6 ms·

Genuinely curious: what are some historically significant examples of "false positives"? By which I assume you mean a time when people rose to resist something

Genuinely curious: what are some historically significant examples of "false positives"? By which I assume you mean a time when people rose to resist something they didn't really have to.

aazaa 6y ago
History is written by the victors. From this perspective, every successful resistance was necessary and every failed resistance was not. Take the American Civil War, for example. If you (still) believe in the cause, it was a true positive. If you don't, then it was a false positive. Or, to be less inflammatory, consider the French Revolution. Was that a true positive or false positive, especially considering the aftermath?
- gfodor 6y ago
  I think this is probably true for armed conflict, but for civil conflicts in liberal societies, I think it's fair to assume that over time things converge to a more moral and just society over time. (So, the "victors" can be presumed legitimately moral.) However, this has an assumption that a society is liberal, and provides the free exchange of ideas, which is something that seems to ebb-and-flow itself.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    The free exchange of ideas falls prey to the paradox of tolerance.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      Only if you don't understand the paradox.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Would you mind explaining it then? I feel like this is a major problem in society today and I'd be edified by exposure to a solution.
    - svrb 6y ago
      The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a fatal flaw in the concept of "tolerance", not in the free exchange of ideas. I have become increasingly convinced that the concept of "tolerance" has been corrupted over time until it became susceptible to the paradox, and thus able to act as a strawman of (classical) liberal beliefs. You will find absolutely nothing in "equality before the law" which falls victim to the paradox.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        The paradox is that you can exchange ideas freely until someone uses your openness to new ideas to argue against the free exchange of ideas; whereas people who don’t believe in the free exchange of ideas will not allow you to advocate for the free exchange of ideas because they don’t believe in the free exchange if ideas and the free exchange of ideas is one of the ideas they prohibit.
- watwut 6y ago
  Afaik, no serious historian is talking about French revolution in terms of single good side vs single bad side.
awb 6y ago
The anti Women's right to vote movement, anti Civil Rights movement, anti Gay marriage movement, etc. A vocal minority was stoking fears of the implications of recognizing the rights of the disenfranchised as the imminent breakdown of society, family and law and order. Turns out they were just bigoted.
- malinens 6y ago
  all of the anti things You just wrote had quite popular support in society at that time
nostrademons 6y ago
To elaborate on aazaa's comment: think of the labels "patriot" and "terrorist" and think of how frequently they correlate with "winner" and "loser". The Founding Fathers were patriots, because America is now the dominant world superpower. But there are a number of groups that attempted to do to America exactly what America did to the British. Daniel Shay, Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, the entire Confederacy, the Anarchist movement of the early 1900s, the Business Plot of 1933, McCarthy, Vietnamese nationalism, Osama bin Laden. How does history remember them now?
- justinator 6y ago
  Sitting Bull is in interesting company.
- alavesto 6y ago
  This isn't to be taken as a show of support at all, but I had similar thoughts when the story of the kidnapping plot against Michigan gov Gretchen Whitmer broke. The militia had been heavily encouraged by multiple undercover FBI agents-provocateur who themselves were integral in engineering the plot - and it's really unclear whether the militia would have even considering doing such a thing without these agents egging them on and offering to provide explosives. If the British Empire had the technology and infrastructure of today's intelligence agencies, the founding fathers would have been arrested as terrorists before they could get 10 people in a room together. There would have been some undercover agent of the Crown showing up to meetings trying to convince George Washington that they needed to go kill the king - and history would remember them all as nothing more than evil terrorists justly apprehended for plotting violence against the state.
  - ip26 6y ago
    I'm not deeply versed in the Whitmer case, but Federal agents are supposed to follow a set of guidelines to avoid entrapment, which is what you're describing & is supposed to cause the case to be thrown out.
  - awb 6y ago
    If the FBI did that, that's entrapment and might be an eligible defense. However, if the FBI assisted or even encouraged an existing plot, then I don't think it would qualify. > Entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit > Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that they were entrapped as an affirmative defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
mongol 6y ago
Sweden in the past 30-40 years. Perhaps not historically significant, yet, but clear as night and day when you have lived here over the course of that time. What has happened in Sweden during this time? It was until very recently almost impossible to have any public, critical opinion about migration without risking being labeled racist. Why? Not sure. But seems to me, a reaction due to fear that Sweden could evolve to something like Nazi Germany. Which of course was not going to happen.
- BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 6y ago
  Been in Sweden last year. Couldn't buy almost anything with cash. People have not noticed how an important liberty has been taken from them. Once cash is gone, government has complete information about you, and complete control over you, no shackles needed.
mturmon 6y ago
How about the people who thought UN troops in black helicopters would take over the US? Eg, US Congressman Helen Chenoweth, from Idaho. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Arab Spring has been a disaster.

