Idk the whole identifying based on your politics is so stupid. Yes i agree with a lot of communist idea in terms of public policy, but i have a lot more in common with my neo liberalist neighbor both middle class schmucks trying to survive than i have with some communist leader who eats caviar and rapes children.
Like fuck do i care if my neighbor believes in corporofascist neocapitalism?? It doesn’t matter he’s never gonna be in charge of policy, and neither will I. My political philosophy is honestly less important than my preferences in ice cream. The latter will actually have some real world effect on my life however small, once a while when i eat ice cream. As much as I agree with stuff that Marx and Engels wrote 150 years ago, it literally has no effect on my life at all.
meanwhile Zionists
“mom said it’s my turn to do a holocaust”
I hear from Democrats that Republicans are rounding up immigrants and bombing the Global South.
But I always have to weigh that against Republicans who claim Democrats have murdered millions of people with vaccinations and abortions.
All Atrocities Are Bad. That’s why I’m a staunch centrist, who firmly condemns both of them.
I think this is less directed at centrists, more directed at tankies and nationalists in general
I know from listening to Republicans that all Democrats are Communist Muslim infiltrators who want to destroy the country by undermining its incredibly successful economic programs. If someone is a Democrat, you should call the police immediately and report them for trying to sabotage the nation.
And I know from listening to Democrats that all Republicans are ultra-nationalist white supremacists who want to kill every minority, every non-Christian, and most women. If someone is a Republican, you should fight back in self-defense before they kill you and everyone you love.
I think it’s important that we condemn both groups for the atrocities they have committed.
Yeah man, I really think you’re trying to make a separate point than what the post is about.
The post is based on a false equivalence. The study of history is about reconstructing an accurate picture of the past, not blandly condemning Both Sides based on the accusations each faction makes of the other.
“What were the events that preceded and contributed to a genocidal event?” is a more salient question to a historical scholar than “How do we properly express our disgust at a genocide when we find evidence of one?”
He’s saying “both sides are bad” is a useless comment. And actually it’s unintelligent too, it misses the point that “both sides” dont really have anything to do with each other. Each individual should be help accountable for their actions, plain and simple. If both behave perfectly well, both behave perfectly evil, or some mix, it doesn’t really change any of the moral calculus at all.
So what if the accusation of an atrocity is bullshit peddled by liars but also the popular narrative that most people believe? Should we not challenge these perspectives even if our political affiliations happen to align with the accused? Especially when their history has been largely written by their greatest ideological enemies? Is this a historiographically responsible choice?
This post is a weird strawman that I don’t think happens nearly as often as your believe. It is likely that you are misinterpreting online interactions.
Ever been on .ml?
Ever had the pleasure of a tankie interaction?
Have you ever thoroughly investigated the claims they make or have you only dismissed them because you believe you know better?
