John wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:49 pm
Where did I rewrite history?
Hmm. The short answer is covered above, which is a problem. You didn’t understand the above posts. Jefferson Davis led the rural racist faction in his insurrection. Donald Trump led the rural racist faction in his. Somewhere between the two, the parties clearly switched positions on the question of race. I pointed out when. Then again, I have pointed this out many times and you have been incapable of verifying it and learning every time.
I could expand using my various “Liar John” posts. Above each, you have disregarded history, rewritten it to avoid discrediting your worldview or to disparage conflicting worldviews.
Which makes me want to concentrate on what a worldview is. While there are more than three types of worldview, I will concentrate on three: religious, political and scientific. I have ‘debated’ with folks who advocated all three.
The classic examples might include fundamental evangelism and the belief that the Bible is literally true. This should be put into question if the Bible contradicts itself, which it of course does. It reflects the evolution of Jewish culture and early Christianity. The Jews grew in that time. Of course their older philosophies contradicted the newer. And yet, the evangelicals cherry picked among the contradictory ideas to justify what they wanted to believe. Any contradiction is ignored and disregarded.
Given a theory of how things supposedly are, they will defend the theory and disregard facts which contradict the theory.
A political example might be Communism. The theory establishes certain classes will vie against each other, but does not predict that the revolutionaries will male the Communist Party a new elite class. I repeatedly pointed out that Communism would remain an obscure obsolete theory if that flaw is not addressed. The response was to repeat the theory louder, to disregard an historically demonstrable trend. Repeating the worldview louder is somehow a replacement for paying attention to the facts and updating the theory. As long as this is the case, the theory remains anathema.
Again, if the facts contradict the theory, you defend the theory and disregard any facts that get in the way.
Scientific worldview? If the theory contradicts the facts you label the theory questionable and look intensely at the facts that disprove the theory. How better to come up with a new theory? The distinction between the scientific approach and the religious or political is in clinging to a theory or perspective when a contradiction arises rather than developing a new theory.
Thus, this remains a propaganda site. It exists to perpetuate an existing theory rather than investigate history. I am not sure how this can be corrected. Humans cling to existing perspectives rather than updating them. Facts which contradict an existing perspective are ignored. In any given crisis, you find a conservative faction that does not want to correct the problem that brought about the crisis in the first place. As a result, the stay the same faction, offering no solution to the problem, seems to lose. Don’t cure Covid? Don’t check systematic racism? Don’t respect the environment. Let the bridges fall? To some degree you can recognize a desire for independence and acknowledge that the problems are more clearly visible in urban areas. Still, you aren’t going to come out ahead in a crisis by ignoring the problems of the crisis.
Jefferson Davis’s insurrection involved the Democratic Party, the rural racist faction, bullets, and rebelling against the United States constitution. Donald Trump’s insurrection involved the Republican Party, the rural racist faction, lies, and rebelling against the United States constitution. If you cannot recognized that the parties changed policies over the centuries, you have a problem.
