The Right Side of History - Who is on it?

[CWCchange]

 

[Mysterious Capitalist]

View attachment 252285

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

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

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]

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]

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]

Whichever side wins.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?