Keep in mind, nobody has been able to cite a single comment of mine that has “deified” anything. I have never praised Stalin (go check my comment history), however I have merely pointed out the success of the USSR. Big fucking deal lol.
Honesty hilarious and ironic to see this level of panic and censorship over a mere difference of opinion, while crying about the authoritarianism of China and Stalin.
Wait, admiring is deifying? Someone needs to update the rules. Sounds a lot more like you’re attempting to weaponize the rules to create a thought police regime so you don’t have to deal with your own cognitive dissonance.
Analyzing the successes and failures of the Soviet project is not deifying. Admiring specific leaders for specific accomplishments is not deifying.
Sounds a lot more like you’re attempting to weaponize the rules to create a thought police regime so you don’t have to deal with your own cognitive dissonance.
I’m sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about?
Rule 6 says “idealizing/glorifying”. A poster in this thread. Dogbert said the word “deifying” in this thread. Maybe you don’t think those are interchangeable. I could be convinced either way.
As for what I am talking about, the fact that Dogbert praises Stalin is apparently a problem for you. It is possible to praise people for the positive things they have done. Some people argue against that praise because they think the negative things the person has done are more important. Some people go so far as to believe it’s not possible a person has done anything praise worthy ever because of the bad things they have done and that therefore anyone praising them is clearly morally derelict and that their opinions no longer matter.
The fact that you are trying to paint Dogbert’s praising of Stalin as something he should “admit” is a way of drawing a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs, a form of thought policing, and also a way to create an echo chamber where you can’t be confronted with positions that challenge your own position and threaten some of the beliefs that you hold tied into your identity.
So what I am talking about is you, choosing to interpret Rule 6 as applying to a positive analysis of Stalin’s actions in office because you can’t really handle discourse that runs counter to an orthodoxy that you adhere to.
Keep in mind, nobody has been able to cite a single comment of mine that has “deified” anything. I have never praised Stalin (go check my comment history), however I have merely pointed out the success of the USSR. Big fucking deal lol.
Honesty hilarious and ironic to see this level of panic and censorship over a mere difference of opinion, while crying about the authoritarianism of China and Stalin.
Pretty embarrassing for you guys.
I’m calling your bluff
You heard it folks. Saying that Stalin was a communist is now “praise”. Great work fella 🤣
Totally not praise. /s
Acknowledging the success of the USSR is now praising Stalin. It keeps getting dumber and dumber 🤣
You can just admit it, comrade. You’re not fooling anyone that you don’t admire Stalin.
Wait, admiring is deifying? Someone needs to update the rules. Sounds a lot more like you’re attempting to weaponize the rules to create a thought police regime so you don’t have to deal with your own cognitive dissonance.
Analyzing the successes and failures of the Soviet project is not deifying. Admiring specific leaders for specific accomplishments is not deifying.
Who said “deifying”?
I’m sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about?
Rule 6 says “idealizing/glorifying”. A poster in this thread. Dogbert said the word “deifying” in this thread. Maybe you don’t think those are interchangeable. I could be convinced either way.
As for what I am talking about, the fact that Dogbert praises Stalin is apparently a problem for you. It is possible to praise people for the positive things they have done. Some people argue against that praise because they think the negative things the person has done are more important. Some people go so far as to believe it’s not possible a person has done anything praise worthy ever because of the bad things they have done and that therefore anyone praising them is clearly morally derelict and that their opinions no longer matter.
The fact that you are trying to paint Dogbert’s praising of Stalin as something he should “admit” is a way of drawing a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs, a form of thought policing, and also a way to create an echo chamber where you can’t be confronted with positions that challenge your own position and threaten some of the beliefs that you hold tied into your identity.
So what I am talking about is you, choosing to interpret Rule 6 as applying to a positive analysis of Stalin’s actions in office because you can’t really handle discourse that runs counter to an orthodoxy that you adhere to.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod