# The Right Side of History



## millais (Jun 12, 2017)

It seems to me that there is a strong air of self-righteous inevitability to the arguments of the modern ideological progressive wing and their allies in the neo-liberal corporate establishment in that they will ultimately be vindicated by history. I think you see this superficially manifested in the appeals to [Current Year] and that kind of thing, but at a deeper level they are often trying to legitimise themselves as the sole rightful inheritors of the moral authority of the last generation to fight real fascists and authoritarians who were undoubtedly on the right side of history. In their eyes, the current wave of populist, nationalist, protectionist backlash is only a temporary but worrying setback for the inexorable march of progress towards some kind of multi-kulti, open borders, humanitarian global utopia centered on a democratic Transatlantic axis. On the other side, the backlash is viewed not as a transient symptom of a troubled world but rather the decisive turning point for the reversal of the same process.

Who is right? Who will win the kulturkampf for the Western democracies?

I am unconvinced of the merits and reasoning of all the neo-liberal arguments, but the appeal to the extrapolation of historical trends in the shared politic discourse of the 20th century Western democracies is a powerful one, and the uncompromising air of moral superiority seems to severely limit further room for reasoned opposition. On the other hand, when the historical trend is viewed in terms of the gradual devolution of the post-Cold War order of sole-superpower American hegemony to a more traditional multipolar great power model, it seems reasonable to posit a general turn towards nationalist protectionism and the fracturing of the Transatlantic supranational axis, with simultaneous erosion of some of the progressive and neo-liberal values represented by that axis.

I am not too confident about my odds of accurately picking the winning side, though if I had to hazard a guess, I would say the deck is stacked in favor of the existing neo-liberal establishment. They enjoy the benefits of a half-century of incumbency in power and a strong strategic alliance with the global corporate interests and the mouthpieces of popular media. It is definitely an uphill battle for the other side, and while I am tempted to fully cast in my lot with them and empathize with their struggle, I often feel it would be far more prudent to sit it out and wait for more incontrovertible signs of a decisive turning point in the historical trend.


----------



## TowinKarz (Jun 12, 2017)

"Right side of history" is the leftie version of "God says I'm right" ,  nothing more. 

A belief that they are, as you point out, the only people moral enough to be entrusted with power, and those who oppose them do so not because they have questions and concerns about this supposed utopia we are on the cusp of, but because they are evil. 

The fact it's en vogue now just shows they're about to tumble over the precipice, since the religious right was at its most strident about the supposed moral rot of America as it was collapsing amidst the very SJW-like tendency to see agents of immorality everywhere in media, from board games to music, and ultimately undid themselves by crusading to the point of farce with their panicking over video games with alleged satanic symbolism even if portrayed negatively, or TV shows with single moms in them even if portrayed positively.

The pendulum swings, and I feel the latest rejection of progressivism is a return to a more centrist path that was due for some time now.   

Funny thing about history, it has to BE history before anyone can claim a win.


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Jun 12, 2017)

I don't like coflating neo-liberalism with the moralistic modern left, not because I consider either of them unworthy of the shittiness of the other, but because neo-liberalism will eventually ditch the facade and continue to exist after social justice, bathroom bills and white guilt go out of fashion. Even if society moves to a centrist/center-right position I don't see protectionism trumping over international free trade. We won't stop buying cheap shit from Asians any time soon.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 13, 2017)

TowinKarz said:


> A belief that they are, as you point out, the only people moral enough to be entrusted with power, and those who oppose them do so not because they have questions and concerns about this supposed utopia we are on the cusp of, but because they are evil.


What depresses me is that these kind of people do not believe in democracy or free expression, but will never admit it. If you try to ask them what freedom actually means to them, then you're just another one of those evil people. 

Now, Trump's win shows that sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la can't hear you" surprisingly doesn't actually stop people they don't like. But there are members of their crowd smart enough to start looking for effective ways to disenfranchise people. There always are. 

I agree completely with OP. There can't be a right side of history until it actually is history. Claiming the mantle is just another way of saying "I'm always right, anything I haven't considered isn't worth considering". Only silver lining is that history will reveal a bunch of marginalized people directly hurt by today's enlightened slacktivist liberals who love complaining about western imperialism but won't change one thing about their own wasteful lifestyle. They're all Al Gore in their fancy private jets cursing the little people for driving cars to work so they can feed themselves, they don't know that history will eventually start _listening_ to all the people who question them.


