• diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 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]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 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]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 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

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So, you cannot admit even the possibility it could be false.

              This is faith, no different from religion. I do not think I can get through to you.

              • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, you cannot admit even the possibility it could be false.

                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.

                This isn’t a response to what I said.

                You very conveniently ignored the bit in that comment where your own argument forces you to admit that you’re wrong about Stalin.

                This is faith, no different from religion. I do not think I can get through to you.

                I get that you’re having trouble with cognitive dissonance, but this isn’t a response to “I would need evidence”.

                You still haven’t answered the question.

                • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A possibility does not require evidence. It is a “could be”, a hypothetical proposition. I do not need evidence an undiscovered planet lies in the Oort Cloud of our solar system to wonder if it is possible for one to exist there.

                  If one cannot admit a possibility and can only come up with excuses for why, then what you are dealing with is faith, the same thing within people that creates religions. It’s how people can read the Bible or Koran and simply believe it, while being unable to admit the possibility it could be false.

                  When someone has faith like this, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, as their faith blinds them to certain possibilities. This is why I do not think I can get through to you, unfortunately. It’s just like someone saying “I need evidence for why the bible is false.”

                  • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’ve unfortunately been banned from lemmygrad, so I won’t be able to see any of your replies.

                    “I’ll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.” isn’t the statement of blind faith. Your stance on Stalin, ironically, is.

                    While you’re wistfully dealing with our separation, please think of two things:

                    • Your own argument demands that you admit your stance on Stalin is wrong. You haven’t acknowledged that for several comments now.

                    • You’ve been unable to respond to my initial question because you’ll have to drop your stance. Stalin cannot both be a power-seizing maniac, and someone who begs the Politboro to let him resign. We know the one is true. Can you accept your ideas are false?