| Herr Trump you say? on 12:45 - Jan 10 with 1083 views | Herbivore |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:44 - Jan 10 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Well you need it, to a certain extent, I'd have thought. It didn't work in the 1930s but it's not an approach that always fails. It's a balancing act and very difficult to deal with an unhinged loon. Common sense is required. What would you suggest? |
Launch the nukes. Humanity is doomed anyway, we may as well go out with a bang. |  |
|  |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:50 - Jan 10 with 1064 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:45 - Jan 10 by Herbivore |
Launch the nukes. Humanity is doomed anyway, we may as well go out with a bang. |
Haha, well that would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
I'm not an expert, but I imagine these days neither our nukes or there's would reach their destinations? They'd be destroyed shortly after deployment wouldn't they?
The other option is to take out Trump, and his successor, and probably a couple more after that until the majority of America comes to its senses and elects someone sane. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:57 - Jan 10 with 1050 views | GeoffSentence |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:32 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
He isn't there yet but he is probably only one step away and that is a step he has alluded to being ready to take. If he grabs unaccountable power whereby there are no future free and democratic elections he is there isn't he? |
Zelensky has already out the idea in his mind that elections can be suspended during war time. Expect a major military adventure as we get close to November 2028. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:17 - Jan 10 with 992 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:45 - Jan 10 by WeWereZombies |
There is history and there is historiography. What happened is not debatable, it happened,, but we rely upon the writings, the interpretations, of historians to relate that undebatable history. This written record is valuable but we must never use it as an apology for justifying unacceptable actions. Thanks goodness for philosophy and the realisation that truth is subjective...
And for goodness sake please start using capitalisation and more punctuation, as well as some paragraphs. Your ramblings become almost unreadable through this poor form. |
what happened is hugely debatable. we weren't there, the records are at best incomplete, they were written or preserved by participants in events, and they have been filtered, packaged, tweaked and censored by every generation since then. of course there are 'facts' - things for which the evidence is beyond any reasonable dispute. and there are more 'facts' the closer we get to the present - but even then there is lots of 'evidence' which is not beyond reasonable dispute. but 'facts' alone tend to be very dull. what is interesting is the interpretation and the attempt by historians to generalise and link events and draw sweeping stories about intentions and beliefs and the underlying themes of history. all of that is interesting, but entirely subjective and entirely open to debate and challenge by alternative interpretations. meaning, significance, and relevance to today are never 'undebatable'.
like everyone else, i'll write exactly as i choose. [Post edited 10 Jan 13:26]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 10 with 979 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:43 - Jan 10 by leitrimblue |
Your post is well written and gives a fair understanding of the difficulties of understanding and presenting history.
The slight problem I'd have with the post comes with the line 'institutions should be more diverse and should be reflecting multiple competing readings of history not giving dominance to one'. On its own, this sounds like a fair response, and in many historical instances this would be the correct way to present history.
The problem comes when exhibiting something like the history of slavery for example. What would be the competing versions of history in this case?
That slavery didn't happen? That slaves were happy with the situation?
In some cases there just isn't any evidence for accurate competing readings of history however much some people might like there to be. |
that slavery happened and was appalling in terms of the morality of today needs to be shown. understanding how it was justified at the time - by people who saw themselves as moral and decent and good is one thing that should also be shown. an understanding of people in different times doing things we wouldn't do today is intellectually enriching - it makes us aware of our own subjectivity. placing slavery at one point of time in the context of slavery at others times and in other places is also significant. equally interpreting the significance of historical slavery to today is hugely debatable. the long-term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development to get us to today is hugely disputed. a good presentation of slavery should reflect those debates about how we understand its implications today not present only one side of that debate. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:31 - Jan 10 with 984 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:21 - Jan 10 by Pinewoodblue |
I’m sorry but I see things differently.
Trump is only the frontman it is whoever is pulling his strings that is the real villain. Removing Trump isn’t going to make any difference Vance represents a bigger danger as he is more capable of getting the message over to the idiots who will vote for him next Presidential elections. |
Also more likely to be alive in 2 years |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:33 - Jan 10 with 978 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:32 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I'm not sure that is evidencing what you think it is evidencing.