----------



## cuddle striker (Jun 13, 2017)

None of the people listed.

It'll be climate science people, people working in the civil rights movement (not the same as identity politics), green energy overlords, new tech engineers, a few artists and authors. 

Like Taft and Jackson, Trump and Obama will be ridiculed and considered questionable. Obama's actions in the arena of war won't help him and Trump's oblivious corruption is teapot dome level trouble, historically.

The Bushes will have some historical legacy but it's also going to be tainted by the patriot act.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 13, 2017)

Every single person obsessed with "being on the right side of history" is getting ass-fucked in the present, hard.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jun 13, 2017)




----------



## Enclave Supremacy (Jun 13, 2017)

TowinKarz said:


> A belief that they are, as you point out, the only people moral enough to be entrusted with power, and those who oppose them do so not because they have questions and concerns about this supposed utopia we are on the cusp of, but because they are evil.



It's relative. Relative to you. Chairman Mao is the right-side to the Chinese and pure evil to us. Plenty of people aren't on the right side of history (or human development). Mohammed, Hitler, Stalin... bet you have no problem considering yourself morally superior to those folks.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Jun 13, 2017)

Everyone wants to claim they're on the right side of history.  Hitler believed it and told everyone that.  But at the exact same time Eisenhower told his men their "grand crusade" would be remembered forever.  Only one of those guys was right, but we didn't find out who until a couple years later.

If you're asking me if the social justice moralists of today will be vindicated, then no I don't think they will.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 13, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Every single person obsessed with "being on the right side of history" is getting ass-fucked in the present, hard.


I don't know. Every person I can think of who seriously uses the phrase  to win arguments is a spoiled asshole who is living a more comfortable life than I am.


----------



## Maiden-TieJuan (Jun 13, 2017)

It is the people who write and teach history that decided the "Right side" of it.  Ever notice how many people disagreed with Obama and his policies, but yet the history books in classes teach our kids that he was amazing and the best president EVER.  Notice how JFK was basically Hail as the President that would have saved us all, had he only survived, but those same books don't tell how he was basically elected by the Mob, and his family had relied on the Mob for their political beginnings?  The whole damn family furthered any measures put forth by the Mob and their businesses, but JFK WAS BESTEST!!!!!!  It wasn't until he decided to stop that he got wacked (tin foil hat theory).

The History books and the people that teach them will write history in the way they deem it correctly done.  Who knows, maybe teachers will end up on the conservative side in 20 years.  But now, they write the history, they influence our children's political thoughts, so they make history say what they want.  It doesn't matter how the country at large feels, it is how THEY TEACH IT.


----------



## millais (Jun 13, 2017)

Maiden-TieJuan said:


> It is the people who write and teach history that decided the "Right side" of it.  Ever notice how many people disagreed with Obama and his policies, but yet the history books in classes teach our kids that he was amazing and the best president EVER.  Notice how JFK was basically Hail as the President that would have saved us all, had he only survived, but those same books don't tell how he was basically elected by the Mob, and his family had relied on the Mob for their political beginnings?  The whole damn family furthered any measures put forth by the Mob and their businesses, but JFK WAS BESTEST!!!!!!  It wasn't until he decided to stop that he got wacked (tin foil hat theory).
> 
> The History books and the people that teach them will write history in the way they deem it correctly done.  Who knows, maybe teachers will end up on the conservative side in 20 years.  But now, they write the history, they influence our children's political thoughts, so they make history say what they want.  It doesn't matter how the country at large feels, it is how THEY TEACH IT.


That is an interesting perspective. Obviously academic and peer-reviewed journal publishing has a more liberal influence at the university and post-grad level, but as for what kids are being taught in elementary and high school, well that is a different story in America according to what I have read. The publishing of school textbooks for that kind of primary/secondary education is a very big business monopolized by only a handful of publishers. Now Texas is supposedly the biggest nationwide purchaser of these textbooks, so the publishers make huge print runs of the Texan curriculum editions of many textbooks. So due to basic economies of scale, the Texan editions are always the cheapest, forcing cash strapped school districts across the country (i.e. 95% of districts) to buy them. The Texan curriculum is determined by the state's school district boards, which are all run by socially conservative Republicans; thus the textbooks end up favoring their world view. So for example, Texan history textbooks teach children the States Rights theory of the American Civil War, which is nigh heresy almost everywhere else in the US. There are a lot of other smaller examples like Texan textbooks marginalizing the contribution of some Civil Rights Movement figures or describing the Founding Fathers' model of government as republican rather than democratic, but in general they all lean more Republican/conservative.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 13, 2017)

millais said:


> Texan history textbooks teach children the States Rights theory of the American Civil War, which is nigh heresy almost everywhere else in the US.



