• diegeticscream [all]
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You specifically did not answer me, and did not answer the question.

    If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?

    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.

    • @Candelestine
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      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.

      • diegeticscream [all]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Uh huh. If you think this charade of yours is fooling me, you’re mistaken.

        Is it a charade to stick to my original point?

        This does not mean my answer is not an answer, though. An answer … is an answer. You just don’t like it I guess.

        Can you please link me to what you consider to be an answer? I do not see it in this thread.

        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.

        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.

        If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?

        • @Candelestine
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          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.

          • diegeticscream [all]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            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.

            You’re picking at holes that don’t exist, I didn’t use the word “unable”. This is a strangely desperate dive into semantics.

            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 lie.

            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.

            The brainwashed one is me, even though you’re discussing a former world leader, all of which employ propaganda.

            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.

            If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?

            • @Candelestine
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              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.

              • diegeticscream [all]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                You’re experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - mental discomfort because you can’t square the existence of two conflicting things:

                • Your original implication that Stalin was a power hungry monster who seized power.
                • the fact that he attempted to resign, multiple times.

                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.

                I honestly don’t understand that this is a response to.

                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.

                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.

                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.

                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.

                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.

                I don’t understand what this is in response to, it doesn’t seem related to the question at hand.

                We admit we lie sometimes. This is why we doubt everything and try to seek consensus in our academic environments.

                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.

                • @Candelestine
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  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?

                  • diegeticscream [all]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    You’re trying to distract from avoiding the question at hand.

                    The Soviets and the USA are certainly not in the same group, though, so when they agree on an account, that is good evidence.

                    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?

                    Your claim that Stalin seriously attempted to resign might potentially be false. Can you admit that?

                    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