You must log in or register to comment.
You get people who believe jet contrails only started appearing in the 90s even though that they didn’t is literally within living memory.
I’ve definitely noticed people who challenge anything you say by asking for a source, but make tons of unsourced claims themselves.
Sealion infestations are problematic. Be sure to call your local exterminator promptly whenever you encounter one.
Hashtag Rule’34
I rather have a source to support a claim instead of “but it’s how I feel so it’s real! Scientists don’t know anything, stop debunk my feelings with facts because I know I’m right! I read it on Facebook!”
We need more reliable and supported sources and less fake news.
I think it’s totally reasonable to ask for a source about a historical claim if something hasn’t been true for over a decade?
Not if it’s a thing that everyone experienced first hand and everyone remembers.
SOURCE?
terrifying
Family Member: Russia needs to invade Ukraine because they need a shield against NATO.
Me: But NATO wasn’t going to attack them. It’s a defensive organization.
That’s what THEY want you to believe. (Was not able to clarify who “they” were during conversation, but got the impression it wasn’t nato)
Even if you believe Russia to be 100% in the wrong, the idea that NATO is a defensive organization is laughable. Not only has it historically been led by Nazis, the member-states are the most imperialist countries on the planet. It serves to protect an inherently violent status quo of brutal looting and exploitation of the Global South, and that’s without getting into aggressive operations from NATO.
Russia is a terrorist shithole and the US is an even worse terrorist shithole. Doesn’t mean that NATO is invading anyone or that Moskovya isn’t.
I never said Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, my point is specifically that calling NATO a “defensive alliance” despite it’s sole purpose being maintenance of Western Imperialism is laughable. People who understand ACAB but defend NATO as “purely defensive” have an inability to understand imperialism.
My comment has been deleted for no reason. Enjoy.
Probably your ableist username.
It’s also hypocritical. NATO is willing to allow Ukraine to join, but not Russia:
The archives show irrefutably that the U.S. and German governments repeatedly promised to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward” when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact military alliance. Nonetheless, U.S. planning for NATO expansion began early in the 1990s, well before Vladimir Putin was Russia’s president. In 1997, national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the NATO expansion timeline with remarkable precision.
Its behind a paywall can you copy paste?
Yep. After the USSR was murdered and the State sliced up and sold for spare parts to the Imperialist bourgeoisie in the west, there was a nationalist bourgeoisie that regained control of the Russian Federation’s resources and industry, and the West never forgave them for that. That’s why Russia is a far-right dystopia in many ways, but unlike far-right dystopias allies to the US Empire, the Russian Federation is depicted in a negative light exclusively in western Media, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Argentina, etc.
What the actual hell
Which part?
-
The USSR was not murdered, it fell apart after decades of internal mismanagement and multiple leaders who were more invested in swinging their dicks around than feeding their people and dealing with the timebomb of internal ethnic tensions.
-
countries were already breaking away before the ‘death’ knell, they had been forcibly absorbed into a warmongering empire and wanted no further part in it.
-
reports of ‘people thought communism was better’ are not a trite thing to fling around, it’s a complex issue of fear of change, fuck capitalism live to work ideology, and people from a handful of very select countries who were perched very parasitically on the top of a heap to the absolute detriment of others getting butthurt at losing that position. There is a reason why no formerly occupied country wants to return to the USSR
4). THE USSR WAS LITERALLY DISSOLVED BY ITS FOUNDING MEMBERS
-
Not really true. Up to the end, the Soviets were well-fed, there were genuine issues but it was fine. The Economy was slowing down, and the Soviets were still largely planning by hand, which failed to scale well with increasing production, but necessities were more than covered. The system was working, if slowing.
-
A few SRs had rising nationalist movements towards the end, but up until the very end the vast majority voted to retain membership in the USSR. It wasn’t until afterwards that it began to be murdered from the top, from the botched coup, to the change in leadership roles that allowed for conflicts within what was supposed to be a centralized system.
-
Wealth disparity was far lower in the USSR than in post-soviet countries.
On top of this, the majority wished to retain Socialism and want to go back. I don’t “fling it around lightly,” this is a well-documented phenomenon, Capitalism is worse than Socialism for post-soviet countries. The USSR also wasn’t an Empire, nor was it warmongering, it materially supported anticolonial and anti-imperialist movements the world over.
- The USSR was not dissolved by Lenin or the other bolsheviks who founded it, lmao. This is absurd.
-
-
If you think the USSR was murdered and didn’t just collapse due to its own gross mismanagement, you’ve been on .ml for too long.
What do you believe happened? It’s pretty clear that right up until it’s dissolution, the majority of the public had no idea it was going to collapse, nor did they want to replace Socialism with Capitalism. The majority of ex-soviets still claim it was better under Socialism than it is under Capitalism.
If somebody would ask for a source it would already be a big improvement. Usually you are just classified as idiot if you dare to have a different view.
