"Liberals are on the right side of history"

[Andrew NDB]

I keep seeing this a lot. But what history, specifically, and how? I know that societies like our own, historically, seem to fall apart after 200 years. Is there a lot of data about societies like our own lasting longer than 200 years that get super liberal (in the way that we think of it today and what they push for) that have thrived I'm not aware of?

I'm not being snarky. I genuinely want to know.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Come on man, you know Plastroncafe is not gonna come back anytime soon no matter how much you try (Not that I want her back anyway).

As for the question, I assume that most liberals believe they are morally superior to a vast number of societies in history and most societies nowdays stand for when you consider how their social stances are radically different (homosexuality and abortion being examples), thus them considering themselves to be on the "right side of history".

[neatoman]

"Right side of history" is just a slogan, a catchphrase meant to sell an opinion, you'll find them all over politics. They don't have to make sense in any broader context, they just have to be punchy. Same thing with "MAGA" and "Change", these things tend to fall apart when you actually think about them.

[Sumac]

People who are saying "we are on the right side of history" without any hint of irony or self-awareness, usually are very dangerous.

[IndigoErth]

How'd I know this was going to be an Andrew thread...

Originally Posted by neatoman

"Right side of history" is just a slogan, a catchphrase meant to sell an opinion, you'll find them all over politics. They don't have to make sense in any broader context, they just have to be punchy. Same thing with "MAGA" and "Change", these things tend to fall apart when you actually think about them.

This.

Neither political side has never been exclusively on the right side, nor exclusively wrong side. The real right is a mix of the good in both, but the tribalism of growing stupidity seems to be trying to make everything entirely black and white, all good or all bad, all right or all wrong, when that isn't reality and the world just doesn't work that way.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Neither political side has never been exclusively on the right side, nor exclusively wrong side. The real right is a mix of the good in both, but the tribalism of growing stupidity seems to be trying to make everything entirely black and white, all good or all bad, all right or all wrong, when that isn't reality and the world just doesn't work that way.

I blame social media and retarded journalists.
First, had allowed to create enclaves echo-chambers, which are radicalizing people, second, chasing clicks, has become more and more "sensationalist" and basic, fueling division and radicalization of people.

[IndigoErth]

Only issue with that is that this nonsense started up before social media really became much of a thing. The advent and popularity of it has only been a factor in helping make it worse, but not a root cause.


As for journalists... Just doing their jobs and not a root cause either. People can choose to ignore them. They are not some great "enemy" as certain loud mouths at the top seem to want to push people into believing.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

How'd I know this was going to be an Andrew thread...

I know right I didn't even have to click the thread to know that

[MsMarvelDuckie]

History itself will define who is on the right side or not in the end, not the other way around. But I think liberals at least have their hearts in the right place for the most part. We can only get to that ideal of equality when we leave the "different = bad" crap behind us. Star Trek had the right idea. That's how it SHOULD look.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Star Trek had the right idea. That's how it SHOULD look.

You mean the future where there's no more money and the person sleeping on the beach is just as well off as the guy who programs for Microsoft? Essentially? The idea that without money people will just do basic services and advance technology because it's the right thing to do?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

You mean the future where there's no more money and the person sleeping on the beach is just as well off as the guy who programs for Microsoft? Essentially? The idea that without money people will just do basic services and advance technology because it's the right thing to do?

As long as we have the holodeck and the replicator, hell yeah.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

What Cylons said.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Only issue with that is that this nonsense started up before social media really became much of a thing. The advent and popularity of it has only been a factor in helping make it worse, but not a root cause.

Well, it has started after the fall of Soviet Union, when people wanted some "big idea" to replace fighting commies.
"Spreading Democracy / War on Terror" didn't caught up, so they went with "liberalism" instead. And the bigger the movement - the more radical idiots it incorporates until the whole thing is warped to the point of being parody of itself.

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

As for journalists... Just doing their jobs and not a root cause either. People can choose to ignore them. They are not some great "enemy" as certain loud mouths at the top seem to want to push people into believing.

Warping the news to fit people's desire to see yet another sensational headline, while the actual news has nothing to do with it, is not a job of journalist.
It's a job of mediocre propagandist or a low-tier writer who has nothing else to do, but create crazy titles for his Z-tier newspaper like "Hitler's mummy has been discovered in CIA basement!" or "Trump had sex with aliens!".