Which is funny considering this was the consensus everywhere until the 1970's. In any case, I agree it is widely politicized. No history is ever truly objective anyway, as close as the honorable historian might try to get it.


----------



## Maiden-TieJuan (Jun 13, 2017)

millais said:


> That is an interesting perspective. Obviously academic and peer-reviewed journal publishing has a more liberal influence at the university and post-grad level, but as for what kids are being taught in elementary and high school, well that is a different story in America according to what I have read. The publishing of school textbooks for that kind of primary/secondary education is a very big business monopolized by only a handful of publishers. Now Texas is supposedly the biggest nationwide purchaser of these textbooks, so the publishers make huge print runs of the Texan curriculum editions of many textbooks. So due to basic economies of scale, the Texan editions are always the cheapest, forcing cash strapped school districts across the country (i.e. 95% of districts) to buy them. The Texan curriculum is determined by the state's school district boards, which are all run by socially conservative Republicans; thus the textbooks end up favoring their world view. So for example, Texan history textbooks teach children the States Rights theory of the American Civil War, which is nigh heresy almost everywhere else in the US. There are a lot of other smaller examples like Texan textbooks marginalizing the contribution of some Civil Rights Movement figures or describing the Founding Fathers' model of government as republican rather than democratic, but in general they all lean more Republican/conservative.


It really depends on the state then.  Here in California it is OVERWHELIMGLY liberal in the schools, dispute the majority of the people in cen cal being conservative.  There was a huge dustup recently when a 6th grader brought home a unit on the Muslim religion, with the parents raising hell and telling about "not teaching Christianity but teaching this tripe?"  It was explained the religion was discussed as part of a unit on the region since religion is a major part of culture, but it was still a huge shitfit.  California is majorly conservative, but the larger cities get more voting power, and they set the curriculum.  Look at Yevette Felarca, for gods sake.  She still teaches.


----------



## Cripple (Jun 13, 2017)

History is written by the winners, there is no "right". If you want to be right, you win the war.

I do however agree with a few points @resonancer made such as Bush being an important president with a legacy in hindsight. Also I too believe the future belongs to the scientists with Elon Musk possibly being the most important person alive right now if Space X fulfills its mission.

In short I wouldn't let identity politics cloud the big picture. There's a lot more going on right now. Some scientists think they have found the level where reality begins to _pixelate_ meaning Musk is right that reality is a simulation of some kind. To me, that makes everything else seem quite petty.


----------



## Jaimas (Jun 13, 2017)

The "right" side of a conflict is never visible in its own time, even when said conflict is largely clear-cut. It's only when the dust settles, when the shell casings have all settled, and the facts are all in that we can really crunch the data and look towards what really happened. Sometimes, even in a case where there is an obvious example of one side being right in a conflict and one side being provably in the wrong, you won't get a full grasp of it until you look at it like this, and find out that while yes, your assumption was accurate, you had no idea just what a clusterfuck was going on right under the surface.


----------



## TowinKarz (Jun 13, 2017)

There were people who openly questioned the need to send US troops to die overseas in what was just a regional conflict. 

Sound familiar?

Except that argument can be found back during WW2 if you read period papers and editorials, the only war everyone except Nazis agrees was worth fighting and you still had detractors.


----------



## Camarque (Jun 18, 2017)

Honestly, I think the whole 'right side of history' argument(if that's the right word for it) is very close to superstition. History has no preference. Just because it has been moving your way for a while doesn't mean that it will continue to do so.

Furthermore, I really don't care what side of history I'm on personally - all I want to do is follow the irrational impulses that I've been blessed with as a human being. Why would I care if future generations see me in a negative light? That's almost as meaningful as worrying about what everyone who's already dead thinks of me.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 19, 2017)

Camarque said:


> all I want to do is follow the irrational impulses that I've been blessed with as a human being. Why would I care if future generations see me in a negative light? That's almost as meaningful as worrying about what everyone who's already dead thinks of me.


