Saying that the collapse of a superpower is multifaceted and complex is not a particularly deep or introspective view.
Sure, and its also how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views. We are all should be expanding our understanding of the world around us. We are all at different places in how we see and understand things. I see this comm more as a highlight of stubbornness. I have not bummped into that particular user before, so maybe I am reading to much (little?) into it. I wouldn’t want to close someone off to further examining their biases; which is a hard thing to even start doing.
and if they had only put another decade and a half of a throwback hardliner like Andropov in, the USSR would’ve been on their way to solve their problems
And that is entirely possible, tho I am not interested in discussing alt history for any topic.
Sure, and its also how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views.
In the same way that learning to read is how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views, but I don’t praise neonazis for basic literacy. Likewise, many people who learn to read never develop deeper and more introspective views.
Saying “Geopolitical events are complex” is not a particularly telling precursor to deeper thought. Even most MAGA knuckle-draggers understand that much.
And that is entirely possible, tho I am not interested in discussing alt history for any topic.
So how would you react if someone said “Nazism had great successes. Germany went off the rails when they got rid of Hitler. The fall of the Third Reich was complex and multifaceted, but if only the Socialist Reich Party wasn’t banned and came to power for the next 20 years to restore Hitler’s legacy, Germany’s problems would have been well on their way to being solved!”
Would that provoke, likewise, a neutral reaction? Or rather, would you come into a comm about recording neonazi insanity and opt that you don’t know why such a statement is strange or objectionable, that it ultimately was really balanced statement and just showed a bit of bias (which we all have), and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world?
Or would it evoke some manner of revulsion, or disgust?
The question isn’t of ‘alt history’, but of stated values. You are not being asked “Do you think this is likely or unlikely, and why?”, you are being asked “What kind of values are being expressed by this analysis and this judgement, in the same way that there’s no point to conspiracy theories but someone talking about how the Jews run the world is very likely antisemitic”
So I ask again:
So how would you react if someone said “Nazism had great successes. Germany went off the rails when they got rid of Hitler. The fall of the Third Reich was complex and multifaceted, but if only the Socialist Reich Party wasn’t banned and came to power for the next 20 years to restore Hitler’s legacy, Germany’s problems would have been well on their way to being solved!”
Would that provoke, likewise, a neutral reaction? Or rather, would you come into a comm about recording neonazi insanity and opt that you don’t know why such a statement is strange or objectionable, that it ultimately was really balanced statement and just showed a bit of bias (which we all have), and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world?
Or would it evoke some manner of revulsion, or disgust?
hile I wouldn’t agree with the quotes there it reads, to me, as someone showing their bias; which everyone has, even if ours is not with the USSR.
So I ask again:
Not sure, something about them needing continue their learning more on the complexities of the matter. Particularly on why many don’t agree. I find that alt history types are often young and romantic about a topic, as such they should be encourage to change their views for the better and paths should be made for them.
At least when I interact with tankies or alt right types I do so more as a conversation with the audience and the lurkers (rather than the person I am replying to) who might be interacting with the topic for the first time.
I don’t know that user, but the tone does not strike me as quite dead set, so I wouldn’t say is a good foil for this comm to make our point that tankies are detrimental to overall leftist movements, but that is just how i read the replies.
Still I am aware of the lens they are seeing things and feel that show casing them closes off others leaving that view from leaving as well.
Not sure, something about them needing continue their learning more on the complexities of the matter. Particularly on why many don’t agree.
That’s how you’d respond to a fucking Nazi being showcased.
You would come into a comm about recording neonazi insanity and opt that you don’t know why such a statement is strange or objectionable, that it ultimately was really balanced statement and just showed a bit of bias (which we all have), and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world.
Well, at least you’re consistent. For what that’s worth.
I don’t know that user, but the tone does not strike me as quite dead set, so I wouldn’t say is a good foil for this comm to make our point that tankies are detrimental to overall leftist movements, but that is just how i read the replies.
… not quite deadset? Just how set do you have to be before you start praising the Soviet Union as the ‘successes of socialism’ and condemning fucking Brezhnev as a ‘revisionist’?
