# "Wrong side of history"



## Coleslaw (Mar 31, 2019)

Oftentimes leftists will say that they are "on the right side of history".  Aside from the fact that the future is inherently unpredictable, on what other facts were they actually on the wrong side of history that can be used to rebut this?


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Mar 31, 2019)

Why don't you open a history book or look at the changes happening in society in the past 30 years and find out


----------



## It's HK-47 (Mar 31, 2019)

Anyone of any political stripe who uses "wrong side of history" is an idiot.  There's a million other political or social arguments that could be made to defend or attack an ideology; boiling it down to, "No _*you're*_ the bad guy!" is so juvenile that you'd come off as more mature if you just picked your boogers and flicked it at them.


----------



## Red Hood (Mar 31, 2019)

Everyone thinks they are on the right side of history. No one considers themself to be the villain in their own story.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Mar 31, 2019)

Like many SJW ideas there’s a germ of a legit idea in there—nobody wants to be the white girls screaming in anger in front of Little Rock high school. But also like most SJW ideas, it’s pushed way too far and is applied to many situations where it’s not applicable


----------



## IV 445 (Mar 31, 2019)

I screencapped this in January because I thought it was pretty spot on.

I wish I could give credit but I cropped out the authors name, oh well.

Edit: found it


----------



## verissimus (Mar 31, 2019)

I think the real issue here is with the Left's mentality and desire to re-write history so as to cast themselves as the heroes/"being on the right side" instead as either the villains or useless bystanders that they probably were at the time not that there is a pre-determined outcome.   For example, take the democratic party from the time of Andrew Jackson up to the segregation.  The Left/democrats would have you believe that it was they and not the Republican party that was responsible for ending slavery, supporting women's right to vote, bringing an end to de-segregation (excepting Truman's executive order to give credit where credit is due).  Couple this with the one of the most despicable lies told and actually believed in American history which these people have recently invented where apparently the sides [magically] "switched" and I believe I can rest my case.  The real problem here is that the Left is on the right side of history because they write and edit it_._


----------



## Judge Holden (Mar 31, 2019)

The whole "wrong side/right side of history" line of arguement is just a spin of the old "everybody thought darwin/einstein/newton was crazy until history revealed them to be geniuses!" bullshit thats gets trotted out by every gibberfuck on the planet from pseudo historians obsessed with atlantis to creationists obsessed with proving noah's ark was real

I feel Carl Sagan had a good response to this logic





For each person throughout history that was truly ahead of their time in some scientific/philosophical/practical/moral way, there have been countless thousands of others who have proclaimed "WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY!" and wound up being forgotten and cast aside or straight up reviled for centuries because of their hubris and the sins it gave them the nerve to commit. Just read fucking nazi and soviet and whatever propaganda and see how much they liked to toot the "WE ARE THE START OF THE GLORIOUS NEW HISTORY OF HUMANITY!" horn and just how that turned out for them and the stupid and evil shit they tried to impliment.


----------



## jcd (Mar 31, 2019)

Coleslaw said:


> Oftentimes leftists will say that they are "on the right side of history".  Aside from the fact that the future is inherently unpredictable, on what other facts were they actually on the wrong side of history that can be used to rebut this?


It's the idea of invoking some higher power behind what you think is right to have a momentary feeling of control in a life filled by feelings of helplessness and powerlessness. It's no different than mudslimes screaming that their "god" (desert sand demon) will punish you for drinking a glass of wine. The correct reaction is to shrug. Don't argue with the mentally ill because their sickness makes them incapable of processing logic. Would you try to "rebut" a hobo yelling invectives at you in the middle of the street?


----------



## Krokodil Overdose (Mar 31, 2019)

It's Whig History with a new coat of paint.


----------



## LinuxVoid (Mar 31, 2019)

Well, I guess we are in the shadow realm.