Eh. By now I’m pretty sure most people just interact with the internet in order to reconfirm their already held beliefs because they expect the algorithm to give them exactly what they want and a few “wrong” things to dunk on easily for bonus points.
They don’t need sources they are already right.
Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely…
Marxist-Leninist books I recommend
Such as? Need a book to read next.
Depends, how familiar are you with Marxism?
The very broad strokes (not red-scared).
You’ve got a bit of a choose your own adventure!
If you consider yourself a liberal and generally against AES like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic critical reexamination and reads very well. Nothing but constant truth bombs.
If you want to get into Marxism, I recommend The Principles of Communism followed by Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as Elementary Principles of Philosophy. An intro/FAQ of Communism, followed by the history of Socialism and how and why Marxism answers the problems with previous Utopian Socialists, and finally the best work on the philosophical aspect of Marxism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
If you want some quick reads, I love Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. Modern analysis, 20 minute reads, based on what we currently know and not written back in the period of Marx.
Finally, if you consider yourself a Marxist already, The State and Revolution as well as Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism are both Lenin’s most significant works.
Really though, the modern works and Blackshirts and Reds are great primers before delving into Marx, Engels, and Lenin themselves.
Woah! Thanks for the tips!
0·2 days agoA cool book I like is This Soviet World. It shows the Soviet Union as experienced by the author in the 1930s.
No problem! If you finish them all and for some reason want more, I have plenty of other recommendations, and you can DM me if you have any questions. I personally really like reading the modern author I linked, they have a bunch of niche, specific essays like Dialectical Matetialism in the context of Quantum Mechanics (makes sense if you’ve read Elementary Principles of Philosophy) or Marxism vs Anarchism, or why Cooperatives aren’t Marxist (not a purity test! They are socialist but not Marxist). Have fun!
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition’s view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I “pepper” is if it’s to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don’t usually send a large reading list, usually it’s one article or book with an explanation of why it’s relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
And their own sources are so heavily butchered or even lied about. I cannot count the amount of times people provided me with ‘sources’ that they claim were ironclad in their favor only for them to completely debunk their shit…
It’s called a “gish gallop” mixed with a disagreement about what this platform is, with a healthy mix of “ain’t nobody got time for that”. To some people this is a legitimate place of discussion, to others it’s a place to shit post. One thing that Reddit did get right was seperating the two groups from each other. Lemmy doesn’t do that as well unless you ask it to and for some people, they ain’t got time for that. That still leaves the people who are gish galloping but they’re not going anywhere so might as well adapt.
And that’s the same person who makes wild absurd claims but well just go off the rails and tell you to do your own research
"Of course they would say that. Those Liberal, left wing universities, with their peer review, aren’t to be trusted.
These hard-right think tanks (masquerading as anything other than a glorified PR firm they are) on the other hand are the definition of unbiased knowledge"
And the sources they claim to have heavily researched often never say what they claim they say or are utterly full of shit.
“My source is that I MADE IT THE FUCK UP”
- President of the USA (probably in a videogame)
It’s gotten to a point where I just go ahead append a warning that I have no source and am just making casual conversation.
Source: my previous comment on Lemmy.
People who make memes mocking the expectation of a source are the ones responsible for the downfall of society
Source?
Not everything needs a source. There is such thing as “common knowledge” . Things get very out of hand and very messy if you try to source EVERY claim. Obviously there are limits to this and I put common knowledge in quotes for a reason but seriously I mean it when I say not everything needs a source.
Boo hoo.
I’ve heard a saying, two things you should never do on the Internet are argue or explain. It takes up a lot of mental energy and time to do it for no reward.
Also trolls and propagandists employ bad faith tactics specifically to make their opposition do the bulk of the world, which they either ignore after or they just laugh at for some bullshit reason they claim is a gotcha.
There is an Islamophobic author who has been employing shit like in his books since the 90s. It isn’t new at all.
Oh you don’t understand how much reward i get on tiktok for proving my point so much that i get blocked.
It brings me unfathomable joy
I think in many cases the people who explain things are doing a huge service. They’re silently appreciated by many. The true GOATs of the internet.
I’ve read so many great explanations on Reddit for things in math, science, literature, etc and I feel very grateful to the people who explained them.
Askhistorians is king.
Yes. The thing to remember is in many cases you aren’t explaining for the person you are debating with or answering a question for. You are doing it for others who may read the conversation.
I’ve had things brought to light in online discussion change my mind or educate me many times. When I see someone claim these conversations are useless or a waste of time, I just think they are really setting weird criteria for what constitutes a waste of time.
Sure, sometimes I ain’t got no time for that, but other times I do, and I figure the same is true for many others as well.
Source?!
/s
Is that what the s stands for?
Yes.
We lost all the ice in the polar regions back in 2013. And the hole in the ozone layer killed everyone back in the 1990s
