[streetfighter64]

> Would I have been part of the coup in Russia during that time?

Well, let's just think logically. Do I today have the time, energy and inclination to be a part of a group of radicals plotting a coup? No. If I lived in Russia in the early 1900s would I have had that? No.

Sure, it's possible to say that if "I" lived then I would have had an entirely different childhood, but that's not how hypothetical scenarios work. What would the concept of "I" even mean? Would I have to account for different genes as well? Would I have to account for "me" being an entirely different person? You quickly get into a meaningless philosophical conundrum where nothing means anything and the only thing you can know is "cogito ergo sum" .

[dijit]

You might find that energy if the alternative is starvation, pestilince and war because a weak king was living in luxury.

You will never know, because you are ignorant to that situation, which is totally fine. Understanding your own ignorance is not a weakness, its a strength- it allows you to be open enough understand other peoples convictions and what confluence of actions may motivated them.

However you’re having a hard time with me specifically because you believe that because you are on the “right side” (an in-group bias more than actual convictions) today, that those values and motivations have always been the right side despite the benefits and biases of hindsight.

Every bigoted person in history genuinely believes they are right, they are righteous - and if only they could push the world to understanding or force people to live by those values, that it would be a better place.

To be clear, I am calling you ignorant and bigoted, because you claim to understand the value system of a person born in the 18th century while uou exist based on a comfortable, peaceful, plentiful life never knowing their environment, conditions, familial ties, how they thought about the world outside, technology or even their own tribal assertions.

Pure. fucking. ignorance.

[streetfighter64]

Funny. Every bigoted person in history drank water too. Every non-bigoted person also believes they are right. Tell me, who would do something they believe is wrong?

I have no idea where you're getting that I'm trying to "force others to live according to those values" or whatever. Seems like you're fighting your own windmills rater than me. Chill out with the name calling and swearing, you're really just coming of as a bit deranged.

[dijit]

Honestly mate, I'm just tired.

I tried to explain that even people living contemporary lives can be completely out of touch with one another (it's why rich people become so unrelatable that we get memes about "how much can a banana cost, like $10") and so imagining what life was like 100 years ago, or 100 years from now, is for all intents and purposes impossible. You went off about understanding individual single differences, which totally misses the point: it's the confluence of those differences in their totality that constitutes an environment, and environments shape opinion.

I wasn't alive before Hitler. I can't imagine what it's like to not have a figure like him in my history, along with the collective lessons we took from two world wars. As a consequence of those wars, European war to me may as well be as far removed as the US civil war or the English Wars of the Roses, except for one thing: I got to speak to someone who lived it, briefly.

My brain can't really picture Europe at war (I've seen movies, but even modern combat movies aren't accurate and sell 1% of the reality). I've only ever seen peace, the longest peace Western Europe has known. That's my entire reality, and it's as different from my ancestors' as theirs was from anyone's before them: a completely different understanding of history and what that might mean next, and totally different access to information and to opposing ideas from people as far away as the other side of the planet. Fog of the future.. right? https://youtu.be/NVGuFdX5guE?t=166 Everything is obvious in hindsight.

Being called a nazi sympathiser for admitting I can't know this (by people who are certain they do) is what I find hard. If you're resolute that you're right, and that you needn't consider the totality of a situation before assuming someone's motives, then you can look coldly at what you believe and judge people on that one aspect alone.

It's a closed loop. If the challenging arguments are the ones you won't engage with, you'll never meet one that moves you.

I'd rather ask myself "what if I'm wrong" and see whether I can attack my own position... maybe the other person has context I don't, or paints a different picture with the same facts. That's usually the more interesting conversation.

Anyway. I'm sorry I called you names. I was trying to shame you into seeing it, which was never going to work and was wrong of me regardless.