I think wanting to leave a positive impression for future generations is part of what makes us human. So I don't fault people for considering future implications or their own place among such. It's just autistic and  intellectually lazy as hell to tell yourself you'll be right just because you want to be.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jun 19, 2017)

The correct answer is Macho Man Randy Savage, please change poll to include, tia


----------



## DumbDosh (Jun 20, 2017)

Maybe one day people will look back at the way we teach the American Civil Rights Movement and World War 2 and say "oh maybe it's not the best thing to cast these large percentages of people as irredeemably evil."

The people who say right side of history grew up looking at pictures of racists in their history books and thinking ", what idiots, and now they're immortalized as hateful and wrong forever."

So then their politics doesn't solely become "this is what I think is right and should happen" it's partially "I really don't want to end up as an idiot in a history book".

Honestly the third wave lesson that california teacher gave should be a nationwide curriculum, maybe then when people start yelling about the right side of history they can then think back to that and how easy it is to slip into a line of thinking, and how easily the mind can get stuck in one political mindset.

Really though the people who shout good and evil when it comes to politics are thinking like children. There is no evil because our enemies are human beings likes us, they're just misguided, or insane, MLK knew that, and that is why he was so effective at making history.


----------



## teh forist speret (Jun 20, 2017)

Autistic people are always on the wrong side of history because autistic people hate Israel.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Jun 20, 2017)

Shaftie said:


> Really though the people who shout good and evil when it comes to politics are thinking like children. There is no evil because our enemies are human beings likes us, they're just misguided, or insane, MLK knew that, and that is why he was so effective at making history.



I don't like this line of thinking.  Yes, human morality is complex.  But Nazi Germany or Mao's China were gravely immoral regimes with disastrous consequences for humanity.  And they should be remembered that way.  These weren't instances of people being "misguided" or acting "insane".  Suggesting that was the case is factually wrong and is ultimately a disservice to history.  And its borderline apologism.  Sometimes you get instances where a lot of people do bad things when they should know better.  Regardless if they're "the enemy".


----------



## Jaimas (Jun 20, 2017)

I can say this much about the right side of history:

Vordrak _ain't_ on it.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 20, 2017)

ICametoLurk said:


>



Yes, actually.


----------



## DumbDosh (Jun 20, 2017)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> I don't like this line of thinking.  Yes, human morality is complex.  But Nazi Germany or Mao's China were gravely immoral regimes with disastrous consequences for humanity.  And they should be remembered that way.  These weren't instances of people being "misguided" or acting "insane".  Suggesting that was the case is factually wrong and is ultimately a disservice to history.  And its borderline apologism.  Sometimes you get instances where a lot of people do bad things when they should know better.  Regardless if they're "the enemy".



I'm not saying they shouldn't be remembered as immoral regimes and that the horror and cruelty of them should be forgotten. I'm saying when you just go "all of Nazi Germany is evil" or "this is evil" and leave it at that, you're misrepresenting the reality of the situation and simplifying it to a dumb level, leading to people going "well I don't wanna be on the bad side" and not actually thinking fully through political issues for themselves.

One of my favorite historical books is Man's Search for Meaning where the author talks about his experiences in the holocaust and how even in the most horrifying times of his life he took notice of how there were guards that he saw as decent people and prisoners that he saw as indecent people. That's not to say that those prison guards weren't aware of the situation they were in, but I think there's more to that situation then "they were evil".


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Jun 20, 2017)

Shaftie said:


> I'm not saying they shouldn't be remembered as immoral regimes and that the horror and cruelty of them should be forgotten. I'm saying when you just go "all of Nazi Germany is evil" or "this is evil" and leave it at that, you're misrepresenting the reality of the situation and simplifying it to a dumb level, leading to people going "well I don't wanna be on the bad side" and not actually thinking fully through political issues for themselves.
> 
> One of my favorite historical books is Man's Search for Meaning where the author talks about his experiences in the holocaust and how even in the most horrifying times of his life he took notice of how there were guards that he saw as decent people and prisoners that he saw as indecent people. That's not to say that those prison guards weren't aware of the situation they were in, but I think there's more to that situation then "they were evil".



