Name one time in history angry white men weren't wrong, in retrospect, about basically everything?

Name one time in history angry white men weren't wrong, in retrospect, about basically everything?

If you're the typical Sup Forums-poster, demographically and by temperament, you'd have been... against gay equality, for segregation, against women's equality, for colonialism, against popular democracy, against equality under the law, for absolute monarchy... depending on the time/place.

I'm sure you think your arguments make sense, but if people who are so much like you have always found themselves on the wrong side of history, what makes you think things have suddenly changed; that you're the one exception?

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalists.org/pdf/hitler/manifesto-for-abolition-enslavement-interest-on-money-gottfried-feder.pdf
www2.uned.es/personal/rosuna/resources/papers/Nyborg sex differences.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>implying that because mob rule decided not to pursue those policies that they are now objectively "wrong".
fucking lefties and their hive-minded groupthink man. would it kill you people to have some sort of individuality or backbone?

So at what point in the past would you like to roll society back to then, if it was better than now?

If the core of 'convervativism' is to keep things the same, then that seems to imply any point in the past would be improvement on the way things are now, since all the 'progress' was by-definition bad.

>Name one time in history angry white men weren't wrong, in retrospect, about basically everything?

One time they weren't wrong? Do you have a lifetime to listen? How about blacks, muslims, women, I mean hell, I could get into the specifics, but it'd take to long, and we both have lives to live, one good, one (((you))) bad, so why waste the time? Suffice to say, we've been right for along time, on many issues.

i think you take a very 1 dimensional, concrete view of things that neglects the nuance and complexity of life, politics and social values.
i was actually a flaming liberal back in the 90s, for example, and the early 2000s as well, but things began to change for the worse in a big way, and i began to realize that our cultural heritage, our traditional values and our old ways of doing things were actually important and vastly superior to the new way. that doesn't mean i want things to exist in a static state for all eternity and always remain the same. i would like for things to be "better" but i've learned that people changing our society willy nilly with no regard for the consequences is actually a FUCKING horrible thing and i've learned that change needs to be slow, deliberate, tempered and responsible. it also needs to go in the direction of the libertarian right but that's another discussion altogether i suppose.

what are your thoughts on cultural appropriation, oh shitlord? Should whites be forbidden to use anything attached to other cultures?

Too bad white men have literally been right about everything. We just stopped listening.

I feel you man. I was never liberal, but did start out my adult years as libertarian. Unfortunately, the big L Libertarian Party in the US is just as fucked up as the big D Demonic Party. Happy to see the current changes in the Republican Party nowadays. Not perfect, but better than the establishment.

I didn't think you would answer, you fucking faggot.

i wanted really badly to vote for the libertarian party in this election but they are just SO fucked up and hopeless and the whole open borders thing is basically the worst idea ever conceived of. it's like they've become a part of people who don't want to create a free society at all, but just want to use the concept of "freedom" as a PR tool to sell policies that will ultimately destroy the US and turn us into a third world totalitarian shithole.

Parking your current hysteria about muslims, since we'd need more historical distance to judge...

What, specially, would you like to un-do about society's treatment of women and blacks?

I tend to agree by natural sympathy that a lot of 'progress' doesn't seem like a good thing at the moment, but my point about history remains, and causes me to second-guess myself, something Sup Forums seems incapable of.

p.s. I'm obviously not a far-lefty since I'm posting here, but this place has become such an echo-chamber nobody actually has to defend their positions from thoughtful criticism: Here's your chance.

I find the more I think about any topic, arguing both sides with myself, and trying to 'steel man' the position I'm against, the more I get pushed toward the middle.

...

>implying segregation was wrong

I'm arguing by analogy: if the left is against 'cultural appropriation', and the left always seems to get their way, then it seems inevitable. And since everything the left accomplished in the past is broadly accepted as good in retrospect, then it equally stands to reason that being against cultural appropriation is good.

