|
Have we decided if this is a gimmick or if its earnest belief?
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
I'm starting to think that the OP and the recently regged account were gimmicks designed to draw out true believers Well played, Goon Sir.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Let's pretend for a second that Stalin was awesome. What do we do with this knowledge? Turn america into a dictatorship and then do what? Led by whom? Full Communism Now
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Developed nations, as opposed to developing nations, usually don't have famines. I don't understand why this is so impressive. The USSR successfully industrialized under communism, so what? Something about the speed at which it industrialized proves the superiority of central planning, but history seems to suggest that sort of model sacrifices the long term for the short term.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
quote:Will 'Oh, sure they commited genocide and crimes against humanity on a massive scale, but they stopped Amerikkka from taking the oil' be uttered unironically? There is an approximate 100% chance that this is already happening
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Sunk cost. He has spent his entire career trying to exonerate Stalin and so if he admits he's wrong now it meant that his career was misspent. He will take this to his grave.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Sorcery posted:It's funny how you people feign concern for the 10s of millions of people that Stalin supposedly killed - according to CIA "historians" like Conquest, Kotkin, Snyder, et al - and yet you don't give a poo poo at all for the millions of people dying - right now - as a result of western imperialism. Who gives a poo poo that a quarter of a million Syrians have been killed by US-backed death squads. After all, Assad is goofy looking. Same goes for Gaddafi. Who cares about the literally millions of Iraqis that have been murdered since Operation Desert Storm. Sadam was a "bad guy" and the price was worth it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8. Milosevic was a bad guy too so let's drop the depleted uranium. NATO blew up a hospital in Afghanistan? Oh well, I'm sure they had their reasons. I'm feeling overwhelmed at the the amount of critical evaluation present in this post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
If the CIA can do all that I know whose side I'd rather be on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:First hand accounts aren't enough? What, do we have to crowdfund you a ticket to Syria so you can see the masscares first hand? Buying HorseLord a ticket to Syria will be the first and possibly only crowdfunding project I will participate in
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
swampman posted:I had some family issues that took precedence over my thread about Grover Furr. I'm glad to see that discussion has continued in my absence. Hopefully some of you have been motivated to actually read the text of Blood Lies! Your thread is going the way of the Soviet Union It's dying but there is debate as to whether or not it was ever truly alive
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Heh, nice imperialist propaganda piece bro, how about posting a real source
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Are you aware that demanding the rest of us buy several books by potentially loathsome people is weird? Why are you unwilling to make an argument yourself? I like that the title of the thread is "critically evaluating" Nothing more critical than agreeing with everything the author says and referring to him whenever your position is challenged
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
swampman posted:Since I have so little to criticize in the book, I was hoping one of you could find a legitimate criticism. So far, the most legitimate criticism has been that I personally don't know the source material well enough to stand in for Furr point by point. There has been mountains of legitimate criticism so far and you've deflected all of it by effectively saying "but my book says otherwise"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Lee Harvey Oswald. quote:Oswald wrote in his diary in January 1961: "I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough." Sounds about right.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Are we seriously now arguing that North Korea is a good and cool place to live? They aren't even Marxist any more! But they are geopolitical rivals of the USA, therefore they must be at least kind of good
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:the united states is still technically at war with the dprk and as such has no diplomatic relationship with them (negotiations after american visitors are detained are the only time the countries talk to one another, hence why college guy is being held), sanctions against north korea have been vast and crippling and after the end of the ussr the dprk went through an arduous period of privation due to lack of trade. I'm glad you're going to North Korea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:yeah that's about the caliber of response i expected. thanks Your evidence that things are great in North Korea is that there were people there who smiled at tourists. What do you want us to say exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:oh i see. anecdotes are totally cool on your end, but i'd better have the hardest facts known to man to back up my points. Yes, you had better, because your claims are extraordinary. You are claiming that all evidence and all knowledge of North Korea up to this point is wrong, you'd better have a fuckin' bombshell to back that up, otherwise people are going to do exactly what they're doing, namely call you a crazy person.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:What does the DPRK guarantee its citizens? And also, how do you know that the government of the DPRK is telling you the truth?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:i mean i think you're being just a tad hyperbolic for no reason, i'm not here to defend every single aspect of the dprk, just as i wouldn't for the ussr or the prc. but i guess that doesn't matter when there's e-hectoring to be had Hot drat you've been doing a lot of tone policing in lieu of substantial argument.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
