Barx [none/use name]

grep -i p states.txt | wc -l

$30/month pls

Guy holding a Bronze axe circa 2000 BC: “I’ve got the best idea for what to call right now”.

We have our best eyebrow forensic scientists on the case

I can’t believe Squeej would do this

ENHANCE

Jokerfied, you say?

Treats Uber Alles

If you run into any problems with Mint, ask us for help!

Hell yeah how were they?

Hell yeah MSTRKRFT.

And don’t sleep on Death From Above, the sister project.

I mean of course it is, but the only question is whether it is true. Whole peoples can be backed by a group and thereby lose agency due to their influence. But more typically it is not whole peoples, it is a subset, and they achieve outsized power due to funda from the outside group. This will have undermined the agency of everyone else.

IMO agency discussions are usually bad faith liberalism trying to avoid discussing the material forcea of geopolitics. Sometimes it is valid, but usually it isn’t.

It was because we all rightfully feared the curse.

Also don’t forget this (TrueAnon?) rule of life, comrades: always pay your military.

Gnosticism time

The Reddit with a constant stream of Ukrainian war snuff films?

DDD hero victory tour photo album

What’re you sellin’?

Not it’s really not.

Yeah it really is. It has no academic rigor. This is why teachers don’t let you cite it.

And like you and I both said the numbers quoted aren’t incorrect or come from a non-factual source.

Actually I didn’t say that and so far you haven’t even responded to my comment on your numbers. I’m not going to repeat myself so if you want to discuss the numbers maybe you could deign to directly respond, O Great Wiki Warrior.

So saying this man killed a lot of people is not something incorrect.

Saying that Stalin killed a lot of people would be unanimously accepted by every person on this website and Wikipedia isn’t how we know it lmao. We can all see the responses to you saying he killed lots of Nazis, for example, but you seem to be afraid of internalizing anything we say to you - or not saying silly things while being defensive.

Just try being honest. Kill the person in your head that says you can never admit fault. That person is a coward and full of shit and as you can see here, nobody likes them.

Regardless of your political ideologies or affiliations. So what critical thinking do you want me to employ here? Even if I read the book, what context would I be missing?

There is no mystery to what critical thinking I’ve asked of you. I asked you questions for you to yhink about two comments ago (that you ignored) and the comment you’re trying to ignore is quite clear. I think you can figure it out. I’ll help you out and repeat myself if you say, “sorry Barx, my bad. I went and triex to figure out what you meant by critical thinking and, shucks, I just couldn’t do it! Can you help me please?”

Someone else in this thread tried giving me the same message. Recommended a few books to me.

Because you display ignorance. They are being nicer to you than you are to them. They, unlike you, actually do the reading. Unlike you, they don’t rely on chickenshit rhetorical circles to avoid doing so.

One of them was written in the 30s so before a lot of the shit Stalin did.

That’s not a reason not to read it. See what I mean by chickenshit? If anything something from the 30s will be favorable to anticommunism simply because the Soviet archives were not available. If you weren’t deathly afraid of challenging yourself, you would learn that the archives largely contradicted Western exaggerations and guesses as well as Kruschevite antistalinism.

Another one literally backed up the numbers I quoted.

Did you read it? And for the third time, I’ve already replied to your numbers and you’ve not responded.

So what are you and every other person in this thread arguing with me about here?

I have been very clear. You can respond to what I say instead of pretending it’s a mystery.

Are you simply trying to tell me that wikipedia isn’t reliable?

What have I said about Wikipedia? Can you read it and tell me?

I would disagree as nothing you or anyone else has said has led me to believe that my understsnding of this topic is incorrect

Yes, it is quite clear that you have made the propaganda you wish to believe unassailable. This is not because it is valid, but because you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and others. For example, pretending to not know my criticism of you using Wikipedia, ignoring 75% of what I say to you, and relying on blatantly absurd rhetoric.

but I’ll leave you to your opinion in the mattyou

Difference being that I read the books while yoi skim Wikipedia to confuse yourself, so my opinions are correct and yours are propaganda.

Just because you take issue with some articles that has millions of articles from a community built site does not delegtimize it in my eyes.

The thing I told you to do is to read actual history books, including the ones you listed from Wikipedia despite not having read them, because Wikipedia is poisoned by, for example, Nazi apologetic debate perverts when it comes to social and political issues. You need to actually read critically, not just absorb whatever fits the bullshit you spent all of 10 minutes absorbing from others.

This is, apparently, too much for me to ask of you. God forbid you read a book or challenge the logic of a Wikipedia page. You might die in the process.

Are you trying to tell me that Stalin did not cause a lot of deaths? That’s not really an argument up for debate as its well documented that he was.

You thought this was such a good zinger you said it twice lmao.

So hey, what about the 80% of my comment you didn’t reply to? Why take up so much space saying silly nonsense instead of just replying to what I say?

I think I know the answet. But do you have the self-posession to say it?

Sure, it might have some contentious pages, but it does get edited by people who care enough. Just like the article you linked says.

Why does a page need to be contentious to be biased and misleading? As you yourself demonstrate in this thread, media literacy and criticism are not widely adopted.

I already asked you some simple challenging questions that addresses this. Can you think about answering it? Why didn’t you already answer it? Why do you make me repeat myself?

And you said it yourself the source I used was fine.

I told you to read the actual books by Wheatcroft and Davies and suggested applying the mildest or critical thinking. Do you believe you are doing that right now or arw you being defensive and deflecting from critique?

If I misinterpreted the quote or of there’s more to the story you can clarify that and I’ll correct myself.

It seems you have missed the point entirely. Citing Wikipedia is like saying your mom you something once. Nobody has the onus of disproving what mommy told you. It is your job to actually study something before adopting the pretense that you understand it.

To do otherwise is arrogant and dishonest. And as we can see here, you are tryjng yo flip the onus and would like to believe you are right about what mommy yold you untio someone corrects you. Of course, as we have seen in this thread, when someone takes the time to do that, you respond in bad faith and deflect. All you’re really doing is building stratagems for being lazy and wrong.

Are you surprised when you aren’t taken seriously?

That looks like a code block to me. It shoukd either be four spaces before every line or whatever is between four backticks. I am going to test with four backticks.

Test
Test

There is also probably a way to view the raw preformatted text of a comment but I forget how.

Wikipedia is where liberal nerds go to slapfight, inconsistently using various rules to push their agendas. There is, for example, someone that spends a ton of her time fighting Nazi apologetics on Wikipedia that would otherwise still be there and she receives a lot of pushback. While her task is just, ask yourself why she needa to do it in the first place. Why is Wikipedia so friendly to Nazi apologetics? Why is it so hostile to corrections of it? Do you think the reasons might apply to other articles?

Wikipedia will mislead you on topics with more room for politics. It is fine if you want to use it to learn some math or something, but on anything social or political you should assume it has been written by someone sympathetic to Nazis and instead read books before forming any opinions.

Wheatcroft (who you have already cited) and Davies have some good overviews based on thr archives. Instead of using selected quotes provided by Wiki editors, I would recommend reading the source material. And then compare it, critically, to the intended message from Wikipedia.