5 ms·

Heroes never live up to their reputation. Remember, they were people with pluses and negatives, and most likely were extremely lucky in becoming the protagonis

by enkid 5y ago

Heroes never live up to their reputation. Remember, they were people with pluses and negatives, and most likely were extremely lucky in becoming the protagonist in some historical narrative instead of a bystander.

civildude 5y ago
he amused himself with trifling works of wit, a real scandal!
- dlsa 5y ago
  I suspect many more people now also amuse themselves with trifling works of Twitter.
cies 5y ago
My gripe with Locke is more that his "equality" was only for the non-slaves of his nation state. That's not equality, that's a good starting point for tyranny/oppression.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  Sigh… My gripe with modern politicians is that their definition of "equality" is only for the adults of our nation state. Men old enough to drive three ton SUVs, fight wars, and father children are denied the right to vote. Hell, in one famous democracy they cannot even buy a beer. You and I are John Locke.
  - cies 5y ago
    > Men old enough to drive three ton SUVs, fight wars, and father children are denied the right to vote. No idea what you're trying to say here dear thowaway. > You and I are John Locke. And here neither.
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      Really? No idea, none, nada, completely in the dark? OK then: the OP was belittling the ethics of John Locke because he failed to measure up to the posters 21st century western values. [Its a popular modern past-time]. Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. [Much like we treat work today]. Saudi Arabia only came around to the consensus that owning people was bad in 1961. Your great grandparents didn't think women should vote. So I was pointing out that there are still many edge-cases in the OPs/our own society - from where he/she judges, that are a similar [but, yes, not identical] blind spot. On which he/she is completely silent. Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? [But, I suspect you actually did work all this out yourself]
      - cies 5y ago
        > Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. There was Jesus teachings right? And many others who were frowning upon it. This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is. Condoning slavery in Locke's time was also bad. And, ihmo, especially looks bad on "mr equality" himself. > Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? I totally agree. But highscholers at least will someday vote + have parents and hence get included. Slaves on the other hand get 100% exploited. Still I dont get your references.
        throwaway210222 5y ago
        > This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is? No, why on earth would you think that of me? Don't be a dick. Its just a historical fact. Wierd and awful as it may seem to us. Which is why Mr Locke could not see it. Here is a crutch to help you get there: 1. we currently - and rightly - hate racial discrimination in apparently all its forms, but 2. we (via our governments) think it is perfectly ok to make some visitors to our countries get expensive restrictive visas, whilst others are welcomed with open arms 3. compare and contract the international border experience of citizens of EU, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with ANY African country 4. hell, there are job adverts demanding 'a passport that can travel'. Now ask yourself how much sleep most of the Western progressives lose over this. They just cannot see it. Later generations might. Should they smugly dismiss us?

by enkid 5y ago

civildude 5y ago

he amused himself with trifling works of wit, a real scandal!

dlsa 5y ago
I suspect many more people now also amuse themselves with trifling works of Twitter.

cies 5y ago

My gripe with Locke is more that his "equality" was only for the non-slaves of his nation state. That's not equality, that's a good starting point for tyranny/oppression.

throwaway210222 5y ago
Sigh… My gripe with modern politicians is that their definition of "equality" is only for the adults of our nation state. Men old enough to drive three ton SUVs, fight wars, and father children are denied the right to vote. Hell, in one famous democracy they cannot even buy a beer. You and I are John Locke.
- cies 5y ago
  > Men old enough to drive three ton SUVs, fight wars, and father children are denied the right to vote. No idea what you're trying to say here dear thowaway. > You and I are John Locke. And here neither.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    Really? No idea, none, nada, completely in the dark? OK then: the OP was belittling the ethics of John Locke because he failed to measure up to the posters 21st century western values. [Its a popular modern past-time]. Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. [Much like we treat work today]. Saudi Arabia only came around to the consensus that owning people was bad in 1961. Your great grandparents didn't think women should vote. So I was pointing out that there are still many edge-cases in the OPs/our own society - from where he/she judges, that are a similar [but, yes, not identical] blind spot. On which he/she is completely silent. Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? [But, I suspect you actually did work all this out yourself]
    - cies 5y ago
      > Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. There was Jesus teachings right? And many others who were frowning upon it. This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is. Condoning slavery in Locke's time was also bad. And, ihmo, especially looks bad on "mr equality" himself. > Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? I totally agree. But highscholers at least will someday vote + have parents and hence get included. Slaves on the other hand get 100% exploited. Still I dont get your references.
      - throwaway210222 5y ago
        > This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is? No, why on earth would you think that of me? Don't be a dick. Its just a historical fact. Wierd and awful as it may seem to us. Which is why Mr Locke could not see it. Here is a crutch to help you get there: 1. we currently - and rightly - hate racial discrimination in apparently all its forms, but 2. we (via our governments) think it is perfectly ok to make some visitors to our countries get expensive restrictive visas, whilst others are welcomed with open arms 3. compare and contract the international border experience of citizens of EU, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with ANY African country 4. hell, there are job adverts demanding 'a passport that can travel'. Now ask yourself how much sleep most of the Western progressives lose over this. They just cannot see it. Later generations might. Should they smugly dismiss us?