Still I am aware of the lens they are seeing things and feel that show casing them closes off others leaving that view from leaving as well.
“If only we swept it under the rug and gave them asspats for showing their totalitarian ideology in public, it would really help them leave it behind!”
Just how set do you have to be before you start praising the Soviet Union as
I guess how deadset is a you know it when you see it the of thing.
And again. I don’t find alt history interesting and its to open ended. I don’t think it makes for good discussions. Maybe they grow up.
and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world.
Yeah, everyone starts somewhere. Everyone is at a different part of the same journey to understanding the world around them. Someone moving should be encourage to stay moving. The com is for those that stay put or move back.
Pointing out one with some level of curiosity doesn’t serve goals I feel. People start their spark in real science in science fiction. Just gotta get them past the fantasy.
Sure, and its also how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views. We are all should be expanding our understanding of the world around us. We are all at different places in how we see and understand things. I see this comm more as a highlight of stubbornness. I have not bummped into that particular user before, so maybe I am reading to much (little?) into it. I wouldn’t want to close someone off to further examining their biases; which is a hard thing to even start doing.
And that is entirely possible, tho I am not interested in discussing alt history for any topic.
In the same way that learning to read is how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views, but I don’t praise neonazis for basic literacy. Likewise, many people who learn to read never develop deeper and more introspective views.
Saying “Geopolitical events are complex” is not a particularly telling precursor to deeper thought. Even most MAGA knuckle-draggers understand that much.
So how would you react if someone said “Nazism had great successes. Germany went off the rails when they got rid of Hitler. The fall of the Third Reich was complex and multifaceted, but if only the Socialist Reich Party wasn’t banned and came to power for the next 20 years to restore Hitler’s legacy, Germany’s problems would have been well on their way to being solved!”
Would that provoke, likewise, a neutral reaction? Or rather, would you come into a comm about recording neonazi insanity and opt that you don’t know why such a statement is strange or objectionable, that it ultimately was really balanced statement and just showed a bit of bias (which we all have), and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world?
Or would it evoke some manner of revulsion, or disgust?
Aliens could also show up. There is no point in alt history.
The question isn’t of ‘alt history’, but of stated values. You are not being asked “Do you think this is likely or unlikely, and why?”, you are being asked “What kind of values are being expressed by this analysis and this judgement, in the same way that there’s no point to conspiracy theories but someone talking about how the Jews run the world is very likely antisemitic”
So I ask again:
I’m aware I said so here
Not sure, something about them needing continue their learning more on the complexities of the matter. Particularly on why many don’t agree. I find that alt history types are often young and romantic about a topic, as such they should be encourage to change their views for the better and paths should be made for them.
At least when I interact with tankies or alt right types I do so more as a conversation with the audience and the lurkers (rather than the person I am replying to) who might be interacting with the topic for the first time.
I don’t know that user, but the tone does not strike me as quite dead set, so I wouldn’t say is a good foil for this comm to make our point that tankies are detrimental to overall leftist movements, but that is just how i read the replies.
Still I am aware of the lens they are seeing things and feel that show casing them closes off others leaving that view from leaving as well.
That’s how you’d respond to a fucking Nazi being showcased.
You would come into a comm about recording neonazi insanity and opt that you don’t know why such a statement is strange or objectionable, that it ultimately was really balanced statement and just showed a bit of bias (which we all have), and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world.
Well, at least you’re consistent. For what that’s worth.
… not quite deadset? Just how set do you have to be before you start praising the Soviet Union as the ‘successes of socialism’ and condemning fucking Brezhnev as a ‘revisionist’?
“If only we swept it under the rug and gave them asspats for showing their totalitarian ideology in public, it would really help them leave it behind!”
Yes. I’m sure it would.
I guess how deadset is a you know it when you see it the of thing.
And again. I don’t find alt history interesting and its to open ended. I don’t think it makes for good discussions. Maybe they grow up.
Yeah, everyone starts somewhere. Everyone is at a different part of the same journey to understanding the world around them. Someone moving should be encourage to stay moving. The com is for those that stay put or move back.
Pointing out one with some level of curiosity doesn’t serve goals I feel. People start their spark in real science in science fiction. Just gotta get them past the fantasy.