----------



## Gordon Cole (Mar 31, 2019)

It's a dumb and pointless term because anyone could say they're on the "right side of history" regardless of personal beliefs. irl Hitler probably thought he was on the right side of history too.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Mar 31, 2019)

Sexy Times Hitler said:


> It's a dumb and pointless term because anyone could say they're on the "right side of history" regardless of personal beliefs. Hitler probably thought he was on the right side of history too.


Especially when he was having sexy times


----------



## Y2K Baby (Mar 31, 2019)

The most precious things are fleeting.


----------



## Damn Near (Mar 31, 2019)

the fact that they're hopefully going to get themselves all killed as a result of a violent backlash to their antics


----------



## Wallace (Mar 31, 2019)

It's a type of Galileo gambit, maybe?


----------



## JULAY (Mar 31, 2019)

First thing that comes to mind is:









						David Reimer - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




TL;DR version

Boy's penis is burned off during circumcision accident. His parents are told by leftist shrink to raise him as a girl (since gender is just a social construct with no inherent basis in biology... sound familiar?) Then this happened:

By the age of 13 years, Reimer was experiencing suicidal depression and he told his parents he would take his own life if they made him see Money again.[28] Finally, on March 14, 1980, Reimer's parents told him the truth about his gender reassignment,[29] following advice from Reimer's endocrinologist and psychiatrist. At 14, having been informed of his past by his father, Reimer decided to assume a male gender identity, calling himself David. By 1987, Reimer had undergone treatment to reverse the reassignment, including testosterone injections, a double mastectomy, and two phalloplasty operations.

Dude killed himself at 38 after suffering a lifetime of depression and other psychological issues cause by being raised as the wrong gender during his formative years.


----------



## dopy (Mar 31, 2019)

history drifts "leftward" because rules, customs, and institutions slowly erode over time as well as (for some time now) technology has increasingly reduced restrictions on societies. this just simply means that "left" is anti-tradition whereas "right" is pro-tradition. guess which wins out eventually?
two timestamps from a decent video, check out:
youtube.com/watch?v=p6LUjUbikkk&t=10m
and
youtube.com/watch?v=p6LUjUbikkk&t=35m40s


----------



## Judge Holden (Mar 31, 2019)

dopy said:


> history drifts "leftward" because rules, customs, and institutions slowly erode over time as well as (for some time now) technology has increasingly reduced restrictions on societies. this just simply means that "left" is anti-tradition whereas "right" is pro-tradition. guess which wins out eventually?
> two timestamps from a decent video, check out:
> youtube.com/watch?v=p6LUjUbikkk&t=10m
> and
> youtube.com/watch?v=p6LUjUbikkk&t=35m40s


Frankly the only reason history seems to veer towards progressiveness is because a general look at history only reveals  the changes in society and culture and whatever that were implimented, not the far more numerous shit that was suggested and attempted before being shot down because conservatives successfully opposed or changed said shit for being batshit crazy, stupid, or evil.
On paper the ideal role of the progressive has always been to suggest and attempt change when needed, i.e. "fix what is broken" while the ideal role of the conservative has always been to critique and oppose change when not needed, i.e. "if it aint broke dont fix it".

The two sides counterbalancing eachother has been the foundation stone of civilisation worldwide since pretty much forever in some form or another, from the democracies of today to the kings courts of the medieval era to the tribal confederacies of africa and america to the roman senate.  Unrestrained and untempered change and reform and revolution is as damaging to society and human liberties as stagnant reinforcement of shitty traditions and conventions or regressing away from valuable changes made in the past.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Mar 31, 2019)

The Left often claims to be in the "right side of history" because there is a certain pattern for this claim:

A society is formed and goes well, but certain people are left behind: a group then fights to make changes so this group is guaranteed to have all the rights and duties a citizen should have.

There have been cases where the left did this and it worked, so they've claimed "they're the good guys of history, bringing change and revolution". Alas, they ignore that people who aren't leftists have also made different changes as well.

The problem with this group is that they aren't always driven by morals. For example, the conquest of t he Americas: when the Spaniards arrived to America,  the whole world changed. There were bad consequences, but also very good consequences such as cultural diversity (the good one), more trade, discoveries, technology, and so on. They didn't do it because "it was the right thing to do!" but because "fuck it, let's do it!".

