Careful, depending on what lies ahead, that premise might end up on the wrong side of history!
Obviously Aji is being derisive of the term, which is indeed ridiculous.
Oh, was that his point? :shrug: Ok, duly noted.
squeels’ point was clear, though. Not necessarily accurate, but clear.
What was I thinking? Of course Christianity was on the right side of history for opposing woman suffrage and/or American society finally came into line with the will of God by giving women the right to vote.
Your point being? vis a vis this thread…
“What ever the fuck that means”: exactly
No, that’s not his premise. His premise is that the hisatory has side that are, apparently, axiomatically rights. Not surprinsingly, his ideas, I’m sure, are all on the right side of history.
“The Right Side of History” is a rhetorical device used when you no longer have an argument.
Nope. his point was about his being a 100% accurate diviner of history.
How do you know which side history is/was on?
What does “on the right side of history” mean?
How does “on the right side of history” differ from “sqweels’ prefered social outcomes”?
Ask the City Fathers of Carthage.
I think you are correct. The “Western World” began when some of the pre-Socratic Greek thinkers thought that the world was Knowable through our own efforts. That is the world doesn’t operate at the will of the Gods but its operations are predictable and operate on some discoverable principles. This would set them in opposition to every other culture on earth. If this sounds trivial to us its because we are the inheritors and beneficiaries of this fundamental idea.
It is also, perhaps, not accidental that this is the period when the roots of Democracy were born. The revolutionary idea that rules and regulations, Laws of behavior should not be handed down from above, God, Pharoah, Pope etc. but decided by we the people and that lawmakers serve at our pleasure.
I think here is the origin of “human rights”. As far as Judeo-Christianity is concerned, it has been and continues to be fundamentally in opposition to this upside down pyramid way of thinking about the world.
Of course this is all sweeping generalization with many exceptions but has overall been valid I think.
Ok, in the Punic Wars the right side of history was the defeat of Carthage, massive killings, enslavement of the survivors, and destruction of the city.
Wow, history sure changes its mind a lot.
Change the goalposts much?
There should’ve been a ? after city.
“Ok, in the Punic Wars the right side of history was the defeat of Carthage, massive killings, enslavement of the survivors, and destruction of the city?
Wow, history sure changes its mind a lot”
The whole post should have been deleted. It was pointless and snarky.
You made a universal declaration, and I demolished it with a counterexample.
Changing the terms of the declaration is okay…but you have to say that’s what you’re doing. It really helps if you actually have a point you want to make.
Demolished? Whatever gets you through the night, sweetie, but my point is that there is no such thing a the rigth side of history (or the wrong one)- Carthage’s fate notwithstanding- and that people who use the phrase say it to give an aura of immutability to some societal changes they applaude.
Are you saying that the fathers of Carthage were on the wrong side and, hence, the Romans on the right one? Vice-versa?
There may not always be a right side. But there certainly is a right side. For instance, I can say with complete confidence that the Nazis and US slaveowners were on the wrong side.
Nazis and slaveowner where certainly on the wrong *moral *side; that is not the same as “in the wrong side of history”. History has no sides and, if any, you can say that non-salvery is on the wrong side becasuse it’s only about 150 years out of 10,000 (or 5000 or 8000) of history and no guarantee of never coming back.
How can one know, ex ante facto, which side history is on?
Why is it that the people who use the phrase are always also on the right side? Is it just coincidence?
How can one tell the difference between the right side and one’s prefered outcomes?
Does “the right side” imply it will not or cannot change?
Whatever. It’s a poetic expression.
Nope, it’s a way of saying “I’m axiomatically right”.
Well, certainly declaring oneself to be on the correct side is circular reasoning. That doesn’t mean it is categorically untrue. History certainly has sides. Wearing clothes and eating cooked food is never going to give way to roaming the Serengeti and sleeping in trees again.
If our society doesn’t wise up we might find that we’ve been on the wrong side of history.
US slavery has been dead almost as long as it existed. Slavery in the world still exists, but it is certainly less obvious and less widespread than it was 2,000 years ago. Being on the wrong side of long term historical trends is probably being on the wrong side of history.
Pretty obvious; Rome lasted seven hundred years longer than Carthage; there is still a city of Rome today, and it’s pretty influential. Carthage is only ruins.
Being on the losing side of an existential war is being “on the wrong side of history.” The Nazis: wrong side of history. The Albigensians: tough luck, old fellows. Biafra: gone and all but forgotten.
Nope: it’s based on observation and fact.
American Slavery: wrong side of history because that’s the historical fact…and also the prevailing consensus today. It isn’t axiomatic: it’s almost universally agreed.
You may be right that some people overuse the phrase – like “Failure is Impossible” – to add leverage to their rhetoric. But the phrase is not empty or meaningless. It has real historical validity.
You still say that X is on the wrong side of history because it is.
Is “prevailing consensus today” equal to “right side of history”? Wow.
Insofar as chattel slavery in the US, it doesn’t look possible that it will return in any reasonable length of time, however, forced labor is still a big thing.
You’re still dodging the issue of how one determines the right side of history ex ante facto. How could 99% of the people of the world in 1500 B.C. know that slavery was not only morally wrong, but on the “wrong side on history”.
“The X side of history” is a meaningless concept. It always coincides with the speakers’ preferred outcomes, hence trying to boost one’s own position by saying “I’m right cuz history said so”.