How is being on the "right side of history" determined?

>>1566480
Not on my side = Wrong side of history

>>1566480
I've noticed this phrase pop up more and more, just a libtard meme.

>>1566480
It's just the liberals way of calling opposition primitive and stupid

File: image.jpg (59KB, 536x274px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 536x274px

They're just buzzwords. Leftists consider anyone who disagrees for any reason to be a backwards bigot and therefore not part of the left's new shitstorm of policies and ideas to be "on the right side of history"

>>1566480
It's a coward's cop-out.

Depending on how it's used it can mean one of two things.

>I can't defeat you now so I will do nothing and let future generations decide that you were wrong and I was right.

>I have already won and should stop fighting now because I will ensure that future generations look down on you.

It's a phrase I can't fucking stand because these people act as if history were predetermined and that there can even be a "right and wrong" side of history. History is what happened as best we know.

If the Nazis won the war would that mean they were on the right side of history?

>>1566480
It's just a buzzword that leftists use to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

>A man wants to place his country first
Leftist response
>lololololol what is this da dark ages wrong side of history pal

>>1566480
>How is being on the "right side of history" determined?

It's determined by future generations. When people say that they are saying they predict that history will look back on them as being on the side of progress, as opposed to holding back progress. It's not an inherently stupid thing to say, but many of these predictions are dubious.

>>1566480
They are attempting an assumption that they will win, and be remembered as 'right', in order to weaken the other sides foundation through fear of losing. Because they fear losing.

The trick is to know being 'correct' is not decided by the outcome of a battle, and to know that the aim isn't to win, its to be correct. And that you should risk losing for the sake of this, only then will you win.

Mind you, that doesn't make you actually correct either, I'm just outlining the fallacy.

Some people percieve liberalisation to be a linear thing historically and also, conflate, in a weird way, scientific progress and liberalisation (which does have a certain degree of correlation, perhaps even causation, but not nearly to the extent these people believe) and as such any person that wants to preserve the status quo of act against what is percieved as an increase in liberalisation gets marked as being on "the wrong side of history".

Ever claiming to be on "the right side of history" or claiming to know what that is, makes you a despicable human being.


I can't even fathom what kind of person would do such a thing to be honest. You must think really really highly of yourself to feel comfortable making such judgements.

>>1566480
>How is being on the "right side of history" determined?

Going by the last few billion years, the right side generally has higher entropy or higher energy rate density.

>>1566915
>STEM idiot tries to understand human society.jpg

>>1566843
Except these so called liberals only want liberties in some very limited points and not in others, and often they want mowe control, more repression, less liberty. making them the same as say, a religious conservative.

>>1566947
>Humanities fag misses the joke or attempts to make a shitty one

>>1566956
that's what you get when you meme entire politics into two camps

THANKS AMERICA

>>1566947

>butthurt non-STEMfag doesn't get joke, so proceeds to be butthurt as usual

STEMfags really are masterrace