politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Please read the entire thread.
Maeve said that history wasn't people, it was an inevitable process. I pointed out that they were making history into G*d.
There's a difference between history being people and history being Great Men tm. They are including people in material reality and saying that material reality is what creates the basis for the procession of history, not the appearance of great individuals who stand outside it and move it unilaterally.
I don't understand why people are even arguing against this. It's widely understood even in popular liberal academia that Great Man Theory is primitive, idealist, childish, and absurd and that you need to look at material circumstances, class interests, popular movements, and so on to understand why things happen.
That isn't what happened at all, by the way.
I said history is the course of physical reality, not Maeve, Maeve merely added on because you weren't making any sense
Humans and their actions are a part of physical reality, I did not at any point say otherwise
I was not making history into god, nor saying it was an "inevitable process."
What did happen, was I was pointing out how you follow Great Man Theory even if unintentionally, which I firmly reject as idealist, and instead was trying to explain Historical Materialism. You then went off on a million tangents and never grasped what I was saying, making it useless to continue.
So, you know a lot about history, but were amazed to find out about the 90% tax rates?
I suggest you forget about unprovable theories and concentrate on the facts that did occur.
No. You said we could have 90% tax rates tomorrow if we voted for it, I asked when that was on the ballot. You then went on and spoke about Eisenhower, a long dead President. This is more Great Man Theory, ie you believe the 90% tax rate was because of Eisenhower, and not because the greater political context at the time required concessions. Eisenhower was president right after WWII, where the US was becoming a superpower. If Eisenhower was President today, he would not make a 90% tax rate.
What you can vote for is limited by the context of the political environment, not random heroes influencing history.
Again, what on Earth are you talking about? If I throw a rock right now, do you think it will never land? Events have context, they are not random, chaotic people making big moves.
I'm disengaging, you clearly aren't operating in any kind of good faith.
I don't feel like you were ever actually engaged.
If you were, you would have noticed that I never said I believed in the 'Great Man Theory,' just that I believed that there are no solid rules in history and that people make their own choices. One civilization creates the wheel and another does not. One island nation isolates itself and another builds a giant navy.
Citation needed.
To which I pointed out how this was Great Man Theory by saying:
That's it. The 90% tax rate wasn't because of Eisenhower, but because of America emerging as the dominant superpower after WWII. What changes people can and do make depends on the context of their current conditions and what brought them there. Reagan wasn't a random wreckingball, he personally pulled the trigger but he couldn't have done so at any other point of time because Capitalism was doing much better under Eisenhower, and had naturally decayed.
There.
"Every great leader is born already possessing certain traits that will enable them to rise and lead on instinct".
"The need for them has to be great for these traits to then arise, allowing them to lead."
From the article you provided.
I never said Carter or Reagan had special traits, I just used their names as a placeholder for their administrations.
I never said that there was a giant need, they were both elected as part of the regular election cycle.
So again, you are proven wrong by your own article.
I am not proven wrong, the frame of your analysis necessitated the rest of the theory.
Why do you believe Reagan was elected?
Moving the goal posts again?
I never explicitly or implicitly endorsed the Great Man Theory. You were unable to show I did.
Adios
I outright proved it, lol.
Adios.
Why did you need to move the goal posts? If you'd proven your point you'd have shown where I was wrong. You couldn't, so you tried a different approach.
That's the funny thing about you. You keep shooting yourself in the foot and call it a win.
edit =by your 'logic' any historian who talks about a particular leader/inventor/general believes in the Great Man theory.
I thought you said "Adios?"
I proved it by illustrating your portrayal of history as important people doing important things, then I contextualized why they happened. Asking you why you believe events happen isn't "moving the goal posts," it's the entire point of this conversation. If you truly reject Great Man Theory, then give an explanation for why Reagan was elected that rejects Great Man Theory.
You're right.
I should have stopped responding to you several messages ago.