It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is simply a mouthpiece for a wider movement but he appears to act independently of it too. The clip would suggest that as much as anything. |
Trump was a Trojan Horse to get the GOP back into power after Obama. He was never meant to be a long-term solution.
There are even now movements within the GOP by more ‘normal’ Republicans aligned to the Bush family to re-take over the party | | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:41 - Jan 10 with 966 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:57 - Jan 10 by GeoffSentence |
Zelensky has already out the idea in his mind that elections can be suspended during war time. Expect a major military adventure as we get close to November 2028. |
Why wait until 2028, when the mid-terms this year are firmly in his sight.
He’s already screaming he’ll be impeached if they lose those elections which they are predicted to do | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:46 - Jan 10 with 961 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:21 - Jan 10 by Pinewoodblue |
I’m sorry but I see things differently.
Trump is only the frontman it is whoever is pulling his strings that is the real villain. Removing Trump isn’t going to make any difference Vance represents a bigger danger as he is more capable of getting the message over to the idiots who will vote for him next Presidential elections. |
He really doesn’t think does he?
| | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:57 - Jan 10 with 941 views | FoghornGleghorn |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:46 - Jan 10 by ElderGrizzly |
He really doesn’t think does he?
|
Not so much that he doesn't, it's that he can't. He's a fcking idiot. |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:59 - Jan 10 with 935 views | WeWereZombies |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:17 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
what happened is hugely debatable. we weren't there, the records are at best incomplete, they were written or preserved by participants in events, and they have been filtered, packaged, tweaked and censored by every generation since then. of course there are 'facts' - things for which the evidence is beyond any reasonable dispute. and there are more 'facts' the closer we get to the present - but even then there is lots of 'evidence' which is not beyond reasonable dispute. but 'facts' alone tend to be very dull. what is interesting is the interpretation and the attempt by historians to generalise and link events and draw sweeping stories about intentions and beliefs and the underlying themes of history. all of that is interesting, but entirely subjective and entirely open to debate and challenge by alternative interpretations. meaning, significance, and relevance to today are never 'undebatable'.
like everyone else, i'll write exactly as i choose. [Post edited 10 Jan 13:26]
|
Quite an achievement to accept my point, dispute my point and vacillate all at the same time, Well done.
And all whilst your writing style is still poor. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:00 - Jan 10 with 930 views | DJR |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:43 - Jan 10 by leitrimblue |
Your post is well written and gives a fair understanding of the difficulties of understanding and presenting history.
The slight problem I'd have with the post comes with the line 'institutions should be more diverse and should be reflecting multiple competing readings of history not giving dominance to one'. On its own, this sounds like a fair response, and in many historical instances this would be the correct way to present history.
The problem comes when exhibiting something like the history of slavery for example. What would be the competing versions of history in this case?
That slavery didn't happen? That slaves were happy with the situation?
In some cases there just isn't any evidence for accurate competing readings of history however much some people might like there to be. |
Interestingly, it was originally the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who wanted it abolished. |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:09 - Jan 10 with 912 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:57 - Jan 10 by FoghornGleghorn |
Not so much that he doesn't, it's that he can't. He's a fcking idiot. |
Grandpa!!
| | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 17:26 - Jan 10 with 817 views | HarleydavidsonBlue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:08 - Jan 10 by Swansea_Blue |
Luckily they’re not a dictatorship, or at least not yet. But I know what you mean. He’s straight out of the dictator playbook - ‘might is right’, propaganda control, suppression of opposition, disregard for rules and law, expectation of obedience reinforced through ‘might is right’ (deploying federal troops against his own people)’; rinse and repeat.
Luckily the legal system and States are still able to challenge him, but I don’t know for how much longer once he massively expands his Stasi, er I mean ICE. And democracy still holds, but we’ll have to see how he responds when he loses his majority or position.