Genuinely curious: what are some historically significant examples of "false positives"? By which I assume you mean a time when people rose to resist something they didn't really have to.

aazaa 6y ago

History is written by the victors. From this perspective, every successful resistance was necessary and every failed resistance was not. Take the American Civil War, for example. If you (still) believe in the cause, it was a true positive. If you don't, then it was a false positive. Or, to be less inflammatory, consider the French Revolution. Was that a true positive or false positive, especially considering the aftermath?

gfodor 6y ago
I think this is probably true for armed conflict, but for civil conflicts in liberal societies, I think it's fair to assume that over time things converge to a more moral and just society over time. (So, the "victors" can be presumed legitimately moral.) However, this has an assumption that a society is liberal, and provides the free exchange of ideas, which is something that seems to ebb-and-flow itself.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  The free exchange of ideas falls prey to the paradox of tolerance.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    Only if you don't understand the paradox.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Would you mind explaining it then? I feel like this is a major problem in society today and I'd be edified by exposure to a solution.
  - svrb 6y ago
    The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a fatal flaw in the concept of "tolerance", not in the free exchange of ideas. I have become increasingly convinced that the concept of "tolerance" has been corrupted over time until it became susceptible to the paradox, and thus able to act as a strawman of (classical) liberal beliefs. You will find absolutely nothing in "equality before the law" which falls victim to the paradox.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      The paradox is that you can exchange ideas freely until someone uses your openness to new ideas to argue against the free exchange of ideas; whereas people who don’t believe in the free exchange of ideas will not allow you to advocate for the free exchange of ideas because they don’t believe in the free exchange if ideas and the free exchange of ideas is one of the ideas they prohibit.
watwut 6y ago
Afaik, no serious historian is talking about French revolution in terms of single good side vs single bad side.

awb 6y ago

The anti Women's right to vote movement, anti Civil Rights movement, anti Gay marriage movement, etc. A vocal minority was stoking fears of the implications of recognizing the rights of the disenfranchised as the imminent breakdown of society, family and law and order. Turns out they were just bigoted.

malinens 6y ago
all of the anti things You just wrote had quite popular support in society at that time

nostrademons 6y ago

To elaborate on aazaa's comment: think of the labels "patriot" and "terrorist" and think of how frequently they correlate with "winner" and "loser". The Founding Fathers were patriots, because America is now the dominant world superpower. But there are a number of groups that attempted to do to America exactly what America did to the British. Daniel Shay, Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, the entire Confederacy, the Anarchist movement of the early 1900s, the Business Plot of 1933, McCarthy, Vietnamese nationalism, Osama bin Laden. How does history remember them now?

justinator 6y ago
Sitting Bull is in interesting company.
alavesto 6y ago
This isn't to be taken as a show of support at all, but I had similar thoughts when the story of the kidnapping plot against Michigan gov Gretchen Whitmer broke. The militia had been heavily encouraged by multiple undercover FBI agents-provocateur who themselves were integral in engineering the plot - and it's really unclear whether the militia would have even considering doing such a thing without these agents egging them on and offering to provide explosives. If the British Empire had the technology and infrastructure of today's intelligence agencies, the founding fathers would have been arrested as terrorists before they could get 10 people in a room together. There would have been some undercover agent of the Crown showing up to meetings trying to convince George Washington that they needed to go kill the king - and history would remember them all as nothing more than evil terrorists justly apprehended for plotting violence against the state.
- ip26 6y ago
  I'm not deeply versed in the Whitmer case, but Federal agents are supposed to follow a set of guidelines to avoid entrapment, which is what you're describing & is supposed to cause the case to be thrown out.
- awb 6y ago
  If the FBI did that, that's entrapment and might be an eligible defense. However, if the FBI assisted or even encouraged an existing plot, then I don't think it would qualify. > Entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit > Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that they were entrapped as an affirmative defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

mongol 6y ago

Sweden in the past 30-40 years. Perhaps not historically significant, yet, but clear as night and day when you have lived here over the course of that time. What has happened in Sweden during this time? It was until very recently almost impossible to have any public, critical opinion about migration without risking being labeled racist. Why? Not sure. But seems to me, a reaction due to fear that Sweden could evolve to something like Nazi Germany. Which of course was not going to happen.

BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 6y ago
Been in Sweden last year. Couldn't buy almost anything with cash. People have not noticed how an important liberty has been taken from them. Once cash is gone, government has complete information about you, and complete control over you, no shackles needed.

mturmon 6y ago

How about the people who thought UN troops in black helicopters would take over the US? Eg, US Congressman Helen Chenoweth, from Idaho. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Arab Spring has been a disaster.