I was summarizing my understanding of what you have been arguing. You are free to correct me, of course.
are free to actually read my posts and object specifically to something you disagree with. The exchange with Kythia contained a fairly detailed discussion of facts and context, enough for you to engage constructively with. You can still go back and do so at any time, and I will respond. What you can't do is impress me with continued avoidance of specifics, distortions of out-of-context points, and attempts to "summarize" my position as handwaving.
(EDIT: So, just for example: don't keep trying to tell me I somehow "ignored" the point about the US government passing civil rights legislation when that's something I explicitly addressed in a subsequent post and said they addressed it because the civil rights movement put it on the public agenda
, not because they wanted to. It's a better use of both our time if you respond to what I've actually
Your disagreement about Gandhi proves that yes, there are other instances and other exceptions, but that would be why I specified "almost always comes from within".
The bigger picture beyond three examples is worth talking about, but I'm afraid the burden of proof for "almost always" is rather on you.
I'll grant you that history does afford some spectacular examples of "reform from within": when confronted by a competing system that is better at accumulating money, power or prestige, human institutions do
occasionally manage to drive successfully for internal reform, since more money, power or prestige is generally something the whole hierarchy wants. Hence the Meiji Restoration in Japan, the Counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church, the transformation of Communist-ruled China into something decidedly un-Communist.
But I can't multiply those example indefinitely. I can
do so, or come close to doing so, with example of failed
attempts to reform-from-within (ranging from pre-revolutionary France to the Tsarist Russia -- and then the Soviet Union -- to Qing Dynasty China to virtually all attempts in American history to have the corporation "police itself," and beyond). So, is that just a function of most of anything sucking, including internal reform attempts?
I was going to let this particular example in the above pass, but since Trieste has since seen fit to PM me about how all they've been seeking is clarification, I'll discuss it here:
And Kythia stated facts that ran counter to your stated conclusions, which is pretty much the definition of refuting said conclusion.
Actually that's not what "refuting" means. "Refuting" means that one person proves
another person wrong by providing a better interpretation
of the facts. It doesn't mean just disagreeing with them. That you actually don't know this creates problems for your attempts to talk about who has "refuted" whom.I would be doing this part by PM, Trieste, but of course after PM-ing me with a nasty tirade about how I supposedly "hold discussion in contempt," you blocked any reply. Which, protip, is the sort of behaviour that actually sort of undermines an attempt to sound off on who "holds discussion in contempt." Whether you accept it or not, I did attempt to have an actual conversation with you. Too bad.