swampman posted:Citation needed https://www.amnesty.org.uk/north-korea-life-camps
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Pack it in folks, The Guardian and Amnesty International can't possibly hope to stand against a Russian blog
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:reminder: the united states is still at war with the dprk Tell me about all the peace overtures that have come from North Korea
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The lack of any standing order labeled "KILL THEM NORK SONS OF BITCHES" does not actually say anything about how the US Army would react, because for one thing that order would be stupid to commit to paper and for another thing I'm not arguing that the American military is necessarily run by people largely indifferent to collateral damage, but that institutionally it is quite willing to adopt policies that involve mass slaughter of civilians. Considering the US military also hosts one of if not the largest humanitarian logistical networks in the world the idea that they would callously gun down unarmed refugees sounds like, uh, North Korean propaganda
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sure that them throwing chocolate bars to people in occupied territories would absolutely prevent the US military from launching nuclear weapons, and that our nuclear arsenal is a total sham. What the heck are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The US has a stated policy of committing genocide with nuclear weapons. And that has any bearing on how the US military would react to a refugee crisis how?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:They're morally okay with slaughtering civilians in incredible numbers. Yes, in a nuclear total war scenario. Therefore they would gun down millions of refugees who pose no threat? Why are you applying nuclear war doctrine to a hypothetical refugee crisis exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If they'd kill innocents for political purposes, why would they suddenly balk when it's conventional explosives instead of radiation and blast pressure and fallout doing it? Because a refugee crisis and a nuclear war aren't the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So what are the circumstances under which mass murder via nukes is acceptable? During a total war scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:gently caress yes, I can use nukes during a war of conquest, and it's totally moral!! You didn't say moral, you said acceptable. And I'm still not sure what this has to do with a hypothetical refugee crisis. Are you arguing that the US would nuke refugees? And that there is no difference between, say, a Soviet invasion of Europe (where nukes would be justified) and a North Korean collapse (where they wouldn't be?)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh my, so immoral things are sometimes acceptable. Yep. That's the kind of world we live in. quote:No, I'm arguing that the US military is totally fine with murdering civilians, as evidenced from their nuclear policy, and that therefore if the refugee crisis from a North Korean collapse really is the sort of apocalyptic threat youse guys keep saying it is, it would be entirely reasonable to suspect massacres would happen in lieu of the alternative. I certainly don't think it would be an apocalyptic threat, certainly not in the same sense that a nuclear war would be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, I do want to know what immoral acts are acceptable. Can I steal people's wallets because this world is poo poo? Can I commit securities fraud, justifiably? Where does it begin and end, genius? Surely this question that ethicists and philosophers have been grappling with since ancient times will be resolved here, in this thread, by forums poster Fojar38 What I do know is that there are circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons on civilians are acceptable, even if they aren't moral. Among them, if it is the only way of stopping an autocratic empire from conquering vast swathes of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so immoral activities are acceptable, you presume, but only in hypothetical situations that conveniently do not actually urge us to action (after all, how do you know that it's the "only way" in real life)? You do know that it was very recently where that "hypothetical situation" was a very real possibility that people were preparing for every day, right? Andorra posted:I imagine stealing someone's wallet would be ok if it was your enemy's during a war. What if you aren't at war, but it's Stalin's wallet?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