This re-writing of history is poor of course. I suppose it’s always happened that victors re-write it retrospectively, but it’s both fascinating and chilling to see it happen so brazenly in realtime (see also the counter narratives pumped out by the WH on everything else, most starkly seen this week after the killing of Good). [Post edited 10 Jan 10:09]
|
You mean a bit like starmer ? |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 17:54 - Jan 10 with 782 views | Herbivore |
Sorry, what? | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 18:03 - Jan 10 with 769 views | Camul123 |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:58 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
history is a debate. there are alternative views on how events should be interpreted and their historical significance. that debate is particularly important when it comes to how a nation understands itself and how it produces a shared understanding of where the nation has come from and what holds it together. so at a time of a national anniversary it's particularly important to reflect that debate and the different ways of reading history and explaining the nation. that debate and disagreement should be shown as live and on-going. the criticism of institutions such as the smithsonian is of course that they have been captured by one side in that debate. the state shouldn't be dictating how history is presented by such institutions, but institutions should be more diverse and should be reflecting multiple competing readings of history not giving dominance to one. if they fail to do that they are open to political criticism. equally at the time of a national anniversary the state can decide what form the celebrations take and what story is told - eg how the uk opened the olympics. but something has gone badly wrong is the state dictates the detail of museum exhibitions. |
AI slop.
This site seems to be full of this twaddle. | | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 18:07 - Jan 10 with 762 views | Camul123 |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
that slavery happened and was appalling in terms of the morality of today needs to be shown. understanding how it was justified at the time - by people who saw themselves as moral and decent and good is one thing that should also be shown. an understanding of people in different times doing things we wouldn't do today is intellectually enriching - it makes us aware of our own subjectivity. placing slavery at one point of time in the context of slavery at others times and in other places is also significant. equally interpreting the significance of historical slavery to today is hugely debatable. the long-term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development to get us to today is hugely disputed. a good presentation of slavery should reflect those debates about how we understand its implications today not present only one side of that debate. |
You're white, aren't you? | | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 18:11 - Jan 10 with 750 views | noggin |
| Herr Trump you say? on 18:03 - Jan 10 by Camul123 |
AI slop.
This site seems to be full of this twaddle. |
Hopefully even AI would use a few capital letters. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 18:52 - Jan 10 with 683 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 18:03 - Jan 10 by Camul123 |
AI slop.
This site seems to be full of this twaddle. |
great contribution, thanks. i think your gcse course work may need a little more detail though. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 19:36 - Jan 10 with 653 views | Camul123 |
| Herr Trump you say? on 18:52 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
great contribution, thanks. i think your gcse course work may need a little more detail though. |
Lol, get over yourself. So obvious it hurts.
Obvs I could prog a 2000 word response, but hey ... | | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 23:57 - Jan 10 with 549 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:48 - Jan 10 by LegendofthePhoenix |
Anyone who cannot now see the parallels with Nazi Germany is just blind.
For decades, I and no doubt most others wondered how the nazis managed to do it, how they just hoodwinked ordinary German people with their lies and misinformation. But I think we all thought that in the world of mass communication and instant sharing of images, videos and commentary, that it could never happen again, it was a hugely unfortunate part of history but thankfully something that could never happen again. But here we are.
The truth, it now seems, is what Trump tells us is the truth. Don't let your eyes deceive you, that video of Ms Good was "fake" - it's been doctored by lefties or misinformed lefty commentators are trying to tell us that she wasn't weaponising her vehicle, and the poor ICE officer had to act in self defence. Trump didn't lead people to storm the capitol building. And of course the Chinese or Russians are about to invade Greenland, so it had better come under US sovereignty.