The Left, on the contrary, is driven by "it's the right thing to do" and they go for the sure safe thing, like Civil Rights. Giving black people full rights is a good thing, not saying it's not, but they aren't actually risking much historically speaking. The goal was to give a group of people fully acknowledged rights, and the sacrifices made were worth it. But, with the previous example, the conquest of America, the final goal wasn't as "noble" so the bad consequences of it are seen as an "well, I told you so!". That's why they still try to get away with the "we're in the right side of history" nonsese despite the left has been responsible for very high death tolls such as Communism or the French Revolution: they were only trying to improve the world!!!


----------



## Emperor Julian (Mar 31, 2019)

It's based on the human minds tendancy to look for coherant constants,  Nationalists have misplaced delusions about the inherant greatness if their way of life and a misplaced presumption it will endure, Liberals have the side of history. They're both the Bastard love child of whig history.

Which is really odd considering racism as we would understand it is a relatively new concept.

Frankly I suspect where shifting towards a dystopian society, as overcrowding and resoarce demand gets higher and higher and our obligarchic aspects get worse. While their may be a slow improvement in terms of tolerance but their's no way that this is set in stone.
From were I stand the winning side of history looks likely to produce a neo-liberal dystopia where their are no jobs for the underclass in the west, the third world are slaves exploited economically and infrstructure is crimminally neglected because it's all in the hands of corporate shills. We're slowly becoming a society dominated by moral bankrupt corporations and the politicians they've bought and that's assuming a Ceasar doesnt emerge.
With that in mind the winning side of history can go fuck itself and anybody with anything resembling sanity will resist the rising tide.


----------



## JambledUpWords (Mar 31, 2019)

Using the term “wrong side of history” is a very ahistorical perspective because it uses modern ideas and conventions in past settings where it doesn’t make sense.


----------



## JektheDumbass (Apr 7, 2019)

The hilarious part is none of us actually know who's on the right side of history, and what humans do has to fail pretty spectacularly before we give it up.  We won't be alive to know who's on the right side of history.


----------



## School of Fish (Apr 8, 2019)

There is no "right" or "wrong" side of history. 
History is just a collection of records of what people have done in the past.

Sometimes the good guys win, sometimes the bad guys win, and sometimes no one wins.
History doesn't care about all of the good and evil shit that humanity has done throughout its existence, it's simply nothing more but an archive of shit that did happened as history is as amoral as it can get.


----------



## Zersetzung (Apr 8, 2019)

Maybe it means the opposite of what it sounds like, and you're actually abandoning any pretence of being on the high road to wave your dick around a little. Perhaps it's nothing more than a shameless admission that regardless of merit, victors write the history books.





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## Cool kitties club (Apr 8, 2019)

Depends on what you call moral. Here's a good section from Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols:



