It never fails to amuse the way people retreat into their shell like this when they find out the premises of their arguments are based on sources which are open to criticism. This is harder than making up a guy to get mad at huh?
Your source, sir. Which you are too ashamed to speak on. I offer you a chance to present the second-to-last book you read as a source, not garbage you half remember from Youtube to demand more attention and announce you are "winning" your made up game
I think the guy who believes politics on Lemmy are "compromised" and needs to huddle under Bluesky moderation may be a little perturbed actually. The evil Russians are corrupting the website! Oh no. Can you stop any time you want? Because it seems possible to juggle you without a fight. I think I can stunlock you for the rest of your life. This is history, you can't opt out of it any time you like. What you fail to understand about historical discussions is there is no last word, people die. Refusing to consider criticisms of your premises and resssuring yourself with tirades accomplishes nothing. You are only throwing off your own understanding of the world. All of the sources of your Wikipedia articles are addressed across these two books.
The one melting down is you when asked to read a book and not offered personal tutoring lol. It's exactly like a kid trying and failing to control a conversation. That's what a layabout like you with too much time on his hands can't understand - being given a book is better than being treated to a Wikipedia article posting contest. Nobody should willingly spend their time seeking out Reddit arguments like you do. Probably years of your life cumulatively spent repeating Guardian articles.
That would be the person setting arbitrary conversation rules and pouting when being presented with homework. Now get your sore buttocks out of my mentions and read
You accept your historical illiteracy and pat yourself on the back, because you aren't being given a tongue bath. Dress it up however you like, but we both know you're out of your depth. Treating reading a book like an insurmountable task when you'll happily read propaganda by an open fascist doesn't conceal your motives very well. Neither does declaring that your line of inquiry was a game, with a time limit, where you make the rules.
No, go call your mother and stop begging me for attention. Engage with the material and come back. If you devoted a fraction of the energy you do to annoying people online to reading, you could eventually be as literate as the average Chinese teenager.
You've appointed yourself the Wikipedia interrogator of the network have you? It's identical to interacting with a Zionist. There are no "turns" here, you aren't playing a game, you're clinging to lies and plugging your ears because you're a fool.
Thank you for doubling down on ignoring Navalny's fascism. Makes the message perfectly clear
I am a much better critic of the USSR than you, because I don't slavishly adhere to the narrative of the US. You're dealing entirely in ideology and I'm actually engaging with the premises of the historical narrative, something you're unable to do. You are listing off random USSR Bad factoids instead of acknowledging there are criticisms of them. You simply decided not to look at them because it's too hard for you. It's just your aim to control the conversation and downplay or ignore the information you're presented with.
Don't you think it's a little bit embarrassing to make up my beliefs to me lol? To present them with some cheap CSI style psychobabble? You have a historical vendetta against Russians as an ethnic group that transcends time period and statehood. I am well-familiarized with standard Wikipedia and Reddit sources that inform your outlines of dad history. Are you completely unable to engage with critics of your sources? Just admit it, this isn't a serious subject for you and your emotional commitment to a narrative is all that's important
It's actually hilarious that there are still people out there who think the Nuremburg Trials were effectively the end of the fascist international. Was hardly even the beginning. You act like being hung was not an exception for the perpetrators of the Holocaust
I am presenting you with criticism of the sources which you are referencing because I know more than you lmao, you have no right to reject them out of hand as "biased" because they don't fit your original narrative. I am rejecting your unsubstantiated claims with better material. Quit having conversations with yourself and deflecting because you can't handle being challenged
So why do you feel entitled to ask people for sources that you have no intention of examining? Couldn't be a more clear-cut description of pseudointellectualism and concern trolling, you get all of your information from the same capital centers which supported fascism in Europe and prevented the destruction of it in the aftermath of the war. Read the books, don't take up more of my time for attention like an annoying child.
"Sensitive" to people shitting out sentences less meaningful than Colourless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously in my mentions while handwaving collaboration with Nazis as politically acceptable and common yes. You're pestering me. I've been doing all of the lifting here and educating you. I don't think you will read those. What was the last history book you read/documentary watched etc? What made you feel entitled to my time in the first place?
"The katyn massacre begs to differ with your overall thesis" is such tortured awful writing that I hesitate to keep responding in order to walk you through every Timothy Snyder-tier pop history factoid lodged in your brain. It's like talking to myself when I was 14 reading Robert Evans articles on Cracked. Let me know when you get through these, you're welcome~
https://annas-archive.se/md5/9f9f3ebb076a7ed2d91f51d0e5440f20
Augh the app is shidding itself bc im replying too much augh