I actually find this logic pretty scary; I'm honestly hoping someone can point out the flaw because I'm not seeing it, unless you're proposing we're at some 'end of history' moment where the normal rules no longer apply.

dude history moving in one direction for the past couple hundred years doesn't prove that your ideas are "good". when the sun goes super nova and consumes earth and all life is wiped off of it is that going to be good? of course not. and the point is that just because something happens it doesn't mean it's "good".
the issue is that the government in this nation has gotten out of control. we should have used our government for borders and military. i'm not even 100% sold on the idea of the federal or state government having anything to do with the police force. that sounds REALLY radical now but back in the 90's it wasn't actually that radical of an idea as a lot of right-wingers wanted to abolish the corrupt militarized police and rely on local militias to keep order.

even if you add a police force in though, nothing else. no income taxes. no welfare state. no regulations or subsidies that turn us into corporate slaves. no drug laws. nothing we should have been free and self-determinative the way we were intended to be by the founding fathers.

now obviously i'm not really expecting us to go back to what we were when we were founded, but i think we need to move immensely back in that direction if we're to remain free, sustainable, strong and independent. government is too inherently corrupt. we as a human race need to minimize our dependence upon it IMO.

Are you brain dead? Thank the universe for white men, most everything which makes your life comfortable was created/invented/patented by White men

oh and naturally some roads and infrastructure are good but that is and has always been a miniscule part of public spending

>dude history moving in one direction for the past couple hundred years doesn't prove that your ideas are "good"

OK, then as I've asked a couple times: what specific example can you provide of something (with enough historical distance to judge) where 'progress' (in the political sense) was a bad thing?

If you hate White men so much get the fuck out of their countries.

yeah also OP it is true that your hated "white men" did create this civilization and all of the values through which you can use as a lens to look at the past and judge them. i mean look native american culture, or african culture, or latin american culture before whites got there. nothing but slavery, human sacrifices, authoritarianism, militarism, warfare, rape, child fucking, misogyny and all sorts of other horrible things. you wouldn't really want to go back to that, honestly. so saying "white men are bad" when they literally built the world that was free of those things is pretty off the mark IMO.

...

White men were wrong when they let you have access to the internet they created

>against gay equality, for segregation, against women's equality, for colonialism, against popular democracy, against equality under the law, for absolute monarchy
These are all good things. Egalitarianism will be our downfall.

>wrong side of history
History is written by the winners. After the downfall of liberalism and egality the history will be rewritten as it always has been.

... WHITE MEN WERE RIGHT ABOUT ALL THOSE THINGS YOU LISTED~!

I challenge you to list one time white men got angry and they WERE wrong.

It's not quite that simple. If you had taken "the left" and its positions in the 70's (for example) and did a straight-line projection into the future, you'd probably predict that they would gradually merge with some flavor of Marxism. Quite the opposite happened; by the 1990's, they were embracing free-trade neoliberalism.

The ideologies of the future won't really be connected to the past in that sort of fashion. They will be politically-useful to people in power at a given point in time. It certainly looks like we're heading toward some kind of economic neofeudalism, so I would expect tomorrow's "left" to serve the interests of the future's techno-oligarchs. If "cultural appropriation" is useful to those oligarchs, it will become quasi-state ideology. If not, it will be abandoned.

You are perhaps not being cynical enough about the nature of power as a structural explanation for the nature of things in general.

ok sure bro. well our change in our immigration process for one thing was a bad thing. its great to try to help other people but we need to have our own sovereignty and we needed to maintain our own freedom loving people in this land.
another problem was expanding the right to vote the way we did. should have kept it just for men. women are not biologically programmed to make responsible decisions for the society as a whole. it's never been in their division of labor in nature. so why start now when its not in their minds or souls to think in that way?

it's hard when you say "name a golden age in history", i don't think there's been a golden age in history. there were certain policies and ideas and things that worked really good. and a lot of those policies we abolished and went in a wrong direction with. that's kind of the issue with your question. i mean you're saying "name a golden age in history" and i don't think there's ever been one but that certainly doesn't justify random bad policies that we've enacted now that have only made our situation worse.

Re: protectionism vs. neo-liberalism, there didn't seem to be much left-v-right political division in West the past century: almost everyone was a free-trader until the depression, then a protectionist until it started to fail in the 70s, then everyone became a neoliberal until it recently seemed to be failing, and suddenly both sides are drifting toward protectionism again...

