this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
501 points (89.7% liked)
Memes
46087 readers
1390 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I know several things about him. He had a very large moustache for instance.
Perhaps you could educate me on these accounts you are describing? I clearly am unfamiliar with them, otherwise I would not be asking you about them.
You made the claim, you should back it.
Or you should acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.
Either way works for me. ♥️
What claim did I make that I now need to back? That Stalin took over the USSR, or something else?
Regardless, I can't help but point out how obviously you are avoiding my single, very reasonable question.
You don't get to duck my question by asking a question.
You quoted part of a sentence. That was part of a question. Questions and claims are not the same things.
But sure, this should explain how Stalin rose to lead the USSR:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin%27s_rise_to_power
It was not a question. This is the full quote of your original claim:
Your implications are:
I asked: "If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?". I think that neutralizes all three of your implied claims.
You have not answered.
I actually have addressed that one with other commentators, if you check out the rest of this thread.
I don't agree that you have.
I've seen you make unsupported speculations as to what caused him to resign, and why those resignations were refused.
It's ok to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
I think my argument about how it's not actually physically possible to be unable to resign was rather compelling.
Regardless I have answered your question, even if you dislike my answer. I have certainly tried at least. Can you answer mine yet?
I just said that I don't agree that you have.
That is a very easy thing for you to say. It is, however, an answer, even if you think it is incorrect. You haven't even tried to take mine on, however. Do you need more time or something?
You specifically did not answer me, and did not answer the question.
It's ok to say you do not know (because you do not), but you will need to admit that you do not know what you are talking about.
Uh huh. If you think this charade of yours is fooling me, you're mistaken.
Of course I do not know why with any certainty, nobody but those that were there can really know. This is fundamental to history, where records were written by people, who have biases and ulterior motives. We can only suspect when it comes to people's reasons for doing things.
This does not mean my answer is not an answer, though. An answer ... is an answer. You just don't like it I guess.
Is it a charade to stick to my original point?
Can you please link me to what you consider to be an answer? I do not see it in this thread.
The only reason I'm in this thread is to get you to admit that you, specifically, do not know what you think you know. That you've been brought up on propaganda by osmosis, and that what you think are foundational facts are not.
Rather than link, I'll just repeat myself. It is physically fucking impossible to be unable to resign. You can be talked out of resigning, but when a man genuinely wants to resign, he does so. Claims of being unable are claims.
History only has facts when a lot of people agree on something. When one guy claims he was doing very good things, you must consider that he lies.
I think you're finger-pointing. The brainwashed one is me, even though you're discussing a former world leader, all of which employ propaganda.
You're picking at holes that don't exist, I didn't use the word "unable". This is a strangely desperate dive into semantics.
The history taught in the U$ does not agree with the history taught in China. You would have us believe that the history accepted by the majority is correct solely because it's accepted by the majority.
You started the conversation about Stalin. You were confident in your knowledge then, but you're scrambling to avoid addressing your cognitive dissonance at this point.
And you still haven't answered the question.
You asked, why didn't he? I'm saying your faith that he certainly tried is inappropriate. He might've tried, or he might've not. It's not a question of which side says what, it's the sheer quantity of different people that helps make an account reliable.
We can say yes, the Holocaust really happened, because such a wide range of people, from Americans to Soviets to Germans agree that yes, it happened. This makes it reliable. If only Americans said it happened, this would be less reliable.
I already admitted just a couple replies ago what I do not know, and what I am unable to know. The one who has failed to acknowledge their own potential ignorance is not me.
Again, that is not fact. You can't just unilaterally declare one side as fact. You have to acknowledge that maybe it wasn't a good side vs a bad side. Maybe it was two bad sides vs each other. Maybe both were willing to lie. This is very important.
We admit we lie sometimes. This is why we doubt everything and try to seek consensus in our academic environments.
You're experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - mental discomfort because you can't square the existence of two conflicting things:
I honestly don't understand that this is a response to.
No. We accept that the Holocaust really happened because of the absolute mountain of evidence. We don't accept things as fact solely because they're agreed on.
No. You tried to say that no one can really know anything. You haven't admitted to your personal ignorance on the topic you chose.
I don't understand what this is in response to, it doesn't seem related to the question at hand.
I'll eat my literal hat if you can find an academic field that explicitly looks for consensus over facts or truth.
You still haven't answered the question.
That evidence was collected by people, and can be falsified. If it had all been gathered by one group, that would be a problem. The Soviets and the USA are certainly not in the same group, though, so when they agree on an account, that is good evidence.
Your claim that Stalin seriously attempted to resign might potentially be false. Can you admit that?
You're trying to distract from avoiding the question at hand.
You'd accept as fact anything the Soviets and U$ agree on?
You'll need to accept that "Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on the subject are caused by the lack of comprehension of the real nature she organization of the communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers was merely the captain of a team...".
https://archive.ph/w3YpS
I'm looking forward to you admitting that you were wrong about Stalin. Or, will you just revise what you consider as good evidence to avoid it?
I don't see any evidence or reason to think it is false. I'll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.
You still haven't answered the question
So, you cannot admit even the possibility it could be false.
This is faith, no different from religion. I do not think I can get through to you.
This isn't a response to what I said.
You very conveniently ignored the bit in that comment where your own argument forces you to admit that you're wrong about Stalin.
I get that you're having trouble with cognitive dissonance, but this isn't a response to "I would need evidence".
You still haven't answered the question.
A possibility does not require evidence. It is a "could be", a hypothetical proposition. I do not need evidence an undiscovered planet lies in the Oort Cloud of our solar system to wonder if it is possible for one to exist there.
If one cannot admit a possibility and can only come up with excuses for why, then what you are dealing with is faith, the same thing within people that creates religions. It's how people can read the Bible or Koran and simply believe it, while being unable to admit the possibility it could be false.
When someone has faith like this, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, as their faith blinds them to certain possibilities. This is why I do not think I can get through to you, unfortunately. It's just like someone saying "I need evidence for why the bible is false."
You've unfortunately been banned from lemmygrad, so I won't be able to see any of your replies.
"I’ll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented." isn't the statement of blind faith. Your stance on Stalin, ironically, is.
While you're wistfully dealing with our separation, please think of two things:
Your own argument demands that you admit your stance on Stalin is wrong. You haven't acknowledged that for several comments now.
You've been unable to respond to my initial question because you'll have to drop your stance. Stalin cannot both be a power-seizing maniac, and someone who begs the Politboro to let him resign. We know the one is true. Can you accept your ideas are false?
We do not "know" one is true. This is exactly what blind faith is.
I can admit when I do not know something, I have admitted that I do not (and cannot) know the truth of if Stalin attempted to resign or not. He may have, he may not have. I do not know, but it sounds suspicious. I am not the one with the problem admitting ignorance though. I simply do not share your faith in the source.