> Whether we have become more moral. — Against my conception of "beyond good and evil" — as was to be expected — the whole ferocity of moral hebetation, mistaken for morality itself in Germany, as is well known, has gone into action: I could tell fine stories about that. Above all I was asked to consider the "undeniable superiority" of our age in moral judgment, the real progress we have made here: compared with us, a Cesare Borgia is by no means to be represented after any manner as a "higher man," a kind of overman. A Swiss editor of the Bund went so far that he "understood" the meaning of my work — not without expressing his respect for my courage and daring — to be a demand for the abolition of all decent feelings. Thank you! In reply, I take the liberty of raising the question whether we have really become more moral. That all the world believes this to be the case merely constitutes an objection. We modern men, very tender, very easily hurt, and offering as well as receiving consideration a hundredfold, really have the conceit that this tender humanity which we represent, this attained unanimity in sympathetic regard, in readiness to help, in mutual trust, represents positive progress; and that in this respect we are far above the men of the Renaissance. But that is how every age thinks, how it must think. What is certain is that we may not place ourselves in renaissance conditions, not even by an act of thought: our nerves would not endure that reality, not to speak of our muscles. But such incapacity does not prove progress, only another, later constitution, one which is weaker, frailer, more easily hurt, and which necessarily generates a morality rich in consideration. Were we to think away our frailty and lateness, our physiological senescence, then our morality of "humanization" would immediately lose its value too (in itself, no morality has any value) — it would even arouse disdain. On the other hand, let us not doubt that we moderns, with our thickly padded humanity, which at all costs wants to avoid bumping into a stone, would have provided Cesare Borgia's contemporaries with a comedy at which they could have laughed themselves to death. Indeed, we are unwittingly funny beyond all measure with our modern "virtues." The decrease in instincts which are hostile and arouse mistrust — and that is all our "progress" amounts to — represents but one of the consequences attending the general decrease in vitality: it requires a hundred times more trouble and caution to make so conditional and late an existence prevail. Hence each helps the other; hence everyone is to a certain extent sick, and everyone is a nurse for the sick. And that is called "virtue." Among men who still knew life differently — fuller, more squandering, more overflowing — it would have been called by another name: "cowardice" perhaps, "wretchedness," "old ladies' morality." Our softening of manners — that is my proposition; that is, if you will, my innovation — is a consequence of decline; the hardness and terribleness of morals, conversely, can be a consequence of an excess of life. For in that case much may also be dared, much challenged, and much squandered. What was once the spice of life would be poison for us. To be indifferent — that too is a form of strength — for that we are likewise too old, too late. Our morality of sympathy, against which I was the first to issue a warning — that which one might call l'impressionisme morale — is just another expression of that physiological overexcitability which is characteristic of everything decadent. That movement which tried to introduce itself scientifically with Schopenhauer's morality of pity — a very unfortunate attempt! — is the real movement of decadence in morality; as such, it is profoundly related to Christian morality. Strong ages, noble cultures, all consider pity, "neighbor-love," and the lack of self and self-assurance as something contemptible. Ages must be measured by their positive strength — and then that lavishly squandering and fatal age of the Renaissance appears as the last great age; and we moderns, with our anxious selfsolicitude and neighbor-love, with our virtues of work, modesty, legality, and scientism — accumulating, economic, machinelike — appear as a weak age. Our virtues are conditional on, are provoked by, our weaknesses. "Equality" as a certain factual increase in similarity, which merely finds expression in the theory of "equal rights," is an essential feature of decline. The cleavage between man and man, status and status, the plurality of types, the will to be oneself, to stand out — what I call the pathos of distance, that is characteristic of every strong age. The strength to withstand tension, the width of the tensions between extremes, becomes ever smaller today; finally, the extremes themselves become blurred to the point of similarity. All our political theories and constitutions — and the "German Reich" is by no means an exception — are consequences, necessary consequences, of decline; the unconscious effect of decadence has assumed mastery even over the ideals of some of the sciences. My objection against the whole of sociology in England and France remains that it knows from experience only the forms of social decay, and with perfect innocence accepts its own instincts of decay as the norm of sociological value-judgments. The decline of life, the decrease in the power to organize — that is, to separate, tear open clefts, subordinate and superordinate — all this has been formulated as the ideal in contemporary sociology. Our socialists are decadents, but Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent too: he considers the triumph of altruism desirable.



We may be "on the right side of history" according to progressive morality doesn't we are the right side of history to others.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

It's impossible to know what is "the wrong side of history," even if it's something that's already taken place.  (e.g. maybe the world would have been better off if we lost the revolutionary war)
The victorious side isn't always the "right side."  
The victorious side sometimes would have been better off losing.  I'd honestly argue this for much of the western world following WW2.  The UK is far more despotic, culture barren, and backwards than it would have ever been under Nazi rule.  Furthermore, the Russians, and Chinese genocided themselves following the war.   
Let's just look at places were the left "won" almost every single one of those places are absolute shitholes.  China is the top tier example, and all it really is, is a shithole which has international influence because it parasites off of non-shitholes.
Have their SJW policies really met any of their goals?  The west went from being apathetic towards race, and sexuality to a cold war state over the issues.  
Have their economic policies had any success?  Maybe.  The white man has indeed lost wealth, but he was never the (((top bracket))) to begin with, and now that (((top bracket))) has more wealth, and power than ever before.
Did they degrade traditional values?  Yeah, but they replaced those values with the most wacky bullshit known to man, where everyone is a heathen so sayeth whatever random nigger decides to get offended.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Apr 11, 2019)

