3 ms·

Sure, go back in time and talk to the Abolitionists or those who opposed Civil Rights. It's not gray, that's a big misconception. Dang is completely wrong about

Sure, go back in time and talk to the Abolitionists or those who opposed Civil Rights. It's not gray, that's a big misconception. Dang is completely wrong about censoring and flagging discussion on a fucking coup in America. If the discussion devolves a million times, then let it devolve a million times. It's necessary. Whatever, it's only month three, not too late.

grandempire 2y ago
> civil right. Abolitionist Notice that your ability to label things with a strong moral charge refers to a handful of historical events from the past 200 years. Everything before that gets really fuzzy, is multi-faceted, and doesn’t evoke emotion.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Like what? Do you mean like should we or shouldn't we enslave people to build the Pyramids? Is that what you mean? Like, that's just how it was back then and so its like, okay? So like, that's just how it is now days, so like, whatever Dang is doing with this is like, morally alright? Put a bow on this for me.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    If someone came up to you and said “I supported X side in the hundred years between England and France” 1) are they on the wrong or right side of history? 2) would anyone in 2025 have their moral sensibilities hurt?
    - harimau777 2y ago
      People would struggle to answer because "which side do you support in the hundred years war" is the wrong question. A better question would be "do you support the social structures (e.g. nationalism, monarchy, etc.) that contributed to the hundred years war". Or stated another way, the premise implied by your question is incorrect. Its perfectly possible that both England and France were on the wrong side of history.
      - grandempire 2y ago
        No. because the issues that France and England fought over do not serve any modern day political purpose. Nobody can use them to fuel their cause. But the idea that it’s due to “nationalism” still does which is why you are able to confidently boil down a hundred years into one word. And once again, not me the absence of emotion. Saying “they’re both right” or “they’re both wrong” elicits nothing.
        bloomingkales 2y ago
        Can you boil down the Inquisition into one word? I'm confused, so you found an example that works for you and then like, our examples are not workable I guess? I'm very open to you being brilliant with an incredible thesis at hand, but like, seriously give me your thesis - what the are you talking about?
    - bloomingkales 2y ago
      Dude, okay, so let's enter your Pokemon gym: Your rules: 1) I cannot use my sensibility to look at the last 200 years (huh? okay.) 2) I need to now make sense of geopolitical beef between England and France around 1300. 3) Then I need to tie this all back to how this all leads to not be being able to determine, morally, what's going on today. Are these the rules to becoming the pokemon master in your gym? I'll continue if I have all the rules down. I'm excited to attend your world class mental gym and get the greatest of all mental gymnastics training.
- harimau777 2y ago
  It's not really that fuzzy. Absolute monarchy was worse than systems that shared power with an aristocracy which in turn was worse than restricted democracy which was worse than universal suffrage. Feudalism was worse than capitalism which in turn was worse than the results of the labor movement. Forced conversion was worse than religious discrimination which in turn was worse than religious freedom.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    > which in turn was worse than restricted democracy which That’s not true. In aristotle’s politics he explores the major forms of government of which demagoguery is a corruption of democracy. And he gives examples. and what do you mean by better? Do you claim that Every democracy that’s ever existed functions better than every aristocracy in fulfilling its governing role? Better for who in and what regard? > capitalism and fuedalism There are absolutely no tradeoffs between feudalism and capitalism? Capitalism is an absolute good in comparison? And you’re only highlighting the major movements it the progressive narrative and ignored all the twists and turns. Was Catholicism better than Protestantism? What about agrarian hunter/gatherer vs capitalism?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

grandempire 2y ago

> civil right. Abolitionist Notice that your ability to label things with a strong moral charge refers to a handful of historical events from the past 200 years. Everything before that gets really fuzzy, is multi-faceted, and doesn’t evoke emotion.

bloomingkales 2y ago
Like what? Do you mean like should we or shouldn't we enslave people to build the Pyramids? Is that what you mean? Like, that's just how it was back then and so its like, okay? So like, that's just how it is now days, so like, whatever Dang is doing with this is like, morally alright? Put a bow on this for me.
- grandempire 2y ago
  If someone came up to you and said “I supported X side in the hundred years between England and France” 1) are they on the wrong or right side of history? 2) would anyone in 2025 have their moral sensibilities hurt?
  - harimau777 2y ago
    People would struggle to answer because "which side do you support in the hundred years war" is the wrong question. A better question would be "do you support the social structures (e.g. nationalism, monarchy, etc.) that contributed to the hundred years war". Or stated another way, the premise implied by your question is incorrect. Its perfectly possible that both England and France were on the wrong side of history.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      No. because the issues that France and England fought over do not serve any modern day political purpose. Nobody can use them to fuel their cause. But the idea that it’s due to “nationalism” still does which is why you are able to confidently boil down a hundred years into one word. And once again, not me the absence of emotion. Saying “they’re both right” or “they’re both wrong” elicits nothing.
      - bloomingkales 2y ago
        Can you boil down the Inquisition into one word? I'm confused, so you found an example that works for you and then like, our examples are not workable I guess? I'm very open to you being brilliant with an incredible thesis at hand, but like, seriously give me your thesis - what the are you talking about?
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    Dude, okay, so let's enter your Pokemon gym: Your rules: 1) I cannot use my sensibility to look at the last 200 years (huh? okay.) 2) I need to now make sense of geopolitical beef between England and France around 1300. 3) Then I need to tie this all back to how this all leads to not be being able to determine, morally, what's going on today. Are these the rules to becoming the pokemon master in your gym? I'll continue if I have all the rules down. I'm excited to attend your world class mental gym and get the greatest of all mental gymnastics training.
harimau777 2y ago
It's not really that fuzzy. Absolute monarchy was worse than systems that shared power with an aristocracy which in turn was worse than restricted democracy which was worse than universal suffrage. Feudalism was worse than capitalism which in turn was worse than the results of the labor movement. Forced conversion was worse than religious discrimination which in turn was worse than religious freedom.
- grandempire 2y ago
  > which in turn was worse than restricted democracy which That’s not true. In aristotle’s politics he explores the major forms of government of which demagoguery is a corruption of democracy. And he gives examples. and what do you mean by better? Do you claim that Every democracy that’s ever existed functions better than every aristocracy in fulfilling its governing role? Better for who in and what regard? > capitalism and fuedalism There are absolutely no tradeoffs between feudalism and capitalism? Capitalism is an absolute good in comparison? And you’re only highlighting the major movements it the progressive narrative and ignored all the twists and turns. Was Catholicism better than Protestantism? What about agrarian hunter/gatherer vs capitalism?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]