It's True Because Everyone Else Thinks So … ng-7611752

i enthusiastically applaud this article despite being a relativist in so many other ways. The best example given: When people support their disbelief in climate change by appealing to public opinion polls. Either climate change exists or it doesn’t, and that cannot be determined by public opinion, especially given the political nature of the controversy about it. You might as well argue that the Koran is the direct word of Allah because everyone at the mosque thinks so.

The basic issue is, everybody has opinions and wants to defend them. Nobody wants to bother putting in the time and effort it takes to make their opinions worth a damn. So the short way to sound smart when you aren’t and participate in a debate when you shouldn’t, is to name-drop the people, demographics, or organizations who agree with whatever it is you want to say. Saying “That’s just my opinion” when questioned is a tacit aknowledgement of this- you have your views, you aren’t prepared or capable of defending them, but you are no less convinced for that.

 But it's either that, or almost nobody talks about anything important.

This has always been the case to some degree, but there are some cultural forces that make it worse- thanks to the internet, it’s easy for somebody to convince themselves they are an expert on a topic after 10 minutes of ‘research’, and it’s easy for somebody to convince themselves that the other side of any contoversy are retards who don’t deserve to be addressed. And of course, as much as self-esteem based, ‘no wrong answers’ approach to education is laughed at, it still has it’s advocates too.

As expected, the article goes into matters of heavily political nature and claims that if you argue the opposite side (opposite from liberalism in this case), you are wrong and have no right to question them and have a different opinion.
Apparently, one has no right to question what is called ‘Holocaust’. So far, I haven’t been presented with much evidence for, or against it, so I suspend my judgment about that.
But to say that in a country where ‘people of color’ can get into a university over a more qualified white person simply because they are colored (affirmative action), exists some sort of discrimination of people of color because their outcomes aren’t exactly the same as those of a different race with different biological predispositions exposes them for the politically motivated liars that they are.

Oh, and not to mention the recent confederate flag drama. Slavery was mentioned 6 times in some document, therefore it was indisputably cause for Civil War?

You haven’t been “presented” with much evidence? Ok. i haven’t been “presented” with much evidence that the Earth is round either, so i am going to suspend my judgment about that.

Actually it was mentioned 21 times. And yeah, slavery was indisputably the primary cause for the Civil War. Well, you can dispute it, but you will be wrong.

And yeah, slavery was indisputably not the primary cause for the Civil War. Well, you can dispute it, but you will be wrong.

Now what?

The war was fought because the North needed workers for their factories, they never really cared for the ‘rights’ of the negroes, only pretended to in order to use them as cheap labor force. How about that?

Yes, of course, to every leftie out there it is much too obvious that Holocaust happened and is the greatest evil imaginable, and if you question it you might as well question whether you exist or not, because it is just that obvious that it is evil, and that it happened. Why? Because it was committed in the name of conservative-leaning ideals, and we cannot miss an opportunity to pick some event, or a person, or something and associate it with an emotional response of ‘undesirable, evil’ - such as Hitler, Swastika, Holocaust. And then every time a conservative says something we don’t like, we think is out of line, we can accuse them of being a Nazi, of wanting to be like Hitler, of wanting to cause another Holocaust… and we win by default.
Communists like Stalin and Mao, who did the same thing in their ‘reformation camps’ the Nazis are claimed to have done, aren’t nearly as vilified, even if both killed much more than the Nazis.

I am not even saying that Jew-hatred and persecution necessarily did not happen… just that it was probably blown out of proportion because of ideological reasons.

Why don’t we talk about the 40+ million Mao killed? Why don’t we have special name associated with an uncomfortable emotion for that? If we’re going to talk about numbers (and we all know how leftist utilitarians luuuuv numbers), Stalin and Mao killed more than Hitler. See what leftism leads to?

I question if the holocaust happened as well and suspend my judgement on it. Not enough evidence to support it happening, or not happening. So I get what is being said completely.

I agree. +1

I also find it funny that we really don’t compare Mao, Stalin and other brutal massacres to Hitler. It’s always “You’re like Hitler.”

Also, there is plenty of evidence the world is round… pictures from space? If you sail or fly you go around back to where you started if you fly/sail long enough.

The North, like the South, had an array of different reasons for fighting the war. And the abolitionists had a wide array of reasons and motivations for being abolitionist, and any given individual soldier could have had any possible reason for fighting, but all of those reasons existed in direct regards to the issue of slavery. If there were no attempt to eradicate the institution of slavery, there would have been no war, at least not on anything approaching the scale of the war that actually happened.

The problem with trying to communicate with people like you is that you’re attempting to expose me some imagined stereotype of a “leftie” and so you spit arguments that are like 100 yards wide of the point. i don’t imagine the holocaust to be the worst imaginable evil, but even if i did, it doesn’t change the historical fact that the events commonly referred as “The Holocaust” (in which millions of people were rounded up, enslaved and eventually slaughtered because they were of Jewish descent) actually fucking happened. Go ahead, do some research, the evidence is not obligated to “present itself to you” before it exists.