It's so blindingly obvious now that we are in an Orwellian dystopia. It's not the case that it could happen, it already has. The question for us in the UK is what will our government do to stand up to it. It looks like the current answer is very little. I am now feeling very uncomfortable having US military bases in the UK. The words of Trump's administration are simply not the words of an ally, he and his supporters are openly talking about invading Greenland. That's an enemy talking. A fascist dictator. So why are we not standing up to this and closing down US bases on our own soil? |
It's becoming increasingly obvious that the US, Russia and Chiha have agreed a resource carve up and we will all have to suffer the consequences as our so called leaders are impotent. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 23:59 - Jan 10 with 556 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Please do explain your working here. In what ways do these descriptions of unaccountable power, use of force and acting like dictator describe Starmer?
It is perfectly reasonable to take issue with not liking things this government is or isn't doing, but to accuse Starmer of acting like a dictator - please do explain! |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 00:38 - Jan 11 with 531 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
that slavery happened and was appalling in terms of the morality of today needs to be shown. understanding how it was justified at the time - by people who saw themselves as moral and decent and good is one thing that should also be shown. an understanding of people in different times doing things we wouldn't do today is intellectually enriching - it makes us aware of our own subjectivity. placing slavery at one point of time in the context of slavery at others times and in other places is also significant. equally interpreting the significance of historical slavery to today is hugely debatable. the long-term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development to get us to today is hugely disputed. a good presentation of slavery should reflect those debates about how we understand its implications today not present only one side of that debate. |
*doffs cap* | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 09:52 - Jan 11 with 442 views | Xatticus |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
that slavery happened and was appalling in terms of the morality of today needs to be shown. understanding how it was justified at the time - by people who saw themselves as moral and decent and good is one thing that should also be shown. an understanding of people in different times doing things we wouldn't do today is intellectually enriching - it makes us aware of our own subjectivity. placing slavery at one point of time in the context of slavery at others times and in other places is also significant. equally interpreting the significance of historical slavery to today is hugely debatable. the long-term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development to get us to today is hugely disputed. a good presentation of slavery should reflect those debates about how we understand its implications today not present only one side of that debate. |
This is repugnant. The morality of oppression hasn't shifted. What is law and what is permissible has nothing to do with morality. Oppression has never existed simply because people didn't know any better. The abolition of slavery wasn't the result of a shifting public sentiment. A civil war was required in the United States.
Many have fought and sacrificed their lives against various forms of oppression when those forms of oppression were still acceptable under the law of the land. Most of our ancestors lived in deeply oppressive societies and the reclamation of individual rights has been a slow climb with many setbacks.
Nearly everyone perceives themselves as moral, decent, or good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These are not self-ascribed qualities. It's precisely why we have terms for righteous and self-righteous.
Lastly, slavery was never a requisite for economic development. It existed. It wasn't necessary. It serves only to consolidate wealth into the hands of those that benefit from it at the expense of those that don't. If an academic entertains the idea that it was a benefit to economic development, it doesn't legitimize the argument, it just makes said academic sound like a moron. | | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:32 - Jan 11 with 379 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 09:52 - Jan 11 by Xatticus |
This is repugnant. The morality of oppression hasn't shifted. What is law and what is permissible has nothing to do with morality. Oppression has never existed simply because people didn't know any better. The abolition of slavery wasn't the result of a shifting public sentiment. A civil war was required in the United States.
Many have fought and sacrificed their lives against various forms of oppression when those forms of oppression were still acceptable under the law of the land. Most of our ancestors lived in deeply oppressive societies and the reclamation of individual rights has been a slow climb with many setbacks.
Nearly everyone perceives themselves as moral, decent, or good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These are not self-ascribed qualities. It's precisely why we have terms for righteous and self-righteous.
Lastly, slavery was never a requisite for economic development. It existed. It wasn't necessary. It serves only to consolidate wealth into the hands of those that benefit from it at the expense of those that don't. If an academic entertains the idea that it was a benefit to economic development, it doesn't legitimize the argument, it just makes said academic sound like a moron. |
there you go, you're engaging in a debate about how we should interpret history. well done. strength of feeling, very good. use of 'repugnant' and 'moron', nice work you. "If an academic entertains the idea that it was a benefit to economic development, it doesn't legitimize the argument, it just makes said academic sound like a moron." - oh dear. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