Everyone thinks they're on the right side of history. The USSR thought they were on the right side of history. The Romans thought they were on the right side of history. ISIS thinks they're on the right side of history. No one develops a belief thinking, "Well, this is wrong, but it'll do for now." Assuming there's a right side of history assumes that there's some ultimate outcome, rather than just a series of ebbs and flows.

Ironically, I'd say two of the greatest forces for progressive social change in the last couple of centuries have been industrialisation and capitalism. Mechanisation meant that slavery ceased to be economical, and gave women a greater stake in the workforce.


----------



## I-chi (Apr 11, 2019)

It's decrying the past in order to use the pretense of progressive enlightenment to justify the same mistaken or ignorant behaviors of the future. 

'That wasn't real communism'

'Surely this will be different, we know better now.'

'This isnt a witch hunt, McCarthyism only happens on the right wing.'


----------



## TheWatchfulFurfag (Apr 14, 2019)

"Right side of history" Is merely a repackaged "It's [Current year]".

Anyone who thinks that 'progress' happens as a result of time has a poor understanding of human history. It's like the most recent large reformation of Islam (Wahabism) is in fact, even more radical than previous sects and teachings.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (May 9, 2019)

History has no good guys it's just various groups of people vying for power. Sort of tangential but it's like when people say "who does this land belong to" it belongs to whoever the fuck can keep it.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (May 9, 2019)

Is there really good or bad guys? I mean humans are inherently autistic in anyways.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 9, 2019)

Coleslaw said:


> Oftentimes leftists will say that they are "on the right side of history".  Aside from the fact that the future is inherently unpredictable, on what other facts were they actually on the wrong side of history that can be used to rebut this?



They say this because they've internalized the sentiment "History is written by the victors" and history tends to show a progressive trend, in a sense.  However, feel free to remind them that the only things they themselves have ever won are participation trophies.

In terms of "wrong side of history" stuff, just think of every colossal fuckup the Communists ever pulled.  Lysenkoism, Pol Pot, Four Pests, Great Leap Forward, Holodomor.  They're there, they just don't like to remember them.


----------



## Drunk and Pour (May 12, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> The victorious side sometimes would have been better off losing.  I'd honestly argue this for much of the western world following WW2.  The UK is far more despotic, culture barren, and backwards than it would have ever been under Nazi rule.


Um... what?


Tragi-Chan said:


> Ironically, I'd say two of the greatest forces for progressive social change in the last couple of centuries have been industrialisation and capitalism. Mechanisation meant that slavery ceased to be economical, and gave women a greater stake in the workforce.


I was going to point out, it's ironic that progressives think that they will be the future "right side of history" saying that in a present that only exists because of the foundations of the past (industrialization, capitalism, colonialism, expansionism) that they view as evil.  So are we now in a right side or wrong side of history?  Why do they think they can create the future right side of history?  If they could, it would only be possible if history was on the right track in the first place.

I think they might be stupid.


----------



## Bad Headspace (May 12, 2019)

History has no end goal, it's just time that has passed. Talking about wrong side of history is just handwaving the current establishent as inevitable and eternal.
Moralizing is just a smoke screen to hide how politics and people really work.


----------



## Mr Snek (May 12, 2019)

The only "wrong side of history" is the side that loses.


----------



## vanilla_pepsi_head (May 12, 2019)

Mr Snek said:


> The only "wrong side of history" is the side that loses.



Exactly. The whole "right side of history" thing is just a much faggier way to acknowledge that history is always written (or rewritten, as the case may be) by the victors.


----------