Sure. Fine. Whatever you say. But the Holocaust occurred. And it is generally considered a bad thing. The Holocaust denier therefore denies that a bad thing happened, because they want to deny the obvious, probably mostly in order to sound controversial, but also often because they kind of sympathize with the killing of Jews. So again, you’re attempt to make a political point about how communists are worse than facists because more people were killed by Mao than Hitler totally misses the point.

Blah-de-fuckin-de-dah. Good for you.

Yeah, plus one for the team! Way to go, soldier - now you’re a cheerleader.

Yeah, that’s exactly the fucking point of what i said, genius. Perhaps i wasn’t linear enough to accomodate you, i apologize.

That’s pretty funny… Agreeing, which is actually pretty rare to find in today’s society of stubborn sheep means being mocked and called a cheerleader.

I don’t see how agreeing is being a cheerleader. I was just saying, what he is saying makes sense and I have thought about it as well. The bitter truth is, we know next to nothing if not nothing.

Except there is not much evidence of the holocaust…

Certainly not hard found evidence such as the world being actually round.

Yeah, from a sort of cosmic perspective, that’s true. But in a more fact-based historical sense, agreeing that something didn’t happen even though it obviously did just makes you blatantly incorrect. In order to continue to respect your overall intelligence i must therefore conclude that you are agreeing because you want to make a political point (hence, being a cheerleader) and not because you are actually so ignorant as to accept a blatantly incorrect account of history being regurgitated in an attempt to offend the presumed delicate sensibilities of a leftist.

Jesus fucking Christ. If you’re gonna be wrong, at least make an effort.

A wise man once said…

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” - George Orwell.

So what you’re saying is, it can’t be possible that it didn’t happen? or better even… didn’t happen to the extent of what is believed? because people said it happened and it is so?

So i’ve heard two sides of the story about the holocaust. The gas chambers and what not.

Ain’t that the truth.


So in other words, you agree that there is ‘an array of different reasons’ for fighting the war, and that the abolitionists had a ‘wide array of reasons and motivations for being abolitionist’.
All I’m pointing out is that North didn’t necessarily care about slavery because of some emotional reasons and sympathy for negroes, but because it was convenient to attack slavery because negroes, if liberated, would be willing to work for very low wages because it would be an improvement over how they have been treated so far.
Aka, they did not care about ending slavery because of reasons you’d like them to have cared, but probably for entirely different reasons unrelated to most today’s leftist emotional moralizing.

Maybe, but tens of millions were also slaughtered because they didn’t agree with Communism under Mao, no?

It is generally considered a bad thing, thus it is a bad thing? Well, I guess it’s true because everyone else thinks so :wink:

Like I said, it is a politically motivated article. What exposes it the best are the positions it takes on race relations as I pointed out in my first post.

Actually the civil war was more about the issue and question of federalism than it was about slavery. Lincoln may not have liked slavery all that much but still said he would have let the south keep their slaves if it meant a unified nation.

So what? Even if you are somehow magically able to speak for every person located north of the Mason-Dixon line 150 years ago that doesn’t change the fact that the war was fought over slavery. The North could have wanted to abolish slavery because they liked the way black babies taste when roasted over a spit, and the South could have done it because they actually believed they were providing a better life for the slaves and cared deeply about their welfare, doesn’t change the fact that one side fought to preserve slavery and the other to abolish it.

No, emphatically NOT “maybe”. Definitely. And yes, tens of millions were slaughtered in the name of Communism (by Mao and others). Therefore the article must be wrong? Your logic is impeccable.

It doesn’t have to have been a bad thing in order to have happened. The whole FUCKING POINT (which you keep missing) is that “it’s a bad thing” and “it’s a good thing” are opinions, BUT regardless of which opinion you hold the fact that it happened is NOT up for debate. i point out that most people consider it a bad thing because that is why some people deny that it happened, in the face of the overwhelming evidence, in order to offend and create controversy. If someone wanted to deny that i drank a cup of coffee this morning, that probably wouldn’t really be very controversial, despite the fact that i have various pieces of evidence for my having drunk the stuff (empty mug, fresh used coffee grinds, a little coffee left over in the pot, smell of coffee on my breath, etc) because my drinking a cup of coffee this morning was a pretty neutral and relatively insignificant event, unlike the Holocaust. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

The point of the article is politically neutral even if the examples cited are not. That is why i posted it. i wasn’t actually interested in arguing in favor of obvious truths like “the Holocaust happened” and “the Civil War was a result of slavery”. i even agree that the example regarding discrimination against blacks was a weak one, but so what? That is not the thesis of the article.


Actually no, it was not “more” about federalism. The question of preserving the union only arose in the first place because of the divide over the issue of slavery.