4 ms·

> Gandhi was exceptionally vile in his beliefs. A man who brought independence to 400 million people with non-violent means was a vile man? A man who’s the “fa

> Gandhi was exceptionally vile in his beliefs. A man who brought independence to 400 million people with non-violent means was a vile man? A man who’s the “father of the nation” to 1.3 billion people was a vile man? Are you making up your own history here?

demondemidi 3y ago
Gandhi also routinely slept in bed with naked young girls to prove he was celibate. Also: "In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."" So maybe read up a little?
- javajosh 3y ago
  If we require that every historical person adhere to present sensibilities to be considered "great" then no-one will be considered "great". Societies routinely vacillate between permitting and punishing incest, rape, beatings, bigotry and theocracy, to name but a few things. It makes sense to me that we'd factor such matters out of our consideration - we cannot and should not hold an individual responsible for the mores of their time. Socrates was a misogynist and a pederast - but so was everyone else. Ben Franklin was an anti-semite - but so was everyone else. Einstein beat his wife - but so did everyone else. Lincoln was racist against blacks, even as he worked hard to give them rights - but this was far more progressive than most people of his era. We ought to grade people on a curve, not by modern standards. To do otherwise is a very foolish thing that puts us in the position eliminating any and all human virtue of the past. I can't help but guess that presentism was invented by a particularly ambitious PR intern.
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    > If we require that every historical person adhere to present sensibilities to be considered "great" then no-one will be considered "great" So what? You say that like it is some huge loss! I think the correct choice is to abscond from this culture of hero worship you're advocating for and see people for their good and bad qualities, and be ready to criticize them without hesitation. Is it so important to you to put someone on a pedestal? I find that activity morally nauseating. > we cannot and should not hold an individual responsible for the mores of their time That's the weakest argument. "Of their time"? Last week? Last month? 1,000 years ago? You can pick whatever date you want to justify your hero worship. Personally I don't see accepting the Neuremberg defense as an ethical (or sophisticated) position, but you do you.
    - javajosh 3y ago
      I personally think life is better when we admire people for doing amazing things. Such people are inspiring and are the characters in a pleasant and arguably constructive narrative. I don't advocate hero worship or putting people on pedestals. Nor do I advocate lying about their weaknesses or failings, even from a modern perspective. Two things can be true at once; vice and virtue can be present in the same person, and often are. We should accept that both vice and virtue are functions of time and place - a very modern notion. But the underlying "vibe" of your argument is that of a religious zealot convinced of the purity of your position, which I find natively abhorrent. It's the kind of position that I wouldn't even bother debating, like flat earth. I'd just walk away, as will will now do here.
      - demondemidi 3y ago
        So courageous of you, sir, to be catty and then run!
        mauricioc 3y ago
        An argument on a public forum is not won by whoever shouts the loudest or has the most "courage". If expressed clearly enough, it suffices (and is much wiser) to explain your ideas once and let the readers decide.
        demondemidi 3y ago
        So I guess I won. The person I was arguing with called me a religious flat earther and then announced he was done with the conversation, rather than allowing me to reply. Age old forum behavior: Gotta get the last word and run. Sad really. If I was such a savage troll then just don’t reply!!!
        queuebert 3y ago
        As a reader, I felt javajosh had the more persuasive argument.

demondemidi 3y ago

Gandhi also routinely slept in bed with naked young girls to prove he was celibate. Also: "In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."" So maybe read up a little?

javajosh 3y ago
If we require that every historical person adhere to present sensibilities to be considered "great" then no-one will be considered "great". Societies routinely vacillate between permitting and punishing incest, rape, beatings, bigotry and theocracy, to name but a few things. It makes sense to me that we'd factor such matters out of our consideration - we cannot and should not hold an individual responsible for the mores of their time. Socrates was a misogynist and a pederast - but so was everyone else. Ben Franklin was an anti-semite - but so was everyone else. Einstein beat his wife - but so did everyone else. Lincoln was racist against blacks, even as he worked hard to give them rights - but this was far more progressive than most people of his era. We ought to grade people on a curve, not by modern standards. To do otherwise is a very foolish thing that puts us in the position eliminating any and all human virtue of the past. I can't help but guess that presentism was invented by a particularly ambitious PR intern.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  > If we require that every historical person adhere to present sensibilities to be considered "great" then no-one will be considered "great" So what? You say that like it is some huge loss! I think the correct choice is to abscond from this culture of hero worship you're advocating for and see people for their good and bad qualities, and be ready to criticize them without hesitation. Is it so important to you to put someone on a pedestal? I find that activity morally nauseating. > we cannot and should not hold an individual responsible for the mores of their time That's the weakest argument. "Of their time"? Last week? Last month? 1,000 years ago? You can pick whatever date you want to justify your hero worship. Personally I don't see accepting the Neuremberg defense as an ethical (or sophisticated) position, but you do you.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    I personally think life is better when we admire people for doing amazing things. Such people are inspiring and are the characters in a pleasant and arguably constructive narrative. I don't advocate hero worship or putting people on pedestals. Nor do I advocate lying about their weaknesses or failings, even from a modern perspective. Two things can be true at once; vice and virtue can be present in the same person, and often are. We should accept that both vice and virtue are functions of time and place - a very modern notion. But the underlying "vibe" of your argument is that of a religious zealot convinced of the purity of your position, which I find natively abhorrent. It's the kind of position that I wouldn't even bother debating, like flat earth. I'd just walk away, as will will now do here.
    - demondemidi 3y ago
      So courageous of you, sir, to be catty and then run!
      - mauricioc 3y ago
        An argument on a public forum is not won by whoever shouts the loudest or has the most "courage". If expressed clearly enough, it suffices (and is much wiser) to explain your ideas once and let the readers decide.
        demondemidi 3y ago
        So I guess I won. The person I was arguing with called me a religious flat earther and then announced he was done with the conversation, rather than allowing me to reply. Age old forum behavior: Gotta get the last word and run. Sad really. If I was such a savage troll then just don’t reply!!!
        queuebert 3y ago
        As a reader, I felt javajosh had the more persuasive argument.