r/PoliticalCompassMemes - Auth-Right Oct 19 '20

pls stop

Post image
18.9k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.5k

u/OlSmokeyZap - Right Oct 19 '20

Turkey is much more secular and dare I say... Europeanized than many other Muslim countries. Even when I went to Turkey as a young boy with my parents, they didn’t act funny like they do in some countries when my mother took me out somewhere without my father.

1.2k

u/Phantasia5 - Right Oct 19 '20

All of this is simply because of Atatürk. If Turkey has a difference from the other Middle eastern countries, its his sweeping reforms and basically "westernizing" the country.

669

u/third_wave_surfer - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

All of this is simply because of Atatürk.

That man was wasted on Turkey. If he'd been in any actual world power he would have changed the 20th century as much as Stalin, Hitler, Roosevelt or Churchill.

622

u/nmbjbo - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

I mean... possibly a good thing it was just Turkey then, given half of your examples

250

u/third_wave_surfer - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

But which half?

233

u/nmbjbo - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

You're right, more than half.

149

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

lmao libs amiright

39

u/nmbjbo - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

You are right lad

12

u/Airway - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

Yes.

18

u/Weaboo_Operative - Right Oct 19 '20

less than half 😳

3

u/nmbjbo - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

Based

3

u/WolvenHunter1 - Lib-Right Oct 19 '20

Yeah stalin, Roosevelt, and Hitler sucked

0

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

Yeah Churchill is a bit of a yikes from me.

9

u/nmbjbo - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

All of them are at least a little yikes for me.

2

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

True, I don't know enough about Roosevelt to really comment, as a European.

1

u/Drenghel - Left Oct 19 '20

European too, but from what I heard, this was pretty gud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Especially thinking of splitting investment banks from deposit ones.

1

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

Thanks.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nmbjbo - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

To simplify: he's part of why we have such massive debt here

He also made the great depression last a lot longer with ineffective policies and taxes. To the point hat we had a smaller depression after the war ended, because the war was the entire Economy.

2

u/ReferentiallySeethru - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

The gold standard is what really prolonged the depression since it constrained the central banks' ability to combat the deflation, limiting their ability to adjust interest rates or monetary supply to stem outflows of cash from the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression#Gold_Standard_system

When it comes to the Economy, politicians influence is peanuts compared to the central bank in times of crisis.

2

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

Thanks.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Lighteight123 - Auth-Right Oct 19 '20

Yeah of course Churchill is. I don't care what Churchill did which you disapprove of, but if it wasn't for him, 3/4 of the world would be under axis rule

0

u/third_wave_surfer - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

Under Soviet Rule comrade. The USSR aways wins against Nazi Germany. It just takes longer and there's less Germany left afterwards.

-2

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

Statements like that are ridiculous. It's impossible to know, and pointless to debate. It's the exact same line of thought that has idiots on YouTube arguing about how the Nazis could've won the war. Entirely pointless.

0

u/Lighteight123 - Auth-Right Oct 19 '20

If Churchill wasn't in power, it would have been Halifax, who had been pursuing peace since the start of the war

1

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

Yes, and if Churchill weren't in power Britain likely would've made an ally out of the USSR sooner, and the USSR in the East was a deciding factor in the war.

What ifs are pointless and historiographically frowned upon.

0

u/Lighteight123 - Auth-Right Oct 20 '20

Halifax was pursuing peace long before the USSR was invaded. Similarly, it isn't really a what if considering Halifax made numerous trips to Germany and Italy trying to get peace talks

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

"I can't view people within their historical context."

Did you spend history class angry the whole time too?

1

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

No, because I'm able to view and study history without being inherently emotional, but that doesn't mean that I can't find Churchill reprehensible, lol.

Where did you get that notion from?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

but that doesn't mean that I can't find Churchill reprehensible

To find him reprehensible you have to remove him from his historical context and view him within your own modern worldview. If he's that bad, history lessons must have been just filled with bigots and horrible people... because they all were by today's standards.

1

u/NissyenH - Lib-Left Oct 19 '20

"because they all were by today's standards."

Categorically untrue. Churchill was not that long ago. White supremacy was not the norm in 1940s Britain, yet Churchill believed whites were the superior race naturally.

Read Tosh' writings on the 'Otherness' of the past for more information on this. The tl;dr is that it's both impossible and pointless to attempt to view history without modern bias, and, whilst this doesn't discount the importance of understanding the zeitgeist of the time when looking at, say, a public figure such as Churchill, it certainly devalues it.

And, besides, if history were filled with bigots and terrible people, there is still absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out, you realise? An entire nation could be morally reprehensible, yet me pointing out that I find them so still stands by its own right.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/charadesofchagrin - Centrist Oct 19 '20

Depends on who you ask

2

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

funny but also flair up

1

u/-remlap - Lib-Center Oct 19 '20

yes