That tendency of systems is precisely why I’m skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Advanced and improved are vague terms. 1) Are the systems today better for the common man? And if so, how?
2) If it takes 400 years, then it’s largely irrelevant to anyone concerned with systemic change within their own lifetime.
That tendency of systems is precisely why I’m skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Systems endure until they don’t. A system with a long history tends to have a more entrenched position and a wider base of supporters.
Advanced and improved are vague terms
If you want a full categorical break down of 400 years of economic plans and conglomerated practices, I might point you to your local university and advise you to pick up any number of lectures on the subject.
But if you’re just going to “Nuh-uh” everything since the Dutch East India Company incorporated…
Systems endure until they don’t. A system with a long history tends to have a more entrenched position and a wider base of supporters.
Or rather, until they give way to another system that exploits the masses for the elite. In reality, systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has never occured in history. It was there through the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and even today in the 21st century.
The form it takes changing is irrelevant since the exploitation of masses itself never stopped.
It doesn’t matter if the name it’s given or how it happens changes.
If you want a full categorical break down of 400 years of economic plans and conglomerated practices, I might point you to your local university and advise you to pick up any number of lectures on the subject.
But if you’re just going to “Nuh-uh” everything since the Dutch East India Company incorporated…
What a roundabout non-answer.
Asking you to specify how the systems have improved specifically w.r.t. the common man (which I don’t believe they have) doesn’t require university lectures if you had a concrete answer.
I’m not “nuh-uh”-ing everything, I’m looking for reason for common beliefs people hold that, as far as I’ve seen so far, have been nothing but just vibes and values. In reality, those claims (eg: “systemic change is real and has happened!”) have been historically inaccurate and anachronistic, if not simply straight-up false.
In reality, systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has never occured in history.
That requires a very slanted and cynical view of history. “Don’t trust anyone, they’re all just trying to oppress you. You should be trying to oppress them instead.” is the sort of toxic machismo that gets you Hegseth and Rubio butchering people the globe over while liberals shrug in apathy.
The form it takes changing is irrelevant
Sure, that’s the propaganda you get from fascist media. Ultra-nationalism is rooted in the belief that we’re in a perpetual race war and the only open question is whether your race is ascendent. Internationalism is fake. Egalitarian political movements are (((controlled))) from the shadows. Intersectionality is impossible. Only brutal totalitarian hierarchy has ever existed - can ever exist - so you might as well submit to the boot on your neck with the promise that you’ll have the opportunity to stomp someone else’s neck down the road.
What a roundabout non-answer.
You’ve pickled your brain on fascist ideology so badly that you’ve lost the ability to read anything you disagree with.
That requires a very slanted and cynical view of history. “Don’t trust anyone, they’re all just trying to oppress you. You should be trying to oppress them instead.” is the sort of toxic machismo that gets you Hegseth and Rubio butchering people the globe over while liberals shrug in apathy.
This isn’t an argument. If you think systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has indeed occurred, give me examples.
Sure, that’s the propaganda you get from fascist media. Ultra-nationalism is rooted in the belief that we’re in a perpetual race war and the only open question is whether your race is ascendent. Internationalism is fake. Egalitarian political movements are (((controlled))) from the shadows. Intersectionality is impossible. Only brutal totalitarian hierarchy has ever existed - can ever exist - so you might as well submit to the boot on your neck with the promise that you’ll have the opportunity to stomp someone else’s neck down the road.
More of the same. Labelling it propaganda isn’t an argument. Again, if systems have actually improved, demonstrate how. If you can’t, all of this is just elaborate mumbo-jumbo.
Ultranationalism would exist even without such a belief. I don’t believe egalitarian political movements have done much, not that they’re “controlled from the shadows”; the world is regressing. The US and EU are actively becoming more fascist. Authoritarian hierarchies are pretty much all that have existed in the histories of countries. The only places they didn’t are in places like aboriginal tribes and primitive set ups such as those, unfortunately.
If it has existed at the country level, then let me know. If it hasn’t existed, then I’m not going to believe in an abstraction of “potential”— I believe in whats been empirically confirmed and only what has been empirically confirmed.
You’ve pickled your brain on fascist ideology so badly that you’ve lost the ability to read anything you disagree with.
That tendency of systems is precisely why I’m skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Advanced and improved are vague terms. 1) Are the systems today better for the common man? And if so, how? 2) If it takes 400 years, then it’s largely irrelevant to anyone concerned with systemic change within their own lifetime.
Systems endure until they don’t. A system with a long history tends to have a more entrenched position and a wider base of supporters.
If you want a full categorical break down of 400 years of economic plans and conglomerated practices, I might point you to your local university and advise you to pick up any number of lectures on the subject.
But if you’re just going to “Nuh-uh” everything since the Dutch East India Company incorporated…
Or rather, until they give way to another system that exploits the masses for the elite. In reality, systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has never occured in history. It was there through the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and even today in the 21st century.
The form it takes changing is irrelevant since the exploitation of masses itself never stopped.
It doesn’t matter if the name it’s given or how it happens changes.
What a roundabout non-answer.
Asking you to specify how the systems have improved specifically w.r.t. the common man (which I don’t believe they have) doesn’t require university lectures if you had a concrete answer.
I’m not “nuh-uh”-ing everything, I’m looking for reason for common beliefs people hold that, as far as I’ve seen so far, have been nothing but just vibes and values. In reality, those claims (eg: “systemic change is real and has happened!”) have been historically inaccurate and anachronistic, if not simply straight-up false.
That requires a very slanted and cynical view of history. “Don’t trust anyone, they’re all just trying to oppress you. You should be trying to oppress them instead.” is the sort of toxic machismo that gets you Hegseth and Rubio butchering people the globe over while liberals shrug in apathy.
Sure, that’s the propaganda you get from fascist media. Ultra-nationalism is rooted in the belief that we’re in a perpetual race war and the only open question is whether your race is ascendent. Internationalism is fake. Egalitarian political movements are (((controlled))) from the shadows. Intersectionality is impossible. Only brutal totalitarian hierarchy has ever existed - can ever exist - so you might as well submit to the boot on your neck with the promise that you’ll have the opportunity to stomp someone else’s neck down the road.
You’ve pickled your brain on fascist ideology so badly that you’ve lost the ability to read anything you disagree with.
This isn’t an argument. If you think systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has indeed occurred, give me examples.
More of the same. Labelling it propaganda isn’t an argument. Again, if systems have actually improved, demonstrate how. If you can’t, all of this is just elaborate mumbo-jumbo.
Ultranationalism would exist even without such a belief. I don’t believe egalitarian political movements have done much, not that they’re “controlled from the shadows”; the world is regressing. The US and EU are actively becoming more fascist. Authoritarian hierarchies are pretty much all that have existed in the histories of countries. The only places they didn’t are in places like aboriginal tribes and primitive set ups such as those, unfortunately.
If it has existed at the country level, then let me know. If it hasn’t existed, then I’m not going to believe in an abstraction of “potential”— I believe in whats been empirically confirmed and only what has been empirically confirmed.
Ad hominem.
It is. You just don’t like reading it.
So you’re plugging your ears and spitting out logical fallacies without understanding them in the slightest.
You clearly didn’t read anything I said.
And no, actually, you were attacking me instead of my argument. Thus, ad hominem.
I don’t suddenly “miscomprehend” logical fallacies just because you claim so.
I haven’t seen any evidence to support this claim