3 ms·

They also say history is written by the victors. Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many co

They also say history is written by the victors. Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. Historians are humans who, try as they might to be "objective", are ultimately still very very subjective. You can read the past spun in entirely different ways depending upon which historian you read. Historians can write fiction by what truths they cherry pick, or by interpretation that is presented as fact. Fiction writers can write deep truths about the human experience through a made up story. They can transport you out of your shoes into another's. Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” It is also difficult to get a person to understand something when their self-image, their identity and the world view they identify with depend on their not understanding it. Is it possible that you are anti-Sinclair, that you feel he is "beat[ing you] over the head with his agenda" because you just don't like it, because it threatens your version of the truth.

WalterBright 4y ago
> Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. This is certainly true, which is why professional historians cite their sources, preferably original sources (not the opinions of other historians). > Fiction writers can write deep truths Yes, they can. How can you tell if they're writing the truth, though? You're right, I don't like Sinclair's obvious and heavy-handed socialist agenda. But do you ever see me citing fictional works that promote freedom? > it threatens your version of the truth My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either.
- eevilspock 4y ago
  You just revealed your very biased agenda: > My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either. Here you fail not only in fact, but also in logic: Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom begs the question. Who's the one being "heavy-handed"? You've clearly got your finger on the scales as you weigh your "truths". We've never had real socialism; we've had totalitarianism that tries to look nice by pretending to be socialism. We've also seen what happens under capitalism: slavery, exploitation, a different kind of caste system, a rape of the environment, and an every soulless materialistic and selfist culture. Also, these days everyone says, "Look at all that capitalism as given us!" That's just another self-serving assumption, not fact. Why does capitalism get the credit, when the real causes were science and The Enlightenment, democracy and democratic rule of law (relatively speaking, as I think we are far from a true democracy), the evolution of human rights, and more... but I gotta get back to work. You're welcome to have the last word as I think I have said plenty.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > your very biased agenda I'm very biased towards things that have a proven track record of success. > Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom Because it is. Socialism takes away your right to the fruits of your labor. I'm very much biased in favor of human rights, whether you want them or not. > We've never had real socialism And we never will, because real socialism will never actually work. Even the Soviets had to allow farmers to farm their own plots of land and keep the results to keep the country from famine. Free markets, however, have delivered the highest standard of living in the world, and the richest poor people in history. BTW, the Southern slave economy did very poorly compared to the Northern free one. That's why they wanted to secede.

WalterBright 4y ago

> Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. This is certainly true, which is why professional historians cite their sources, preferably original sources (not the opinions of other historians). > Fiction writers can write deep truths Yes, they can. How can you tell if they're writing the truth, though? You're right, I don't like Sinclair's obvious and heavy-handed socialist agenda. But do you ever see me citing fictional works that promote freedom? > it threatens your version of the truth My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either.

eevilspock 4y ago
You just revealed your very biased agenda: > My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either. Here you fail not only in fact, but also in logic: Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom begs the question. Who's the one being "heavy-handed"? You've clearly got your finger on the scales as you weigh your "truths". We've never had real socialism; we've had totalitarianism that tries to look nice by pretending to be socialism. We've also seen what happens under capitalism: slavery, exploitation, a different kind of caste system, a rape of the environment, and an every soulless materialistic and selfist culture. Also, these days everyone says, "Look at all that capitalism as given us!" That's just another self-serving assumption, not fact. Why does capitalism get the credit, when the real causes were science and The Enlightenment, democracy and democratic rule of law (relatively speaking, as I think we are far from a true democracy), the evolution of human rights, and more... but I gotta get back to work. You're welcome to have the last word as I think I have said plenty.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > your very biased agenda I'm very biased towards things that have a proven track record of success. > Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom Because it is. Socialism takes away your right to the fruits of your labor. I'm very much biased in favor of human rights, whether you want them or not. > We've never had real socialism And we never will, because real socialism will never actually work. Even the Soviets had to allow farmers to farm their own plots of land and keep the results to keep the country from famine. Free markets, however, have delivered the highest standard of living in the world, and the richest poor people in history. BTW, the Southern slave economy did very poorly compared to the Northern free one. That's why they wanted to secede.