Being On The Wrong Side Of History

“You’ll see who’s laughing in the end” and “People who still believe X, will soon see themselves on the wrong side of history”.

One hears statements like these quite frequently in debates in recent times. Mostly regarding big political and philosophical debates, this way of arguing is espoused by people of all political persuasions and often deemed a legitimate way of addressing people who disagree with one’s own opinions.

It is, however, a rhetoric device that indicates the lack of a real argument. The person using this construction in a debate seems to say:

“Well, you might not agree with me right now, but this is what’s going to happen whether you like it or not, so better change your mind so you’ll be able to still fit into society in a couple of years, when everyone will have this opinion.”

The argument, or lack thereof, plays on people’s inherent need to be part of the group — or part of the tribe. Nobody wants to be ostracised, so if everyone will think a certain way in a few years, maybe you shouldn’t speak your mind if you disagree. This way of arguing thus tries to enforce a certain authority over acceptable opinions by threatening expulsion from society in the future — it is a shaming technique and nothing more.