a thread for fatbadger's stupid ramblings

[Easy 10]

All I am suggesting is that people should practice a non-teleological historiography.

Is THAT all ? Tch, why didn't you just say so in the first place then ?







Ummm...what was the middle thing ?

 

[Raphael Meade]

all i am suggesting is that you practice non-up your own arse interactionary

 

[fatbadger]

teleology. For those without an interest in history this is basically a label given to what most would recognise as the way we all learnt history at school - looking at the facts of what happened after the event - naturally with some western bias as that is our culture.

Totally wrong. All history, by definition, involves looking at the facts after the event. Teleology is doing so from a present-minded perspective, seeing what happened solely from the view of where we are now; thus, that which is not seen to have led to the present is ignored.

A non-teleological historiography is one in which the past is discussed in its own context. e.g. discussing going to war in 1939 from the perspective of what those who declared war in 1939 were going to war for.

As for revisionism; as an intellectual approach created in, and taken up by, the British historical profession, it began either as a reaction to the leftist social historians of the 1960s and 1970s (according to some revisionists e.g. John Morrill) or the liberal historians of the late 19th century (according to other revisionists e.g. Conrad Russell and Ronald Hutton). It is expressly rightwing - all of the revisionists I have met and discussed this with are very open about that.

 

[Easy 10]

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

 

[NMH]

Fatbadger you are a top plum there is no doubt about it.

You decided to spread your crap, albeit well argued crap on a thread about remeberance on the 11th Nov so you deserve all the abuse you get.

I wonder why this thread has to have some people descending into rudeness and abuse at all? I am all for complete and utter rudeness in any threads and all that, but it appears there is some bandwagon jumping. Does this thread have to be "the argument thread where we get upset" or can people actively beg to differ and have a debate/discussion without interspersion of abuse, apparently born of frustration?

Ok, I see the bit about the "incredibly reverent armistice day let's have a few minute silence and bow our heads" and fatbadger launched into a new angle - but forfuxsake accept that this is a site for discussion and quit the "you can't say that here I am oh-so shocked now" shite . If rememberance is sacred to you then fair enough - but by the same token why does anyone start a thread wherein everyone has to bloody-well toe their line and say all the things they (or you) decide are right ? GET OVER IT or don't start ANY thread and go away into a corner on your own and have your own cloistered nun/monk immitation like your tongue has been cut out, and STAY COMPLETELY REVERENT in that exact fashion. Why would anyone mock that way to pay your respects if that's the way you pray ? I'm not being facile here either, if you want to find your way to be reverent, why expect everyone to do it 'your way or the highway'?

The organisation of human social (and antisocial) behaviour is underlined as frustrating and destined to repeat . When death and destruction is the result, it is understandable that some people do NOT want to dumbly fall into place ready for the next destined day of mourning.

Ok, so maybe TOMORROW is the right time to talk about it ......if you want to wait, then you go ahead and wait. If you wanted to wait, then you shouldn't be arguing the points today anyway - so settle down and discuss - aka 'shit or get off the pot' - but ferchrissakes find out what you want to do today and get on with it without all this complaint and boitchy bolshy-ness.

The alternative is to say, at the start of a thread; "I insist you do not introduce any form of free speech unless it conforms with mine, and I have sacred social formula that backs me up".
This sort-of reminds me of the 'Royal Family - yes or no' type of threads, where doctrine is the foundation that shouldn't be shaken, but yet it's invited to do so !

Have a site where religion, politics, social mores and behaviour is discussed - don't decide to get upset when all posters do not have exactly the same opinion .

(burp) thankyou.

 

[NMH]

Shut it NMH you wanker !


oops, I just realised I am actually 'NMH'..... ignore that last remark then.

 

[Brovion]

I actually agree with a lot of what fatbadger says - and not just on this thread. You can also see examples of what he says in popular culture, the 'Dambusters' film for example has been bowlderised to remove the word '******' because modern audiences find it offensive. The fact that it was the name of Gibson's dog and the code word for a successful attack is irrelevant to modern 'revisionists'.