In any case, I'm talking specifically about the sort of things that stir up disaffected conservative-minded white men. Those tense to be social issues not economic. On those issues it's really hard to avoid the historical precedent: that they're always wrong, and broadly judged to have been so by even the contemporary right.

So basically being against everything that was against our interests. There is no right or wrong to it. All of these things simply are not to our advantage and did not benefit us in anyway shape or form. Most of them are quite harmful to us. So of course we would oppose them. Why wouldn't we? Simple logic.

>another problem was expanding the right to vote the way we did. should have kept it just for men. women are not biologically programmed to make responsible decisions for the society as a whole. it's never been in their division of labor in nature. so why start now when its not in their minds or souls to think in that way?

The one on-point "argument" in this thread, and even if you're not trolling you'd have to go to the ultra-ultra-ultra-fringe of the far-far-right in the West to find anyone who agrees with you. Yet a hundred or so years ago your (Sup Forums's) contemporaries would have nodded in agreement about the wisdom of denying women the vote.

>another problem was expanding the right to vote the way we did. should have kept it just for men. women are not biologically programmed to make responsible decisions for the society as a whole.

I don't buy that. Women biologically are nurturers. What benefits society more than nurturing?

That makes perfect sense, but you're abandoning any moral argument; that the right isn't 'right'(correct) in normative terms, but simply defending its material interests amorally.

That's a coherent and honest position, but again not one anyone but on the ultra-fringe makes.

"Social issues" are not top-down constructs. They are functions of the general structure of society. In modern western economies, the urbanization process and then the emergence of "services" as a broad economic category led to the prioritization of "the individual" as an economic unit. If you look at areas of the US which are more "traditional," socially, they tend to have much stronger familial and cultural bonds which create their own internal norms aside from economic hyperindividualism - Mormons, Amish, etc.

However, we are gradually reaching the limits of the cult of the individual in the US as the system as a whole loses stability. A lot of that is demographic in nature - history shows us that factional nations have challenges staying unified. One of the grandest "leftist" values of modern times is the non-existence/interchangeability of race and ethnic groups, which is something that is straining against biosocial reality.

And when you say "things that worked really good," the question is, "worked" for whom? Leftists advocated for the relaxation of family norms, for example, making it more acceptable to be a single mother. How did that "work" for the black population? Would you really say that the black family "won" anything compared to the 1950's other than fewer dads and higher murder rates?

I don't think white men are inherently bad they are just the last people to oppose these things because they are the ones losing power. I suspect it would be the same for any other demographic if they were in power.

But it is definitely a sign that we are on the brink of some social advancement if White Men are the last people opposed to it.

>And when you say "things that worked really good," the question is, "worked" for whom? Leftists advocated for the relaxation of family norms, for example, making it more acceptable to be a single mother. How did that "work" for the black population? Would you really say that the black family "won" anything compared to the 1950's other than fewer dads and higher murder rates?

This is the possible exception that jumps out at me as well: the breakdown of the nuclear family unit having both broadly negative consequences, and being widely lamented.

But the 'progressives' never called for the break up of the family and an end to stable marriages. It's in fact those who are most liberal in society who get married and stay married at the highest rates.

I think almost everyone would consider divorce as something that's allowable, in retrospect, as a good thing (people shouldn't be trapped in bad relationships); that doesn't mean they think people shouldn't get and try to stay together.

What's pushed people at the economic margins out of getting marriage is (obviously) overwhelmingly if not wholly economic.

And when you say "things that worked really good," the question is, "worked" for whom? Leftists advocated for the relaxation of family norms, for example, making it more acceptable to be a single mother. How did that "work" for the black population? Would you really say that the black family "won" anything compared to the 1950's other than fewer dads and higher murder rates?

You honestly think black men shooting each other and abandoning their children was caused by leftists saying it is okay to be a single mother?

What's the Left? The left accomplished communism, was that good in retrospect?
I guess you're confusing "the left" with some natural enlightenment of civilized societies.
For example: Gay acceptance is fine, and its consistent with personal freedom.
Now the Left is pushing for pedophilia, It means that pedos will be seen as "good in retrospect"?

THIS.

Once it's down to just the white men - i.e. the most privileged class - then it's clearly not a matter of broad principal, but simply them trying to hold onto their advantage.

