Yes thank you, that is what “reactionary” means. But the post only mentions the Romans in order to draw a comparison (albeit likely based on faulty information), and then asks how others feel about it. This isn’t support for past eras. It’s a curiosity into the current state of affairs using as comparison the only available reference: the past.

Your own difficulty in understanding the poster’s intent underlies the problem with the “reactionary” label. They could simply be misinformed. Misinformation leads to dissonance, surprise and curiosity. Which leads to posting online to settle their inner confusion/questions.

I read the poster’s question as leading due to extensive interaction online with that kind of sea-lioning or otherwise promoting a point of view (always one of a few, and mostly clustered in one ideological area that definitely includes love of precious metal standards) by posting (often wrong or biased) sources, framing them a certain (also often wrong) way, then asking what others think about that. It’s also a great way to accomplish (classical) trolling, by making a post that’s weak and controversial (so, invites replies, including from those who will refute it poorly, which is the OP’s lead—in to goad them further by responding only to weak rebuttals) but can hide behind ignorance or naivety (“I really wasn’t sure, I was just asking”) to skirt moderation.

But there’s a tiny chance it’s not any of that and the poster really is, literally, just asking questions. From the form and topic of the post, I give it about, I dunno, a 3% likelihood.

[edit] why do I judge this almost certainly not a genuine question born of curiosity? There are several clues, but the post leads with “reminder that…” This indicates a ready line of argument and/or beloved second-hand ideological factoid the poster has picked up and has ready to mind. The post almost certainly has a slant, and if it does, yes, it’s reactionary.

> The post almost certainly has a slant, and if it does, yes, it’s reactionary.

You and the poster must know each other quite well. I on the other hand don’t know them at all (as far as I know). And their past visible comments don’t suggest habitual trolling. With little else to go on seems best for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

> You and the poster must know each other quite well.

Yeah, we do brunch most Sundays. It’s definitely that instead of what I wrote as the reason. You figured it out.

Oh I believe your reasons.