You can wax on about the thoughts and feelings of individual Nazis and even non-Party Germans all you like but it doesn't change the fact they were overwhelmingly complacent with what was going on.  Any German who claims they didn't know about the Holocaust was either living in the middle of nowhere or was a liar.  You don't have to condemn them all as evil but there was a level of apathy overtaking most of that nation which from my perspective is rather inexcusable.  I'm not gonna fault Hans the pig farmer for not leading the revolution against Hitler but many of the groups on the "wrong" side of history were there because they chose to be immoral.  No amount of humanizing individual Nazis will change the fact Hitler came to power with applause and no one had any real interest in changing that until the war was over.  You can say this about any number of awful regimes, but considering how dramatic the displays of nationalism were and how prevalent the actual white supremacy was in day-to-day life it's particularly the case for Nazi Germany. 

Obviously not all conquerors are evil and not all victims are heroes.  But there are many instances--such as the Third Reich--where a people have failed at keeping their nation moral.  As patriotic as I am, America isn't excuse from this either.  The simple fact is we had institutionalized systems throughout the country denying people their Constitutional rights because of their skin color.  That's unacceptable, and anyone who was actually defending that should've known better.


----------



## DumbDosh (Jun 20, 2017)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> You can wax on about the thoughts and feelings of individual Nazis and even non-Party Germans all you like but it doesn't change the fact they were overwhelmingly complacent with what was going on.  Any German who claims they didn't know about the Holocaust was either living in the middle of nowhere or was a liar.  You don't have to condemn them all as evil but there was a level of apathy overtaking most of that nation which from my perspective is rather inexcusable.  I'm not gonna fault Hans the pig farmer for not leading the revolution against Hitler but many of the groups on the "wrong" side of history were there because they chose to be immoral.  No amount of humanizing individual Nazis will change the fact Hitler came to power with applause and no one had any real interest in changing that until the war was over.  You can say this about any number of awful regimes, but considering how dramatic the displays of nationalism were and how prevalent the actual white supremacy was in day-to-day life it's particularly the case for Nazi Germany.
> 
> Obviously not all conquerors are evil and not all victims are heroes.  But there are many instances--such as the Third Reich--where a people have failed at keeping their nation moral.  As patriotic as I am, America isn't excuse from this either.  The simple fact is we had institutionalized systems throughout the country denying people their Constitutional rights because of their skin color.  That's unacceptable, and anyone who was actually defending that should've known better.



I wouldn't say germany as a nation allowing Hitler to come to power was inexcusable, especially with the state Germany was in post World War 1, and I wouldn't say no one had any interest changing it, I would say at a certain point in a regime, a majority of people can know what is happening is wrong and is messed up, but simply think they do not have the power to resist or stop or change it. It's not apathy that's keeping dictatorships like North Korea in power still, it's fear, no one's going "well I would oppose this, but I just don't care", they're going "I'm just gonna keep my head down so they won't kill my family". I wouldn't say The Bystander Effect is apathy either, it's rationalization of "someone else will do this, so I don't have to stick my neck out" and fear of getting involved.

It isn't like Nazi Germany is an anomaly and the only dictatorship or genocide that ever happened. In a situation like post World War 1 Germany, people listened to Hitler as an authority figure who lifted people's feelings of nationalism. It's not like every German had a flashforward of what was going to happen. 

I don't see Nazi Germany as inexcusably and irredeemably evil the same way I don't see the high schoolers who completely bought into The Third Wave experiment or the people who went all the way with The Milgram Experiment as evil.


----------



## Jaimas (Jun 20, 2017)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Obviously not all conquerors are evil and not all victims are heroes.  But there are many instances--such as the Third Reich--where a people have failed at keeping their nation moral.



Hi, Rotherham.


----------



## millais (Jul 11, 2017)

apparently it is a t-shirt slogan for insufferable people now.


----------



## SteelPlatedHeart (Jul 11, 2017)

The people on the right side of history are the ones that don't feel the need to announce they're on the right side of history at every opportunity.


----------



## Black Waltz (Jul 11, 2017)

No one's on the right side, we're all losers.


----------



## Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. (Jul 11, 2017)

There isn't a right side of history.
Literally all history is framed by the culture teaching it. To Americans, we came to this nation and built an empire. To the native populations that were here at that time, we came to this nation and promptly committed genocide.
Right or wrong side of history isn't a thing, it's subjective and prone to change. Some historical ideas or decisions are held as correct by some cultures at certain times, others at other times.
Whether or not you end up on the "right side of history" essentially boils down to a simple question:
In 200 years, what will the guy holding the biggest stick think of you?

