I think they'd imply a bit more causality.
One of the strange consequences of reading so much history is that you start to be able to imagine what a historian would write about your own time. It's alarmingly easy to imagine a future historian writing "As China's power grew, America was paralyzed by internal dissension."
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
With screenshots and links to the Twitter receipts to prove it in whatever constitutes a history book in 2085.
-
It'll just be a really long Tweet thread with lots of GIFs and emoji at the rate we're going now...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
there is internal dissent in China. It's just imprisoned or stripped of wealth under the guise of anti-corruption. Giving up on debate or dissent would be to give up on Western values. The question is how do we adapt or adapt to new media technologies to get to consensus.
-
I think Paul’s point is that we are paralyzed by dissension, not that dissent is a problem. The fascinating challenge that we face right now is: how do we build consensus on dug-in debates that are preventing us from acting decisively without coercion?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
strange / interesting / enjoyable (to an extent)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The thought keeps me up at night.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.