What's annoying/dishonest is that they never just admit it; they're always claiming to stand on some principal, when in reality they're just pissed off about having to make room for others.

>as if white men didn't disagree on OR CREATE THE IDEAS OF monarchy and democracy
>"based on the time and the place"
So white people in some places were wrong and white people in other places were right? Holy shit. Who would have thought that all members of the same race DONT THINK THE SAME WAY REALLY MAKES YOU THINK
Fuck.

It was caused by four things, basically - a tetrad of factors. 1. Early automation and the end of very low-end factory work which had employed many uneducated black men after World War II. 2. Relaxation of social norms surrounding marriage and family. 3. Relaxation of crime and sentencing policies, which allowed violent criminals more latitude to commit violent crime, and 4. the end of de jure segregation, which led to an exodus of many of the more intelligent members of black areas into non-black areas, the same kind of "boiling off" effect seen in modern Indian reservations.

Clearly western european men were wrong to have ended slavery. Look at the results.

All the other past colonial empires (roman, muslim, mongol) had a good healthy slavery system, never thought anything wrong about it, and the fucking white man went in and messed it all up.

>But the 'progressives' never called for the break up of the family and an end to stable marriages.

Have you read any leftist material whatsoever? They blatantly proclaim they seek to end the nuclear family. From the red revolution to the modern feminist movement, all leftist and progressibve factions made one of their core issues the destruction of the family and marital bons, feminists often at the forefront.

If you don't know basic shit like this you honestly should not try to debate Sup Forumsacks, you are obviously ignorant of the points you are trying to argue.

>wrong side of history
What the hell does that mean you communist retard? History doesn't have sides

>What's the Left? The left accomplished communism, was that good in retrospect?

The left manifestly didn't accomplish Marxist Communism in the advanced West. For the 'progressive left' as a force on the right side of history to have any meaning we need to confine it to our own civilization (just as comparisons to the "right" in other societies doesn't shed much light on anything).

Actually, the highest incomes in the US are among East Asian and Indian men. They are the most privileged class using the metric most often used (money) to quantify privilege/advantage in society.

Dividing "whites" into subgroups would put Jews on top, which goes directly against that theory, since Jews were often on the forefront of social liberalization despite being the most monetarily-privileged.

>le angry white men meme XDDD
>I'm obviously not a far-lefty

Nice try, self-hating white SJW.

I said "angry white men" as a neologism for the eternal reactionary right.

Sure, but do you think it was anything less than 90% cause #1?

You're taking this too literally. See: The people pressing for the end of the slave trade and then slavery were the social progressives of their day.

>in the advanced West
What do you think Russia is? an Asian culture?
Is Poland part of the "west"? communism was "achieved" there too.
What about East Germany, is it "west" culture?
You didn't answer about the progressive left trying to normalize pedophilia in the west.

>le right side of history meme

Yeah, I'm sure the post-modernist far-left status quo will still be the moral imperative 100 years from now.

>an Asian culture
Yes, particularly in 1917. Communism (contrary to Marx) only seems to appeal to backwards peasant societies. It was only imposed externally on Central Europe.

Communism is a fake ideology comissioned by robber barons wich intentionaly provided all the wrong answers to the correct questions the working classes had. The intent of communism is to delude working class people with unworkable stratagems that will always destabilize a governing system leaving it weak and at the mercy of predaory exploitative capitalist systems. They achieved communism, you just dont know what it is, because you think it is a legitimate system, it is not, the whole idea of communism is psycological warfare pushed by hostile entities using
philosophical misdirection.

Read Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest Slavery, by Gottfrid Feder, it provides a legitimate working answer against international capitalist exploitation. After you read you can come here and post again. You can thank me later :

nationalists.org/pdf/hitler/manifesto-for-abolition-enslavement-interest-on-money-gottfried-feder.pdf

dude but consensus doesn't = truth. it's not a popularity contest man. damn. left wing people always think in these terms. that's why we always bash you for just being media brainwashed zombies. i don't care if its a popular or unpopular opinion. that's how i see things. end of story. it's not about trendiness and popularity for me as it obviously is for you.

women nurture children, men fight for the sovereignty and independence of the nation. different roles. you're conflating two separate things.
also:
>www2.uned.es/personal/rosuna/resources/papers/Nyborg sex differences.pdf

I'm not suggesting the far-left fringe is always right, but what the left actually accomplishes (as opposed to what the crazies fantasize about) seem to have a perfect batting-average.