That's really all there is to it. 
What's more important than worrying about how hypothetical future people will remember you is trying your very best to not be a fucking asshole whIle you're still here.
Truth be told, that's something both sides of the aisle could stand to work on.


----------



## ZeroStar (Jul 11, 2017)

These people are no different then religious fundamentalists, they've just replaced God with history.

I know I am right because I am on the right side of history and if you think otherwise then you are Hitler/a Nazi/racist/bigot.

I know I am right because I have God/Allah on my side and if you think otherwise then you are a heathen/infidel.

Good luck getting through to a zealot. Once people have it in their heads that their actions are just there is very little that can bring them to a state of reason.


----------



## Un Platano (Jul 12, 2017)

There's no right side of history when a war or disaster isn't involved. Consider any election where you can't name both candidates- probably most of them. In 1844, the election was close between James K Polk and Henry Clay. Polk won that one because history itself hates Henry Clay, but do we consider him any better for it? And you can't simply argue that it was an insignificant year. The most contentious campaign issue then was the annexation of Texas, a hugely important event in 19th century history. But politics aren't static, and just because there's something no one can agree on today doesn't guarantee that people will know about the issue or care about it when it's history long since passed. 
For that reason I doubt Trump and Obama will go down in history as being "wrong" or "right". The world will not become a neoliberal tumblrtopia in the future, nor will it become a hypernationalistic reactionary paradise. Those are both unrealistic predictions, and the most likely result is that people will care as much about Obama and Trump as they do Polk and Clay. Even if future people do agree with one more, they wouldn't have enough of a personal investment in today's politics to label the other side wrong.


----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (Jul 21, 2017)

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if you or your ideology were right or wrong. We remember people names or political ideologies throughout history for the worth of their actions. We remember Julius Caesar for his military brilliance and academic mind in an age of general savagery, but I bet that he would be equally remembered as a genocidal tyrant if, say, the Gauls somehow managed to defeat him and preserve their culture over Rome's.

There's no "right side of history", only remembered people and forgotten people.


----------



## Lipitor (Jul 21, 2017)

You know whose probably on the right side of history... all you loser trump supporters losing at life on its easiest difficulty setting, who need to blame everyone else for your failures.


----------



## CatParty (Jul 21, 2017)

What then of my knowledge of the minds of others? On Locke's view there can be only one answer: since what I know directly is the existence and contents of my own mind, it follows that my knowledge of the minds of others, if I am to be said to possess such knowledge at all, has to be indirect and analogical, an inference from my own case. This is the so-called "argument from analogy" for other minds, which empiricist philosophers in particular who accept the Cartesian account of consciousness generally assume as a mechanism for avoiding solipsism.

Observing that the bodies of other human beings behave as my body does in similar circumstances, I can infer that the mental life and series of mental events that accompany my bodily behavior are also present in the case of others. Thus, for example, when I see a problem that I am trying unsuccessfully to solve, I feel myself becoming frustrated and observe myself acting in a particular way. In the case of another, I observe only the first and last terms of this three-term sequence and, on this basis, I infer that the "hidden" middle term, the feeling of frustration, has also occurred.

There are, however, fundamental difficulties with the argument from analogy. First, if one accepts the Cartesian account of consciousness, one must, in all consistency, accept its implications. One of these implications, as we have seen above, is that there is no logically necessary connection between the concepts of "mind" and "body;" my mind may be lodged in my body now, but this is a matter of sheer contingency. Mind need not become located in body. Its nature will not be affected in any way by the death of this body and there is no reason in principle why it should not have been located in a body radically different from a human one. By exactly the same token, any correlation that exists between bodily behavior and mental states must also be entirely contingent; there can be no conceptual connections between the contents of a mind at a given time and the nature and/or behavior of the body in which it is located at that time.

This raises the question as to how my supposed analogical inferences to other minds are to take place at all. How can I apply psychological concepts to others, if I know only that they apply to me? To take a concrete example again, if I learn what "pain" means by reference to my own case, then I will understand "pain" to mean "my pain" and the supposition that pain can be ascribed to anything other than myself will be unintelligible to me.

