No? The CPC isn’t committing genocide. I quite clearly gave you an example of a fundamental error by the CPC to disprove your notion that I accept whatever the CPC does, and now you’re saying that that’s more evidence of only accepting the CPC?
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
No drugs, other than caffeine and occasionally ibuprofen, and a drink once or twice a month. I do take creatine when I work out, but that’s a supplement, not a drug. I don’t know what you mean by “true belief,” but you’ve posted precisely 0 sources and ignored mountains of evidence contrary to your own fantasy-level blood libel.
No? You haven’t presented any evidence whatsoever. If you actually posted evidence, or meaningfully contested the evidence I presented without making up conspiracy theories, then we could have a discussion. It isn’t true because I link it or false because you do, I’m the only one presenting evidence while you’ve ignored it.
No no, see, they did make a bunch of claims as evidence. They may not have provided any sources for those claims and haven’t proven those claims true. But they did provide a lot of claims and say that it is evidence of something.
That we require it to be more rigorous than that is not their problem
No? The CPC isn’t committing genocide. I quite clearly gave you an example of a fundamental error by the CPC to disprove your notion that I accept whatever the CPC does, and now you’re saying that that’s more evidence of only accepting the CPC?
What kind of drugs do you do? I need some of this ‘true belief’ shit you are smoking.
No drugs, other than caffeine and occasionally ibuprofen, and a drink once or twice a month. I do take creatine when I work out, but that’s a supplement, not a drug. I don’t know what you mean by “true belief,” but you’ve posted precisely 0 sources and ignored mountains of evidence contrary to your own fantasy-level blood libel.
according to you any evidence i present is false because i present it. and according to you any evidence you present is true because you present it.
weird how that works.
No? You haven’t presented any evidence whatsoever. If you actually posted evidence, or meaningfully contested the evidence I presented without making up conspiracy theories, then we could have a discussion. It isn’t true because I link it or false because you do, I’m the only one presenting evidence while you’ve ignored it.
you are just quoting propaganda. repeatedly. and claiming it’s evidence.
then when i claim something as evidence, you claim it’s propaganda, not evidence.
and around and around we go.
No? I cited a broad variety of academic scholarship and primary sources, you never linked any sources to begin with.
No no, see, they did make a bunch of claims as evidence. They may not have provided any sources for those claims and haven’t proven those claims true. But they did provide a lot of claims and say that it is evidence of something.
That we require it to be more rigorous than that is not their problem
I was genuinely hoping they weren’t saying their claims were evidence, but I fear you’re 100% correct here.