this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
73 points (91.0% liked)

History

23333 readers
31 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

what happened here?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 94 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

"Reason" isn't something with extremes, normally. Events are events, the truth is in the evidence. Interpretations of the evidence can vary, but truth doesn't vary. There's nothing about being in the "middle" of two positions on what happened in a historical event that makes the median stance any more or less accurate than the stances themselves.

As an example, Iraq with WMD. The US line was that Iraq had WMD, the Iraqi line was that they didn't. The Iraqi line was 100% correct and the US line was 100% fabrication.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

But what if they 50% had them and 50% didn't? Did you consider that?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 weeks ago

Schrodingers WMD

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

But what if the extremes of reason are the start and the end, and the correct position is in the middle of that

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I mean, the correct stance need not be bound to abstract spatial relations of stances