While you can say that they are doing their job, i.e. bringing clicks and money for their owners, it should be obvious that they are one of the primary sources of the division in the society, by virtue of constantly pandering to crazies and radicals with their headlines, as well, as having none of the desire to take any responsibility for their reporting.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

The idea that without money people will just do basic services and advance technology because it's the right thing to do?

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

But I think liberals at least have their hearts in the right place for the most part.

Bolsheviks also had their hearts in the right place: abolishing classes, creating society without money, "everyone receive as much as they need and as much as they are ready to work for", e.t.c.
The whole world knows what it had led to.

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

We can only get to that ideal of equality when we leave the "different = bad" crap behind us.

Depends on what kind of difference we are talking about.
Because, the logic "different =/= bad" can be used to justify some crazy and inhuman practices.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Well, it has started after the fall of Soviet Union, when people wanted some "big idea" to replace fighting commies.
"Spreading Democracy / War on Terror" didn't caught up, so they went with "liberalism" instead. And the bigger the movement - the more radical idiots it incorporates until the whole thing is warped to the point of being parody of itself.


Warping the news to fit people's desire to see yet another sensational headline, while the actual news has nothing to do with it, is not a job of journalist.
It's a job of mediocre propagandist or a low-tier writer who has nothing else to do, but create crazy titles for his Z-tier newspaper like "Hitler's mummy has been discovered in CIA basement!" or "Trump had sex with aliens!".

While you can say that they are doing their job, i.e. bringing clicks and money for their owners, it should be obvious that they are one of the primary sources of the division in the society, by virtue of constantly pandering to crazies and radicals with their headlines, as well, as having none of the desire to take any responsibility for their reporting.


Good luck with that.


Bolsheviks also had their hearts in the right place: abolishing classes, creating society without money, "everyone receive as much as they need and as much as they are ready to work for", e.t.c.
The whole world knows what it had led to.


Depends on what kind of difference we are talking about.
Because, the logic "different =/= bad" can be used to justify some crazy and inhuman practices.

Sorry, not rising to your bait. The game got old long ago. Bored now. Moving on.

[Prowler]

I mostly hear/read the "conservatives are always on the wrong side of history" instead. I guess by default this makes the "liberals"(why do Americans call left-wingers liberals?) the ones on the right side?

It's one of those sayings. There's a lot of sayings out there. Most of these type of sayings don't apply to every single situation and always have another one that contradicts them. I mean there's also the "if you're 20 years old and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're 50 years old and a liberal you have no brain" saying...

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

As for journalists... Just doing their jobs and not a root cause either. People can choose to ignore them. They are not some great "enemy" as certain loud mouths at the top seem to want to push people into believing.

Totally false. Their new "job" is instigating confrontation and making people emotional, because they thus get better ratings and more money.

It's a work.

Please, everyone, watch this video if you have the time. It's long, sure, but it's 100% true, and having had the privilege of speaking with this man personally, I'm proud to know that we see things from the same angle.


The entire thing is thought-provoking and goes into great depth, but to sum it up in one paragraph:

"The first rule of producing professional wrestling is to know that when it comes to the audience, it doesn’t matter if they love or hate a wrestler. As long as they feel passionately one way or another, business will be good. Cable news is a similar art. The next time you’re watching the news and you find yourself getting angry, you will realize that is how they want you to feel. It’s not about informing you or making you think. Just like professional wrestling. This is a bipartisan phenomenon, and we need to react with awareness of this tactic."
----------------

Genuinely not seeing Sumac "bait" anyone, but I do see a simple and accurate report of history. Hard to find anything inciteful. Just saying. What happened happened, what's happening now is happening now.

Am I the only one who's okay having a conversation with someone I don't personally get along with, as long as they're telling the truth? Just curious, but it's a serious question. Sumac - with respect - has sometimes said some things that I've found bonkers but that post wasn't one of those.
---------------

I'unno. Anyway, nobody knows the "right side of history" until a long time has passed and everyone can look back with the proper perspective through which to form an agreeable consensus. Until then, it's "just history". Regardless, it's a pretty arrogant and elitist thing to say, because c'mon, everybody thinks they're right, all the time. You can't just go around proclaiming it, like I do. That's how people get angry.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I keep seeing this a lot. But what history, specifically, and how? I know that societies like our own, historically, seem to fall apart after 200 years. Is there a lot of data about societies like our own lasting longer than 200 years that get super liberal (in the way that we think of it today and what they push for) that have thrived I'm not aware of?

I'm not being snarky. I genuinely want to know.

Anyone who says "liberals are on the right side of history" are dangerous, uneducated fools.

