I hate this expression. Maybe it was slightly clever the first time, but I don't think so. What does it even fucking mean, it "rhymes"?
That's my cranky old bastard rant for the day.
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
I hate this expression. Maybe it was slightly clever the first time, but I don't think so. What does it even fucking mean, it "rhymes"?
That's my cranky old bastard rant for the day.
Well... I guess the closest thing history rhymes with is mystery.
The Suez Crisis is pretty similar to what's happening now with the Strait of Hormuz.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to rhyme it.
deleted by author
It would seem to mean that historical events only bear a superficial resemblance to each other, while having no logical connection.
You're right. I didn't analyze it that deeply.
Neither did the person who coined it
here's my favorite retort to this, courtesy of economic historians Rondo Cameron and Larry Neal in 2003:
"those who are ignorant of the past are not qualified to generalize about it.""those who are ignorant of the past are not qualified to generalize about it."
I don't mind it. I think captures and simplifies a useful idea.
Maybe it's because lately I seem to hear it at least once a day.
I hear you. Sometimes it makes you wonder if it is an idea intentionally being planted in the minds of the masses or if it is just the mimetic nature of humans.
I just got an email from Luke Gromen using the phrase, and "apocryphally" attributing it to Mark Twain. I hope he never said it.