There's a long history of the batshit-left coming up with horrible nonsense that was thankfully soon forgotten by all but historians; maybe 'identity politics' is just the latest example (I hope and suspect so), but in as far as they change minds broadly you're stuck with it at least.

It was seen as "good" for the entire left spectrum, most notably exception of Orwell...
anyway, you still avoiding the other question...
is it popping your -i'm right, and smart and I'm the avant garde- bubble?

strawman arguemnt, this is obviously a b8 thread
sage

How is it a straw-man argument?

I'm asking you to provide any example of the left being wrong in the past: what's unfair about that?

I (or you) wouldn't have any trouble coming up with endless examples of the 'right' bring on the wrong side of human progress.

>you'd have been... against gay equality, for segregation, against women's equality, for colonialism, against popular democracy, against equality under the law, for absolute monarchy
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nah-ish
Yes
Yes
No

So everything that -in retrospect- is now accepted is part of "the left", and everything that -in retrospect- was bat-shit-crazy is "far-left fringe"
Do you see that you're defining your terms always "in retrospect"?
Do this experiment: Form your own opinions about current issues. Have a reasoned position on them, and then go chat with your (right-sido-of-history) "left" friends about your position. Go tell them that identity-politics is bat-shit-crazy.
Come back with the results.

well to be honest, i didn't want to say it but i felt like it was a strawman thing too......in a WAY. i felt like you were trying to set me up to say something like "lets go back to the 50s!" and then you were going to say "90% tax rate in the 50s!" even though that's not true and it was actually a 90% tax rate after (inflation adjusted) 3 million dollars, so you could make 3 million and 1 dollars in a year and only pay 90 cents in taxes. buuuuuuuut all of the left-wing blogs and newsites, esp young turks, like to conveniently forget that fact and pretend it was straight up a 90% tax rate, which is very obviously fake.

anyway maybe you weren't really doing that, but that was just my thinking from my experience with Sup Forums lefties and the type of stupid anti-intellectual stuff they try to pull

>but you're abandoning any moral argument

True, but most moral arguments in the political arena are usually masks for material or ethnic interests. White liberals make these moralistic arguments because they wish to use them as weapons against their lower class, rural kin. The Right uses moral arguments to preserve traditional and ruling class interests. But they aren't as effective because they're coming from a defensive position.

Honestly, if the Right were to abandon any pretext of moral argumentation it would be make their arguments more effective.

Instead we get ridiculously dishonest cuckservative crap about how the founders of American weren't really racist or how liberals are the real Nazi's.

The main problem with your mindset is the idea that "progress" is inherently a good thing. It is not, the advance of bacteria over a decaying person is considered progress towards a goal, yet it will inevitably bring about the destruction of the host and the parasite.

Same analogy works for societal and governmental structures, you are not "progressing" in a good sense, you are decaying the structures of society, pushing the structure towards rubble. It is step by step, starts with equality, gay marriage, women liberation, and ends up in chainsaw-sexual, consensual murder and positive state opression.

We dont call leftists vermin out of entertainment, we call you vermin because that is exactly what you are, cowardly rodents bringing decease to a once healthy society while you chip away at the columsn that support the roof with every little bite. We try to9 hold the roof because otherwise it will crush us, but unlike you rodents, we can actualy get out of the way, since we at leas. Progress of a moving car towards a street light, is what you are doing.

We can only judge policies that were actually put into action. It's hard to damn/judge people with the weight of history for shit that never happened.

I can't stand identity politics (and think it's retrograde), and obviously a lot of sensible people feel that way, and then many (see: Sup Forums) end up analogizing that to "the left must be wrong about everything!!!" and end up un-ironically adopting far-right politics in reaction.

That's as sensible today as joining the KKK because you opposed international communism, or becoming an absolute monarchist because of the Reign of Terror, etc, etc. This is basically what "red pilling" amounts to.

cheqd

why are you talking to yourself do you need help

Muslims.

