Black Comrade to [email protected] • 10 months agoJesus and Capitalistslemmygrad.mlimagemessage-square136fedilinkarrow-up1566arrow-down165cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1501arrow-down1imageJesus and Capitalistslemmygrad.mlBlack Comrade to [email protected] • 10 months agomessage-square136fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@CandelestinelinkEnglish5•10 months agoNo, 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.
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]linkfedilink-6•10 months agoYou 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. ♥️
minus-square@CandelestinelinkEnglish7•10 months agoWhat 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.
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]linkfedilink-3•edit-29 months ago What claim did I make that I now need to back? a Stalin that takes advantage of the situation to seize power. You don’t get to duck my question by asking a question.
minus-square@CandelestinelinkEnglish2•9 months agoYou 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's_rise_to_power
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]linkfedilink-3•edit-29 months ago You quoted part of a sentence. That was part of a question. Questions and claims are not the same things. It was not a question. This is the full quote of your original claim: Figure out a way to implement communism without creating a Stalin that takes advantage of the situation to seize power, and we can talk. Your implications are: that Stalin was bad. that Stalin wrongly “seized power”. that Stalin wrongly held onto power. 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.
minus-square@CandelestinelinkEnglish3•9 months agoI actually have addressed that one with other commentators, if you check out the rest of this thread.
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]linkfedilink-2•9 months agoI 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.
minus-square@CandelestinelinkEnglish3•9 months agoI 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?
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's_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?