If the relationship between having a human body and a certain kind of mental life is as contingent as the Cartesian account of mind implies, it should be equally easy - or equally difficult - for me to conceive of a table as being in pain as it is for me to conceive of another person as being in pain. The point, of course, is that this is not so. The supposition that a table might experience pain is a totally meaningless one, whereas the ascription of pain to other human beings and animals that, in their physical characteristics and/or behavioral capabilities, resemble human beings is something which even very young children find unproblematic. 

How is this to be accounted for? It will not do, in this context, to simply respond that a table does not have the same complex set of physical characteristics as a human body or that it is not capable of the same patterns of behavior as a human body. Because the Cartesian position implies that there is no logical connection between the mental and the physical, between the possession of a body of a particular kind and the capability for consciousness. Physical differentiation can and must be acknowledged, but it can play no role in any explanation of what it is to have a mental life.

I am surrounded by other bodies, some of which are similar to mine, and some of which are different. On Cartesian principles such similarities and such differences are irrelevant. The question as to whether it is legitimate for me to ascribe psychological predicates to entities other than myself, which the argument from analogy is designed to address, cannot hinge on the kind of body that I am confronted at a given time. 

Assuming the validity of the Cartesian position, we have to infer that it makes as much or a little sense, on these premises, to attribute any psychological predicate to another human being as it does to attribute it to a table or a rock.

On these premises, it makes no sense to attribute consciousness to another human being at all. Thus on strict Cartesian principles, the argument from analogy will not do the work that is required of it to bridge the gulf between my conscious states and putative conscious states that are not mine. Ultimately, it must be confessed that on these principles I know only my own mental states and the supposition that there are mental states other than my own ceases to be intelligible to me. It is thus that solipsism comes to seem inescapable.

If the above argument is valid, it demonstrates that the acceptance of the Cartesian account of consciousness and the view that my understanding of psychological concepts derives, as do the concepts themselves, from my own case leads inexorably to solipsism. However, it may fairly be said that the argument accomplishes more than just this. It can, and should, be understood as a_reductio ad absurdum _refutation of these Cartesian principles. Viewed from this perspective, the argument may be paraphrased as follows:

If there is no logical connection between the physical and the mental, if the physical forms no part of the criteria that govern my ascription of psychological predicates, then I would be able to conceive of an inanimate object such as a table as having a soul and being conscious. But I cannot attach any intelligibility to the notion of an inanimate object being conscious. It follows therefore that there is a logical connection between the physical and the mental: the physical does form part of the criteria that govern my ascription of psychological words.


----------



## Flowers For Sonichu (Jul 21, 2017)




----------



## Positron (Jul 21, 2017)

You'll be dead long before history assigns you to "sides", so why does it matter?

"No. What is honor? A word. What is in that word “honor”? What is that “honor”? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No." 
                                                                                                                    -- Falstaff in _Henry IV_.


----------



## CWCchange (Jul 24, 2017)




----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (Jul 25, 2017)

CWCchange said:


> View attachment 252285



Well, the world now thinks he was right _wing_. Does that count?


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Jul 25, 2017)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> I don't like this line of thinking.  Yes, human morality is complex.  But Nazi Germany or Mao's China were gravely immoral regimes with disastrous consequences for humanity.  And they should be remembered that way.  These weren't instances of people being "misguided" or acting "insane".  Suggesting that was the case is factually wrong and is ultimately a disservice to history.  And its borderline apologism.  Sometimes you get instances where a lot of people do bad things when they should know better.  Regardless if they're "the enemy".


I don't think Maoist China can be compared to Nazi Germany. Communism and fascism are completely different.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Jul 25, 2017)

Daughter of Pomona said:


> I don't think Maoist China can be compared to Nazi Germany. Communism and fascism are completely different.


Can't tell if you're trolling or not, but not gonna pull an IWC on a legit socialist.


----------



## ccoinhoarder (Jul 25, 2017)

The 'Right side of History' phenomena is based off of the concept of Whig History, which is toxic as hell.

Effectively, Whig history is under the assumption that we will always be 'progressing' as a society, to greater levels of democracy, equality, and enlightenment. What this means is that every side who buys into the idea of Whig History now feels that not only are their actions completely justifiable and that they will be hailed as pioneers later on down the line, but that anyone who potentially would work against their aims of democracy, equality, and enlightenment is always wrong and needs to be stopped. The natural conclusion to this is groups like BAMN and ItsGoingDown, who have the understanding that everything they do is morally right because they're fighting for a better tomorrow, and that is without debate.

