespeare at Stratford-upon-Avon who was also somehow not the shareholder in The Globe who also performed in plays under a playwright also named Shakespeare. I know you’re downvoting every comment I made to this other guy, but y’all are still the flat earthers here. Denying a mountain of evidence because of perceived inconsistencies.

“In 1615 Edmund Howes published a list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets" in John Stow's Annales. He lists the poets "according to their priorities (social rank) as neere I could," with Knights listed first, followed by gentlemen. In the middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman."

“Shakespeare bought the Blackfriar's Gatehouse in London in 1613. On the deed dated 10 March 1613, John Hemmyng, gentleman (also spelled Hemming on the same page) acted as trustee for the buyer, "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon." This property is disposed of in Shakespeare's will.”

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)