6 ms·

> I was reading quite a lot recently about war in Angola and still I have doubts which side was "good" and which was "bad", besides that people who lived there

> I was reading quite a lot recently about war in Angola and still I have doubts which side was "good" and which was "bad", besides that people who lived there were hurt in the history like almost no other nation. Norm MacDonald (I didn't even know he was sick) is said to have made the following quote, which is an interesting filter to look at all you know about history through. "It says here in this history book that; luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?" > will not be recognized by any machine we have nowadays. The first is true, the second is bullshit, how algorithm can now this? Forget algorithms for a second, even humans can't adequately judge nuanced issues, particularly issues that they're unfamiliar with and lack the context around, and particularly with a definitive time limit to work against. Now think about how social media giants operate. They have teams all over the world, say in Bangalore, trying to judge the nuanced political arguments of foreigners having discussions about their own country's history that they don't know intimately. Oh, and they probably have to judge most issues in less than 30 seconds or they'll be too slow to keep their job. It's like asking an average American to intelligently weigh in on some complicated political argument around Kashmir with a few seconds to read a post and decide who's claim is right. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is the moderation standard that exists.

triceratops 4y ago
> It says here in this history book that; luckily, the good guys have won every single time. Is that really true? The conquest of the Americas is near-universally seen as "evil" defeating at least "innocent" if not "good". Leaving aside the people who say "The Aztecs had it coming". The Roman empire did some pretty shitty things, that most people would recognize as evil (slavery, Celtic genocide) but is still regarded warmly today as the ancestor of modern Western society, morality, and culture. That counts as a "win".
- troon-lover 4y ago
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > Is that really true? That's sort of the joke. It's another way of saying "the victors write the history books"
  - triceratops 4y ago
    I understand the joke and I know the victors write the history books, by virtue of being alive. But they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books I think judging past history reasonably from our current perspective isn't quite so easy. From the perspective of today, virtually every human that ever lived in the past had views that could be considered some kind of racist, sexist, homophobe, religious extremist, etc even if they were very decent humans by the standards of their day. Even the great abolitionists, philosophers, people considered to be saints, or other humans that tried to be wholesome in their time likely had some views that would be considered totally repugnant to many today or committed actions that were considered reasonable then, but akin to war crimes now. From the perspective of 100 or 200 years from now, I'm sure everybody living today around 2022 will be considered to have committed gross and obvious crimes against decent human morality and will be considered to have had totally backwards thoughts on something or another. I'd hope proper context is taken into account when they look back at us, so I think it's fair to try and do the same when we judge the past.
      - tatrajim 4y ago
        Yes, we are mostly all meat-eating, insect-killing, pet-owning monsters.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      >But they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books. Of course they do. Do you have any examples to the contrary? Many times, their distant ancestors look back and realize their actions were poor, and revise the history books, but that usually takes generations at least.
- soundnote 4y ago
  Far from all Native tribes were "innocent". Many were simply violent assholes, if not Aztec mass sacrifice grade.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > Many were simply violent assholes More violent than the Europeans that conquered them? And I think we already covered the Aztecs. It's not like the Europeans treated non-Aztecs any differently though.

triceratops 4y ago

> It says here in this history book that; luckily, the good guys have won every single time. Is that really true? The conquest of the Americas is near-universally seen as "evil" defeating at least "innocent" if not "good". Leaving aside the people who say "The Aztecs had it coming". The Roman empire did some pretty shitty things, that most people would recognize as evil (slavery, Celtic genocide) but is still regarded warmly today as the ancestor of modern Western society, morality, and culture. That counts as a "win".

troon-lover 4y ago
logicalmonster 4y ago
> Is that really true? That's sort of the joke. It's another way of saying "the victors write the history books"
- triceratops 4y ago
  I understand the joke and I know the victors write the history books, by virtue of being alive. But they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books I think judging past history reasonably from our current perspective isn't quite so easy. From the perspective of today, virtually every human that ever lived in the past had views that could be considered some kind of racist, sexist, homophobe, religious extremist, etc even if they were very decent humans by the standards of their day. Even the great abolitionists, philosophers, people considered to be saints, or other humans that tried to be wholesome in their time likely had some views that would be considered totally repugnant to many today or committed actions that were considered reasonable then, but akin to war crimes now. From the perspective of 100 or 200 years from now, I'm sure everybody living today around 2022 will be considered to have committed gross and obvious crimes against decent human morality and will be considered to have had totally backwards thoughts on something or another. I'd hope proper context is taken into account when they look back at us, so I think it's fair to try and do the same when we judge the past.
    - tatrajim 4y ago
      Yes, we are mostly all meat-eating, insect-killing, pet-owning monsters.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >But they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books. Of course they do. Do you have any examples to the contrary? Many times, their distant ancestors look back and realize their actions were poor, and revise the history books, but that usually takes generations at least.
soundnote 4y ago
Far from all Native tribes were "innocent". Many were simply violent assholes, if not Aztec mass sacrifice grade.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > Many were simply violent assholes More violent than the Europeans that conquered them? And I think we already covered the Aztecs. It's not like the Europeans treated non-Aztecs any differently though.