I shouldn't have to tell anyone here that that it doesn't mean they exclusively target anti-democratic, anti-equality groups like the 'Dark Enlightenment' or whatever. They're more than happy to march and reee against anyone who they think is going to bog down the 'natural progress' of history, including edgy free-market liberals and protectionist/nationalist elements like Shclumpf, and whatever they do on their marching and reeeing is naturally the correct option, because they're fighting for the natural progress of history. 

In general, whenever you start throwing in words like 'natural' and 'inevitable' to your political theories, it typically means that you are no longer interested in debate. If you believe your policies are inevitable and reflect the natural order, why listen to anyone who thinks differently?


----------



## Joan Nyan (Jul 26, 2017)

Whichever side wins.


----------



## Feline Darkmage (Aug 4, 2017)

All this worrying about the future I do get, because my mind wanders there a lot. However, I'd rather improve the now because I have to live in it. And if the now is better than on the off chance that improves the future then good for the future people.


----------



## invalid (Aug 6, 2017)

Maiden-TieJuan said:


> It is the people who write and teach history that decided the "Right side" of it.  Ever notice how many people disagreed with Obama and his policies, but yet the history books in classes teach our kids that he was amazing and the best president EVER.  Notice how JFK was basically Hail as the President that would have saved us all, had he only survived, but those same books don't tell how he was basically elected by the Mob, and his family had relied on the Mob for their political beginnings?  The whole damn family furthered any measures put forth by the Mob and their businesses, but JFK WAS BESTEST!!!!!!  It wasn't until he decided to stop that he got wacked (tin foil hat theory).
> 
> The History books and the people that teach them will write history in the way they deem it correctly done.  Who knows, maybe teachers will end up on the conservative side in 20 years.  But now, they write the history, they influence our children's political thoughts, so they make history say what they want.  It doesn't matter how the country at large feels, it is how THEY TEACH IT.



The people in the media at the moment write the articles, they end up getting referenced by places like wikipedia, and what political leaning do those people have? 

They are on the right side of history in a way, because they are writing their own version of history right now, in real time, with little challenge.  And in 25 years, when someone wants to know what Pepe was, or what Trumps Presidency was like, people will look towards those articles, and those references, and read that Pepe was a Nazi hate symbol, and that Trump was a Russian agent, and the most evil, scheming, but also hilariously incompetent President of all time.

And what is going to make them challenge that viewpoint?


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 6, 2017)

invalid said:


> They are on the right side of history in a way, because they are writing their own version of history right now, in real time, with little challenge.  And in 25 years, when someone wants to know what Pepe was, or what Trumps Presidency was like, people will look towards those articles, and those references, and read that Pepe was a Nazi hate symbol, and that Trump was a Russian agent, and the most evil, scheming, but also hilariously incompetent President of all time.
> 
> And what is going to make them challenge that viewpoint?



Unless they have somehow exterminated everyone now alive, possibly the people who will still be alive then?


----------



## invalid (Aug 6, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Unless they have somehow exterminated everyone now alive, possibly the people who will still be alive then?



I suppose you have to hope at that time, there are people interested in setting the record straight, looking for first hand accounts from grizzled internet shitposters.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 6, 2017)

invalid said:


> I suppose you have to hope at that time, there are people interested in setting the record straight, looking for first hand accounts from grizzled internet shitposters.



Are you assuming Internet shitposters who are still alive will still actually have something better to do than keep shitposting?


----------



## HG 400 (Sep 3, 2017)

invalid said:


> I suppose you have to hope at that time, there are people interested in setting the record straight, looking for first hand accounts from grizzled internet shitposters.



There are still people who revist the accounts of 3,000 year old battles to check acheology findings and go digging and say shit like "Okay the ancient Achaean urn painting said there were 10,000 soldiers fighting here but honestly we think it was more like 8,000".

If people are capable of and invested in revisiting facts from three thousand years ago I don't know how you think future generations are gonna read a Buzzfeed article and say "Okay then, trump had a pee-pee tape, case closed."


----------



## Clownfish (Sep 15, 2017)

I see it as a falsifyable faith. No different then heaven from various religions or flat Earthers belief there is an ice wall.

What is it with idiots believing in the most easily debunk crap?


----------

