Hacker News Reader

Comment by kerev989 | Hacker News Reader

Some of the things said in this article are ridiculous. Especially the wiping your butt with a communal sponge-on-a-stick. Even if we are to believe that the same people who went to such great lengths to rid their cities of waste would then share sponges with faeces on them, why would you reach around with a long stick to clean yourself? How would that even work? This looks exactly like modern shower sponges made for reaching your back. Try wiping with one.

Also the claim that these toilets were for the unwashed masses, yet those same people supposedly wore togas on a day-to-day basis.

Who even writes this crap?...

View on HN

Ok, joke time.

<principle software engineer> comes out of the bathroom. Wife says "Don't you know how to use the toilet brush?" "Yes", he says, "but I prefer the paper"

feel free to substitute a different minority group if you don't like poking fun at principle software engineers.

> why would you reach around with a long stick to clean yourself? How would that even work?

Roman toilets usually had a slot cut into them allowing access from the front underneath: https://i0.wp.com/followinghadrian.com/wp-content/uploads/20... sometimes right down to the floor.

You can see how someone might get the idea. Though honestly it could have been just to make it easier to clean them.

So they cut through stone in order to accommodate the sh*t-stick? :D

I recon that the cutout in front of the toilet has a purpose... the existence of that cutout seems to align well with the idea that one might put a sponge on a stick through it in order to clean their back orifice.

The toga thing has been addressed by others as our cultural mores being projected on people with different values...

Otherwise, I found the article interesting and entertaining.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> The toga thing has been addressed by others as our cultural mores being projected on people with different values...

It's not about projecting cultural values. It's about a supposedly trustworthy publication that published rubbish. The author of the article doesn't know basic things about the life of the people they are discussing.

I guess that implies that esoteric aspects of toga wearing in ancient Rome is a "basic thing" that one should know before writing anything about Roman toilets.

I'm sorry that it seems to be so problematic.

This piece seems interesting and illuminating regarding a specific aspect of a culture that we are thousands of years removed from. It's a pop-piece, meant to be approachable and to stir the curiosity of the reader.

I can't imagine how many different ways it probably gets things wrong... and I guess that in itself is interesting to think about... but because it's impure does it mean that it has no value?

Is anything with a hint of inaccuracy (according to our own perspective and understanding) deigned unworthy of inclusion and distribution?

Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?

> I guess that implies that esoteric aspects of toga wearing in ancient Rome is a "basic thing" that one should know before writing anything about Roman toilets.

Yes. Because there is nothing esoteric about knowing how people dressed if you are going to talk about their lives.

> Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?

No. Just honest and at least slightly competent.

Well, it seems revealing that we're discussing togas and not sponges on sticks. I'd wager that's because earlier statements made in this thread regarding the universal, unequivocal truth that no one used shared sponges on sticks may not necessarily be so easy to defend.

Judgements of competence and honesty are subjective; we can all fail to distribute them fairly (especially when it comes to ourselves).

Rarely, when it comes to a history of an entire culture that spans hundreds of years and thousands of miles, can we find one perspective that describes a universal "truth."

All we have are shades of approximation.

That doesn't mean that there's no value in that approximation, it just means that we have to be a little patient with each other while each of our generalizations don't necessarily conform to the ineffable complexity of such a large group of people over such a large area over such a large timespan.

"Perfect is the enemy of good."

s/recon/reckon/g

Reply on news.ycombinator.com