swampman posted:It really is a huge distance from trying to convince people that Timothy Snyder is a liar. But overall, here is the connecting current. America has been by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history. It is important to synthesize this point into any serious discussion of modern history. Narratives that cast America as the "good guy" in any given situation need to be examined critically, and almost cynically. We have a responsibility to challenge pro-Western narratives, because of the profound political and ethical implications of complacently living by murder and slavery. Noam Chomsky, is that you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Are you engaging in Rape of Nanking et. al. denial on the part of the Japanese too now? He probably thinks that it was the Soviets who defeated Japan. Brainiac Five posted:No, I don't think that anyone ever thought that global thermonuclear warfare would be the only way to stop NATO and the Warsaw Pact from invading one another. I imagine for most of it they thought that since the other guy was obviously preparing to kill them all, they needed nukes to deter them. Maybe you, Fojar38 the great, know otherwise. The perceived willingness to engage in a global thermonuclear war was actually the key to avoiding that very hypothetical scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Let me read this back out to you: "The perceived willingness to engage in a global thermonuclear war was actually the key to avoiding a situation in which an autocratic empire invaded the rest of the world and nukes were the only way to stop them." Uh, yeah? Mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War from going hot. That means that neither side was willing to go directly to war with the other because if they did it would be sealing their own absolute destruction. This was kept afloat by both the United States and the Soviet Union making sure that they were always perceived as being willing to push the button. This was even recognized as a really important method of keeping war at bay, to the point where treaties were signed limiting the degree to which either country was allowed to install missile defenses. This is really basic Cold War history.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:See, you're engaging in a paradox where nukes are necessary to prevent nukes being necessary, because you don't appear to consider what your words mean, at all. No, the willingness to use nukes is necessary to prevent them from actually being used. I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. To bring it back to my original statement, if the Soviet Union had actually gone out and invaded Western Europe, it would absolutely have been acceptable for the United States to nuke Moscow and kill everyone there, civilian and military. I am hesitant to grant the same thing to the Soviet Union, because I believe that the Soviet Union was a bad country with bad foreign policy goals, but an LF refugee/foreign policy "realist" would disagree, and say that it would totally be acceptable for the Soviets to glass New York if NATO invaded Poland.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Actually the title would probably go to whichever nation has been around the longest, unless we're going to be incredibly selective and inconsistent in applying the word "nation."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, in order to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we need to have them and be willing to use them, and this is the only way to do so. Nuclear disarmament would guarantee a nuclear war, ha ha ha. Unilateral nuclear disarmament does nothing aside from leave you vulnerable. At this point you might as well just say "Everyone should fully disarm all their militaries. That way there will never be a war!" This is grade school levels of naivete. quote:Okay, so you're in favor of killing civilians so long as the stakes are high enough. So what if I declare war on racism, and through the power of hypothetical scenarios to fulfill a point, nuke New York City to kill all the racists there. Is this acceptable? After all, I am engaging in a good set of policy goals, and you can replace me with a hypothetical absolutely good golem if you like. You're still conflating what's "good" with what's "acceptable." I'm sorry, but the world isn't a place that's universally "good" and doing things that are good can often lead to things that are bad. quote:Genocides are historically somewhat rare, Fojar, though this belief explains a lot about you. Depends on your definition of "genocide" which nobody has been able to agree on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Nice job adding words because you couldn't answer. I'm starting to suspect that you're really loving stupid but also really convinced of your brilliance. A pestilential combo. *Brainiac Five massages their temples while looking intently at a computer screen* "Fuckin' words, man!" quote:Okay, so you're dodging the point here. Is it OK, that is "acceptable", to kill lots of people in the pursuit of good policy goals done by an arbitrarily good person? I need to know before I purchase this lot of uranium hexafluoride. Depends; what would the consequences of not killing those people be? Your example of "nuking New York to defeat racism" doesn't seem very convincing because I don't see how nuking New York would inhibit racist sentiment any more than not nuking it, aside from temporarily reducing the number of racists in an absolute sense. Alternatively, it is always unacceptable if it involves you either coming up with the scenario or being involved with it in any way, since you're clearly an idiot. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 04:04
|
|