Lets not forget that the rise of the Nazi party in Germany was considered a social liberal party who ideas was for workers and strict government control/socialist government. And we all know what this lead too......

Also more recently lets not forget Clinton who sexually assaulted an intern and the dems refused to impeach him. This is also the man who signed NAFTA, Repealed the glass straggle act (which caused the last recession) and increased trade with China..... so YEAH... Democrats are always right!!!!
Liberals and Conservatives both of been on the wrong sided of history from one time or another.

[Leo656]

Well, as I said, it usually takes many years to figure out which side really was "The Right Side" of any issue, and indeed it does vary a lot by issue, so no one side is ever "on the right side of ALL history." So anyone proclaiming theirs to be in the present day is very arrogant and presumptuous.

Like, sure, a lot of them are really just using it to support common-sense ideas like, "Don't be racist", "Don't hate gay people", etc., but by making it a much bigger deal it also makes them as people sound much more noble and important than they really are. "We're crusaders! History will remember us!" They'll remember Stuff Happened, sure. You, specifically? Ehhhh...

People like David Hogg and Whatsername, the other one with the shaved head; they actually use slogans like "Right side of history" and "changing the world" to make these issues about them, specifically, because they want to be notorious. Again, it's all very arrogant and off-putting, and a lot of people, thankfully, see through that kind of thing.

Most Liberals hate Jews, some secretly and others quite openly, so I find it ironic that anti-bigotry is their current Noble Cause when secretly they all want Israel to go away, "Because then the Arabs will all calm down and stop fighting everyone (and each other)." Because yeah, that's gonna work. Just goes to show you, nobody's side is right ALL the time, thus picking sides for anything but case-by-case issues is folly.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Well, as I said, it usually takes many years to figure out which side really was "The Right Side" of any issue, and indeed it does vary a lot by issue, so no one side is ever "on the right side of ALL history." So anyone proclaiming theirs to be in the present day is very arrogant and presumptuous.

Like, sure, a lot of them are really just using it to support common-sense ideas like, "Don't be racist", "Don't hate gay people", etc., but by making it a much bigger deal it also makes them as people sound much more noble and important than they really are. "We're crusaders! History will remember us!" They'll remember Stuff Happened, sure. You, specifically? Ehhhh...

People like David Hogg and Whatsername, the other one with the shaved head; they actually use slogans like "Right side of history" and "changing the world" to make these issues about them, specifically, because they want to be notorious. Again, it's all very arrogant and off-putting, and a lot of people, thankfully, see through that kind of thing.

Most Liberals hate Jews, some secretly and others quite openly, so I find it ironic that anti-bigotry is their current Noble Cause when secretly they all want Israel to go away, "Because then the Arabs will all calm down and stop fighting everyone (and each other)." Because yeah, that's gonna work. Just goes to show you, nobody's side is right ALL the time, thus picking sides for anything but case-by-case issues is folly.

Eh not really? Most left-wingers, especially the ones who are further to the left such as Communists are anti-Israel and pro-Palestine and consider Zionists to be the new Nazis, but I don't think they hate Jewish people per se. Anti-semites tend to be far-right wingers. So, if anything, the hatred for Israel is the biggest thing both far-left wingers and far-right wingers have in common with each other.

[Leo656]

It depends. If you sit and talk with some of them and listen carefully, a lot of times it starts with "It's really just about Israel", but there's a lot of "hidden" Anti-Semitism under the surface with a lot of Liberal types. Don't forget, the banks are "evil" and keeping everybody poor, and "The Jews run the banks", so... connect the dots. Also, sounds kinda familiar, don't it?

Truthfully, a lot of Liberals are just as prejudiced as anyone else, they either just hide it better because they know it's not "polite", or, they disguise it as "helping", like affirmative action. Affirmative action is racist because it implicitly suggests that minorities can't succeed without Special Help being given to them, but liberals argue that it's merely a course-correction in response to the Evil White Male Agenda holding everybody down. But the truth is, it's just racism with a pretty skirt on. "It's not your fault you're not good enough" is still saying "You're not good enough." Which is racist.
----------

Being raised Catholic, and with my awesome Irish blood being diluted with some Polish pisswater, the far-Right have no love for my mongrel ass any more than they do for the Jews. And yet, I'm a white, straight male, so I'm currently not a friend to the far-Left, either, simply by existing. Tough to find an ally on either pole, these days. The safest bet, as always, is somewhere far away from extremes and somewhere in the middle.