4 ms·

> The lex Oppia was implemented to severely curb female expenditure on adornment and finery. This explains that other laws had been repealed following the conc

> The lex Oppia was implemented to severely curb female expenditure on adornment and finery. This explains that other laws had been repealed following the conclusion of war 20 years prior. Women took to the streets in protest and filled the senate. As a result the lex Oppia was revoked. Interesting event. Let's not engage in presentism while we consider the implications of it today.

tomrod 2y ago
Is it presentist to be presentist, where others in history exercised presentism without constraint?
- rkagerer 2y ago
  I'd never encountered the term "presentist" before, and at first blush it sounded like some kind of hipster slang. Turns out it's been a word for at least a century, and I have to admit the definition encapsulates a worthwhile concept. Not to be confused with "presenteeism". The commenter could also have said: "Let's remember we're viewing this through the looking glass of today's values."
  - gumby 2y ago
    Why do you consider simpler the use of the incomprehensible expression “through the looking glass”, as a looking glass is something you cannot see (view) through. Lewis Carroll’s use of “Through the Looking-Glass” in the title of one of his books is an explicit joke in this regard. I don’t think you meant that same joke.
    - gerdesj 2y ago
      Of course you can see "through" a looking glass (mirror) - you will see yourself. That's what they are for - direct reflection. "Through the looking glass" involves physical movement via a mirror and that is science fiction or fantasy or both (pick your genre or hit the drugs!) When I want to verify I have shaved fully, I look through a mirror, which is not a sight for the nervous ... first thing in the morning! There are half silvered mirrors and you can get a similar effect with a window, where you can see yourself and what lies beyond at the same time.
      - gumby 2y ago
        We see in a mirror, not through one. Yes, a half silvered mirror can be seen in and through, but that’s hardly true of the mirrors of the time when the archaic term “glass” meant what we call a “mirror”.
        gerdesj 2y ago
        Sorry to be a pain but put a ruler on the end of your nose (for accuracy, stick it in your eye) and touch the other end to a mirror. You may have to adjust yourself a bit but you will see two rulers, end to end, from you to you'. One of them is in your hand and the other one is an image (and also has your "hand" holding it) but it still has the property of measurement. The image of yourself that you see "in" the mirror isn't actually "in" the mirror. The rulers are showing you that the mirror is doing something that causes an image of you to appear exactly twice the distance from you to the mirror. The mirror image of yourself is actually on your own retina, which is exactly the distance from you to the mirror and from the mirror to you. We can debate semantics and to be fair, most people will use your terminology. It's bloody hard to ignore the "evidence" of your own eyes!
        tomrod 2y ago
        Aye. OP just wanted to evoke biblical verbiage for an opaque outcome
    - rkagerer 2y ago
      Fair point, I should have said "lens".
      - gumby 2y ago
        Since you were talking about choice of language I thought I’d seize the opportunity to make a jocular comment on your own choice of words. Hope you saw it in the spirit intended.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Indeed! I most often see it used in the context of apologists defending an organization's history by hiding people for looking at history with their current values. These apologists tend to miss the cases where their defended org was also seen as abysmal by people concurrent to their own time. As a modern example, almost everyone sees Epstein as a purveyor unmitigated corruption. Imagine in 200 years people defended him because in 200 years sex trafficking is also horrible.
    - watwut 2y ago
      Half the time it amounts of defending past equivalents if Heydrich Himmler, arguing they were big leaders who achieved great territorial expansion and well matching ideological opinions of his peers. While radically rejecting anything a Jew, socialist, French, Czech, German who did not voted nazi, homosexual thought at the time.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Or just drop the four-dollar words and the playful metaphors and use a direct visual metaphor: perspective.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Sure. And people 50 years ago were seeing history through the looking glass of their values 50 years ago. And whoever contemporary is writing about those events is biased by his own social class, economic interests, emotionality, gender, age and what not. Just like people today actually have quite diverse opinions, even if they live within one society. The root of the "presentism" complaint is just weak attempt to prevent actual engagement with history whereas you try to look at situation from more then one point of view.

tomrod 2y ago

Is it presentist to be presentist, where others in history exercised presentism without constraint?

rkagerer 2y ago
I'd never encountered the term "presentist" before, and at first blush it sounded like some kind of hipster slang. Turns out it's been a word for at least a century, and I have to admit the definition encapsulates a worthwhile concept. Not to be confused with "presenteeism". The commenter could also have said: "Let's remember we're viewing this through the looking glass of today's values."
- gumby 2y ago
  Why do you consider simpler the use of the incomprehensible expression “through the looking glass”, as a looking glass is something you cannot see (view) through. Lewis Carroll’s use of “Through the Looking-Glass” in the title of one of his books is an explicit joke in this regard. I don’t think you meant that same joke.
  - gerdesj 2y ago
    Of course you can see "through" a looking glass (mirror) - you will see yourself. That's what they are for - direct reflection. "Through the looking glass" involves physical movement via a mirror and that is science fiction or fantasy or both (pick your genre or hit the drugs!) When I want to verify I have shaved fully, I look through a mirror, which is not a sight for the nervous ... first thing in the morning! There are half silvered mirrors and you can get a similar effect with a window, where you can see yourself and what lies beyond at the same time.
    - gumby 2y ago
      We see in a mirror, not through one. Yes, a half silvered mirror can be seen in and through, but that’s hardly true of the mirrors of the time when the archaic term “glass” meant what we call a “mirror”.
      - gerdesj 2y ago
        Sorry to be a pain but put a ruler on the end of your nose (for accuracy, stick it in your eye) and touch the other end to a mirror. You may have to adjust yourself a bit but you will see two rulers, end to end, from you to you'. One of them is in your hand and the other one is an image (and also has your "hand" holding it) but it still has the property of measurement. The image of yourself that you see "in" the mirror isn't actually "in" the mirror. The rulers are showing you that the mirror is doing something that causes an image of you to appear exactly twice the distance from you to the mirror. The mirror image of yourself is actually on your own retina, which is exactly the distance from you to the mirror and from the mirror to you. We can debate semantics and to be fair, most people will use your terminology. It's bloody hard to ignore the "evidence" of your own eyes!
        tomrod 2y ago
        Aye. OP just wanted to evoke biblical verbiage for an opaque outcome
  - rkagerer 2y ago
    Fair point, I should have said "lens".
    - gumby 2y ago
      Since you were talking about choice of language I thought I’d seize the opportunity to make a jocular comment on your own choice of words. Hope you saw it in the spirit intended.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Indeed! I most often see it used in the context of apologists defending an organization's history by hiding people for looking at history with their current values. These apologists tend to miss the cases where their defended org was also seen as abysmal by people concurrent to their own time. As a modern example, almost everyone sees Epstein as a purveyor unmitigated corruption. Imagine in 200 years people defended him because in 200 years sex trafficking is also horrible.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Half the time it amounts of defending past equivalents if Heydrich Himmler, arguing they were big leaders who achieved great territorial expansion and well matching ideological opinions of his peers. While radically rejecting anything a Jew, socialist, French, Czech, German who did not voted nazi, homosexual thought at the time.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Or just drop the four-dollar words and the playful metaphors and use a direct visual metaphor: perspective.
- watwut 2y ago
  Sure. And people 50 years ago were seeing history through the looking glass of their values 50 years ago. And whoever contemporary is writing about those events is biased by his own social class, economic interests, emotionality, gender, age and what not. Just like people today actually have quite diverse opinions, even if they live within one society. The root of the "presentism" complaint is just weak attempt to prevent actual engagement with history whereas you try to look at situation from more then one point of view.