By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Are Feminists Evil?

VGPolyglot on 27 April 2017
potato_hamster said:
VGPolyglot said:

1. Yes, I've heard the concept of propaganda. The Soviet Union's propaganda was that they were actually trying to achieve communism, when they weren't.

2. They weren't communist, because they did not meet the fundamental principles needed in order to be communist. Hitler, on the other hand, was actively committing genocide and managed to kill off millions of Jews in a span of just years. The Soviet Union, in over 70 years, didn't do it.

So you think you know more than well-respected, highly-awarded historians who have made a lucrative living both researching, and expressing their opinions on the matter after studying it for decades and have access to materials you probably don't even know exist.

Makes sense.

No, I think that the historians have an agenda that they're trying to push, just like me.



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 27 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

So you think you know more than well-respected, highly-awarded historians who have made a lucrative living both researching, and expressing their opinions on the matter after studying it for decades and have access to materials you probably don't even know exist.

Makes sense.

No, I think that the historians have an agenda that they're trying to push, just like me.

And the agenda a historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist is.....?



VGPolyglot on 27 April 2017
potato_hamster said:
VGPolyglot said:

No, I think that the historians have an agenda that they're trying to push, just like me.

And the agenda a historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist is.....?

The Soviet Union weren't communist. It's as simple as that.



Valdath on 27 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

And the agenda a historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist is.....?

The Soviet Union weren't communist. It's as simple as that.

lol

 



potato_hamster on 27 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

And the agenda a historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist is.....?

The Soviet Union weren't communist. It's as simple as that.

No, no. Stop evading. What agenda is an historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist?

It's only simple for you because you're a Utopian. I have no idea what you actual knowledge base is or what you've read, or what you actually have researched.  And you expect me to just take your word for it that directly contradicts a vast pool or well respected Historians whose experience and bodies of work are available for all to see, just because you say so?

Hard pass.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 27 April 2017
potato_hamster said:
VGPolyglot said:

The Soviet Union weren't communist. It's as simple as that.

No, no. Stop evading. What agenda is an historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist?

It's only simple for you because you're a Utopian. I have no idea what you actual knowledge base is or what you've read, or what you actually have researched.  And you expect me to just take your word for it that directly contradicts a vast pool or well respected Historians whose experience and bodies of work are available for all to see, just because you say so?

Hard pass.

The only way that the Soviet Union can be considered communist is by changing the meaning of communism. He did just that, transforming its meaning from a classless, stateless system into a totalitarian state-controlled economic system.



potato_hamster on 27 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

No, no. Stop evading. What agenda is an historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist?

It's only simple for you because you're a Utopian. I have no idea what you actual knowledge base is or what you've read, or what you actually have researched.  And you expect me to just take your word for it that directly contradicts a vast pool or well respected Historians whose experience and bodies of work are available for all to see, just because you say so?

Hard pass.

The only way that the Soviet Union can be considered communist is by changing the meaning of communism. He did just that, transforming its meaning from a classless, stateless system into a totalitarian state-controlled economic system.

Have you considered that perhaps your idea on what Communism means doesn't actually align with reality?



VGPolyglot on 27 April 2017
potato_hamster said:
VGPolyglot said:

The only way that the Soviet Union can be considered communist is by changing the meaning of communism. He did just that, transforming its meaning from a classless, stateless system into a totalitarian state-controlled economic system.

Have you considered that perhaps your idea on what Communism means doesn't actually align with reality?

? Wouldn't I actually be accepting reality by saying that the Soviet Union isn't communist, instead of falsely believing that it was some great socialist paradise?



o_O.Q on 27 April 2017

 

VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

No, no. Stop evading. What agenda is an historian is trying to push by correctly stating that the Soviet Union was Communist?

It's only simple for you because you're a Utopian. I have no idea what you actual knowledge base is or what you've read, or what you actually have researched.  And you expect me to just take your word for it that directly contradicts a vast pool or well respected Historians whose experience and bodies of work are available for all to see, just because you say so?

Hard pass.

The only way that the Soviet Union can be considered communist is by changing the meaning of communism. He did just that, transforming its meaning from a classless, stateless system into a totalitarian state-controlled economic system.

 

how is a classless society possible without implementing some kind of system to keep everyone on the same level?

 

if you are able to realise that a system would be needed to ensure that everyone is kept at the same level... who puts that system in plce and maintains it? would that person or persons not have to be above everyone else?



potato_hamster on 27 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

Have you considered that perhaps your idea on what Communism means doesn't actually align with reality?

? Wouldn't I actually be accepting reality by saying that the Soviet Union isn't communist, instead of falsely believing that it was some great socialist paradise?

You see, you're actually assuming that your assumption of what Communism means is accurate. Have you considered that Communism doesn't actually result in a "great socialist paradise", or are you stating that the Soviet Union couldn't possibly have been Communist because it was a fucking horrific place to live.

I mean, it wouldn't really look good for people pushing for Communism if the best known example of Communism implemented in the world resulting in the govenment putting posters up pleading with people to stop eating their children due to the desperation starvation instills.