I don't know, the whole segregation and hanging fags thing was working out until you decided to ruin it.

>I'm not suggesting the far-left fringe is always right, but what the left actually accomplishes (as opposed to what the crazies fantasize about) seem to have a perfect batting-average.

The golden mean of left liberal doctrine was reached during the enlightenment with the American constitution (as originally penned by the founding fathers, not the subsequent ((((amendments)))) and changes).

...

>I can't stand identity politics
But it was your side that began pushing it as electoral strategy. The problem is, is that it backfired and radicalized the white middle and working classes. Now you suddenly want move away from it.

I agree that its a toxic brew. The problem is that Pandora's Box has now been opened and we can't the get the monsters back in.

Communisim

>Honestly, if the Right were to abandon any pretext of moral argumentation it would be make their arguments more effective.

Agree, although that's barely morally acceptable to most people when directed at foreigners. It may still be popular (if 'politically incorrect') to state bluntly that you oppose immigration because it lowers job prospects and causes crime; in defence of the 'us' which is the whole national polity. But to make the same "fuck 'em, our interests first" argument at the expense of fellow citizens simply doesn't and won't fly, so they *NEED* to disguise it: Trump is lowering taxes on the rich to "create jobs" don't'cha'know.

Open Borders

>I can't stand identity politics (and think it's retrograde)

Bullshit, you only did once whites started playing too.

Diversity

Segregation.

OP btfo

History will judge.

There's obviously a LOT of hysteria today around muslim immigration and radicalism, which could easily be analogized to the same concerns about Irish, Jews, Italians, Japanese, etc, etc, etc. that ultimately amounted to nothing after they inevitable assimilated.

Again, you're proposing the worring-minority-de-jour is an exception to the story we've seen over and over and over play out in the other direction.

no. the problem with what you're saying is that just because YOU say "i can't stand identity politics" they don't go away.
i mean, look, you just said it, and surprise surprise, identity politics are still here in the world. we still face threats from them. we can still get fired from our jobs over them. we're still losing our nations and our political power over them. and when we're demographic minorities we'll still be at the mercy of people who hate us for our race and our children will face numerous forms of racial oppression.

sooooooo i mean that's the issue, you know? that's cool that you don't like identity politics but you're making a mistake in that you don't get to just "write them off" by saying you don't like them. they still exist.

Lel, look at the new zealander trying to be australian, how cute.

>The golden mean of left liberal doctrine was reached during the enlightenment with the American constitution
[This is what Americans actually believe.]

That depends on the demographic situation. The less white the Western World becomes, the more morality will give way to ethnic interest. Which what fueled the Trump campaign.

>But to make the same "fuck 'em, our interests first" argument at the expense of fellow citizens simply doesn't and won't fly

There has been a heavy implication of that in Trump's rhetoric and it worked smashingly. Trump got support not because of high minded ideals, but because he implicitly offered to advocate for the interests White America.

You have caused wide spread death, destruction and rapid change of the status quo. By your own attempts at measuring success and failure in the OP you have failed or are you now going to accept that the right will be judged like we now judge Rome. You will note the degenerate liberals were wrong that time as well.

lel, look at the monkey trying to be human. Shitskin fuck off.

Abolishing slavery was good. Not following thru and sending all of the freed slaves to Africa was a mistake that Americans will keep paying for centuries to come.

Muslims are a different story, and everyone knows it. Muslims have almost in every case in history not acclimated to their host societies, but have forced those societies to acclimate to them. Which is what is happening in Europe.

This is Exhibit A of why Modernity fails and needs to be replaced.

What is "my side". The modern left are right about some things, as is the modern right. And as always most 'truth' lies in the middle path. Why everyone feels the need to join a political team is beyond me.

Do yourself a favour and try to UNDERSTAND the other side well enough to make its arguments as well as they do and as well as you make your existing arguments. I bet in 9/10 cases you'll end up realizing the truth lies somewhere in between, and where a more maximalist position is called for the other side is actually right as often as that you started on.

The funniest part about this post is the fact that you think those stances are in the wrong.

