undefined | Better HN

0 pointsshadowgovt2y ago0 comments

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

History is extremely important. It can help us make predictions about the future and understand circumstances in the past.

This specific incident has been researched to death. There is very little we will be able to understand about the sociopolitics of the past that we don't already know if the hand on the trigger changes. Every hypothetical scenario has been gamed to exhaustion, and which one reflects the reality we happen to be living in isn't going to change modern sociopolitics very much. What would change in a relationship with Russia if we found out a USSR plot killed Kennedy? The USSR is gone. What would change in people's trust in the FBI if we found out they killed Kennedy? That institution's reputation is already tarnished, and the people who would have made the decision to have him killed no longer work there. What would it matter if there was a conspiracy of a few people working with Oswald? We already know that it doesn't take more than one actor to kill a President from other assassination attempts.

Similarly, there is little to be gained studying this topic to exhaustion in terms of future predictions. Kennedy was a singular President existing in a singular time. A series of fairly unique circumstances led him to be universally hated and loved at the same time... Immensely popular, but his combination of willingness to challenge entrenched power and brash indifference to consequences made him dozens of enemies who would have had the resources to eliminate him.

Whether he was killed by a secret FBI project or a lone, angry man with firearm training changes none of those facts.

0 comments

morby2y ago

That rules quote does not apply in the slightest. Perhaps I was glib about it, but I replied directly to the message at hand. He questioned the validity of studying a (massive) historical event (it “changes nothing”, much like studying a lot of history). You continue the exact same line of reasoning (“isn’t going to change modern sociopolitics very much”, though I find the use of “very much” an interesting use of words in this case). That there is nothing to gain. You make two assumptions a) that if there was a second gunman that they couldn’t possibly be put to justice and b) there is no historical value to knowing the truth or understanding the truth that would come to light had a potential third actor that was tied. For example say the Soviet Union somehow was toed (I’m not saying they are) there is an incredible value to knowing that it is fact. And if the FBI was involved? You thinking the FBI reputation is tarnished now is opinion, the effect could even have legal repercussions to people still alive and to regulating agencies. You don’t know , but if you have some “war game” about the impact I would love to see it. But the biggest of all is understanding the history of our country and world history. Historians don’t pretend that knowing more about the military maneuvers of Alexander will effect us today even though his battles have been studied to death. But when we contradict that denial of understanding some truth of our own history we are told, “doesn’t matter”, there’s no modern sociopolitical gain.

Your opinion on JFK as a president is moot. The fact he could not continue being president is what changed the world. LBJ succeeded him and the rest is “history”. It doesn’t need to play out in todays politics but as I said, why study history at all if the only point is to gain insight into how it effects us directly today??

shadowgovtOP2y ago

Oh, I misunderstood your previous position. Yes, "because it's there" is always a fine reason to climb a mountain.

I guess I'm just personally burnt out on this topic because I've been watching people bandy conspiracy theories back and forth my entire life, and the odds of this changing the understanding of the day's events in any meaningful way aren't larger than the other "revelations" I've seen in my time. I guess upon further reflection, I do have some concern that people will take the stuff too seriously and do something foolish.

To give an analogy, the Titanic disaster is extremely well understood, but the disproportionate obsession with it has recently led to people getting killed again. One could certainly argue that they were free people making free choices and I would agree. But similar obsession in the political spectrum seems to have a nasty tendency to end up with somebody showing up in a pizza parlor with a firearm demanding to see the basement that doesn't exist. So it makes me twitchy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

morby2y ago

shadowgovtOP2y ago

Oh, I misunderstood your previous position. Yes, "because it's there" is always a fine reason to climb a mountain.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse