Sorry, bro, but this statement by its very nature deserves a dozen downvotes, never mind coming from a user who was being proudly apolitical and striving for a non-tribal approach to things five minutes ago. It is perfectly clear to me that “the wrong side of history” in the parent, while perhaps being less than gracious rhetorically, was mentioned in good faith, and not intended to invoke such trollish name-calling.
I think you are right. The original statement does seem to be in good faith now that I reread it.
I however do stand behind the statement in general. “The wrong side of history” usually is a euphemism for the “getting on the wrong side of elements in the US government”.
Sorry, bro, but this statement by its very nature deserves a dozen downvotes, never mind coming from a user who was being proudly apolitical and striving for a non-tribal approach to things five minutes ago. It is perfectly clear to me that “the wrong side of history” in the parent, while perhaps being less than gracious rhetorically, was mentioned in good faith, and not intended to invoke such trollish name-calling.
Noticing the enemies of a very powerful organization tend to consistently disappear is not I think an inherently political or tribal stance.
I think you are right. The original statement does seem to be in good faith now that I reread it.
I however do stand behind the statement in general. “The wrong side of history” usually is a euphemism for the “getting on the wrong side of elements in the US government”.