The unfortunate thing is, by the time you realize that the white man has always been on the right side of history, it will be too late.

Enjoy your future being raped by Jakwambe, the black muslim transexual. Why you ask? It's simple, in the end no one will be progressive enough to escape "its" throbbing,black, tuna-canned shaped chode.

>you just said it, and surprise surprise, identity politics are still here in the world
Yes, because the cancer that is left-wing identity politics is surely going to be defeated by your right-wing identity politics. Flawless logic.*

*You actually might be, but only because sensible people in the middle will get throughly disgusted with both sides; although right now it seems like what you're actually doing is causing people to support the sjw's because they're less-obviously-wrong than you are (since you look like the same angry white dude that are always wrong, see above)

>Gay equality
We were always equal. I, as a man, could not marry a man. They, as men, could not marry men.
>segregation
Literally democrats. Now BLM wants segregation. Since a minority group is always right in your mind then we'll say this is the one type angry white men were right. Too bad they were democrats.
>Women's equality
Men literally made this happen. Women couldn't vote, remember?
>Colonialism
You're fucking welcome.
>Popular democracy
Popular =/= right. Don't believe me? Ask 6 gorillion Jews.
>Against equality under the law
Name a specific time an angry white mob was against this. Oh wait, the 1924 DNC. You're right, my bad (see pic related).
>Absolute monarchy
You ain't from around here are ya?

No change needed eurocuck. We've already been on the right side of history so long as we weren't voting democrat.

But I do. I actually agree with Leftists quite a bit in their critiques of modern capitalism and neo-liberalism. Ideally, I also agree with liberals in terms of social policy. Why I oppose them is that they are all so aggressively, vocally hostile to my In-Groups interests that I simply have choice but to oppose them and everything they do as a self-preservation strategy.

Implying *you* are on the right side of History.

Basically, nobody knows.

Equal rights for gay people, right or wrong side of History? The future will tell us. Well, Roman Empire and Greek empire which were quite gay friendly may give you some hints.

Women's equality? Let's see... Natality well under renewing rate, abortions skyrocketing, relatively low wages for all excepted for the 1%, structural high jobless rate, small jobs... Present seems to give you some kind of hints too. So, right or wrong side?

Implying all white people were in favor of colonialism... Please, check back your History books, if you have some, and learn who actually initiated and ruled colonialism, for what reasons, and if the average "white angry men" of these times weren't the first victims of colonialism.

Slavery, then segregation? Again, check your History books and learn who was segregated first. Again some hints, African tribes, Roman empire, middle age Europe...

Now, I won't tell you: *you* are on the wrong side of History, for I don't know. I have some ideas, of course; but the future will tell us who were wrong of right.

In all case, I'll never blame or accuse yourself, personally, by incorporating your miserable being in a group of people from history you share some characteristics with, notwithstanding what you actually did.

History is History.

>If you're the typical Sup Forums-poster, demographically and by temperament, you'd have been... against gay equality, for segregation, against women's equality, for colonialism, against popular democracy, against equality under the law, for absolute monarchy... depending on the time/place

All of these are good things though, except maybe colonialism but only for the reason that you foist undue obligations on your home population as a result

Oh i didn't realise you are arguing as a centrist i apologise for attributing left wing values and failures to you individually (lol political mis-gendering?)

>If you're the typical Sup Forums-poster, demographically and by temperament, you'd have been... against gay equality, for segregation, against women's equality, for colonialism, against popular democracy, against equality under the law, for absolute monarchy... depending on the time/place.
all of those are shit WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION of absolute monarchy

white men wuz right

m8 white men treat their property better than they treat random people they come across in their day to day lives. What simpleton wouldn't appreciate a comfy life for your wealthy master?

Your logic breaks down when you think about the consequences of EVERYONE ELSE looking out for only their groups immediate interests. Everyone ends up worse off, which is why (thankfully) the history of human civilization is of drawing the magic circle of common interest progressively larger and larger.

We're not better off when everyone is at everyone else's throat in a zero-sum game.

Yeah cus taking action in anger is wrong and every man knows that. Cept some retards go to war for their anger.

Women voting and having influence in society has destroyed every civilization it has been allowed to occur in.

Try to prove me wrong.