Re:Why history is always political
by amanaplanacanal on Friday December 27, 2024 @02:40PM
(#42525341)
The other option is that if both sides are critisizing you, you are completely nuts. Saying the moon is made of green cheese isn't going to get support from the progressives or reactionaries.
Re:Why history is always political
by jakelazaroff on Friday December 27, 2024 @03:01PM
(#42525514)
I have both flat earthers and round earthers criticizing me for my "cylindrical earth" theory. Chances are I'm pretty close to the truth :)
Re:Why history is always political
by giraffe_lady on Friday December 27, 2024 @03:12PM
(#42525606)
I have always liked the programming version of this: "Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration"
This is a lazy heuristic. It abdicates actually engaging with the substance of what someone is saying and weighing it against your own judgement in favor of seeing how much of a spectacle they've managed to create. No, creating more of a spectacle does not indicate that someone is closer to the truth.
With that argument, fascist regimes would be pretty close to the truth, since they were criticized by both liberal democracies and communist countries.
Also, you’re assuming there are always only two positions on a given topic. I know it might look that way on Twitter—most people today seem weaponized to pick one side or the other—but real social studies are far more nuanced than that.
The fact that everyone criticizes you only means that whatever you say doesn’t align with their narrative, not that you’re close to the truth.
I find it interesting that we're in a post truth society now, and it may not mean what I think it means. While considering your last paragraph I realized that post truth doesn't necessarily mean absence of fact.
It's simply people trying to write history while living it instead of waiting for it to actually be history or relying on experts to maintain an historical account. Facts don't matter. What gets remembered is all that matters, really.
Fascinating.
What is the middle between fascism and antifascism? Just a little fascism as a treat? Freaking centrist.
Please don't take HN threads into flamewar—we're trying for the opposite here. You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course.
In sum, Pocock was paradoxically under attack for being too liberal, but also for not being liberal enough. Said differently, Pocock was criticised for being too American and for not being American enough – all the more intriguing for a New Zealander.
If you have both sides criticizing you, chances are you got pretty close to a truth. Reminds me of Dave Chappelle, someone that both left and right culture warriors turned on in recent years.