101
What's the most wild and out-there hopium/copium take you've ever heard from a liberal? The more absurd, the better. Give me your biggest whoppers. (hexbear.net)
submitted 3 years ago* by to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Mine's a tie between a near future and a not so near future sci-fantasy bazinga take:

so-true "Self-driving cars are the key to a post-scarcity future!" (when asked how the fuck that conclusion was drawn, I was told "do the research.")

so-true "Even if climate change is proven to actually be a problem, climate doesn't matter in space. We can have fully sustainable cattle farms in orbit producing as much meat as we need. Elon Musk." (yes, that bazinga fuck actually said "Elon Musk" at the end of that claim like it somehow stamped a seal upon the rest of the take)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 3 years ago (2 children)

The "Can't judge history by modern standards" take is asinine because new information frequently alters or outright negates old information. Asbestos was once regarded as safe for use as insulation, for instance, but as time went on it was determined that it caused mesothelioma. As a consequence, asbestos is no longer regarded as safe by most.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's also a weird sort of historical revisionism because it implicitly assumes that people in the past were one homogeneous blob which all shared in the identical set of moral standards.

    Like, at which point in time did everyone unanimously agree upon moral standards again? Remind me.

    Not to mention the fact that it's inherently classist and racist; it might have been considered "moral" to incite pogroms against Jewish people in European history but... that's only according to the people who held the most influential positions in politics and philosophy. You can't tell me that the family of Jewish people who had to flee their village because they risked getting lynched were like:

    "This is a terrible tragedy that has befallen us and we have lost everything. However it should be noted that, on the other hand, it is entirely morally-justified."

    So when people talk about the moral standards of history, they're talking about the moral standards of those who held hegemonic power over society (and that basically means wealthy white men) to the exclusion of everyone else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    This is the thing I always bring up in these arguments. Like, yes, most slave owners thought slavery was cool but I’m pretty sure most of the slaves disagreed. It’s a really chauvinist viewpoint that disregards most of the people living in the period being discussed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent