No rDrama allowed.
(vgmsite.com)
o/
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
10 comments:
5
2 years ago
5 points
(+5
/
-0
)
Permalink
Reply
None
2 years ago
-6 points
(+1
/
-7
)
1 child
Logged in just so I could upvote this (except the specific application of the last two words).
None
deleted
2 years ago
5 points
(+5
/
-0
)
1 child
2 years ago
-7 points
(+1
/
-8
)
1 child
I can hail victory and the general victory of the white race over satanists. I'm not prepared to allow people to conclude that I hail the particular victory of Hitler's ideals that would be reasonably applied from this phrase unqualified, because I don't know enough about Hitler's ideals to affirm them. It seems to me that, due to public perception, affirming Hitler is a sure route to losing in the same way that affirming flat earth is. However, with flat earth I see a way through (which is why my alt is now specializing in that theory), and I still haven't found a way through for Hitler yet. Here to learn.
None
deleted
2 years ago
1 point
(+1
/
-0
)
1 child
2 years ago
-6 points
(+0
/
-6
)
1 child
Ordinarily I don't even bother with movies because they're not searchable or skimmable. I gave up after 3 minutes of memes with a speaker overtalking them. Oh, it might be a better fit to argue questionable results if I took his data and said we have 450,000 alleged bodies in 3 months in one location that we were watching and didn't see any dirt from mass graves or smoke from mass burns. But that's a very general statement and I don't doubt that he has some experience behind it but you don't convince people by being generic.
Normally **to debunk a mass mistaken view** an author would sequentially need to present several lines of narrative in response: a documentation of the actual data presented by the apologists for the mistake; a demonstration of reasons why the data is mistaken or conflicted; an alternate explanation for how the data arose and came together; and facts that argue in favor of the alternate explanation. For 9/11 we have all those lines, for instance.
It seems strange to me that **when people recommend me things about Holocaust denial and Nazi purity, they never follow that approach.** For instance, in about 3 minutes, the same time it took to form an opinion about your link, I noticed in WP that *the DAP (later NSDAP) was founded by Karl Harrer, a member of the Thule Society or Germanenorden Walvater, a secret society founded by occultist Rudolf von Sebottendorf.* These appear to be historical facts stated straightforwardly, and they pique my learning interest for source-based research much more than memes theorizing about wooden doors and ballpoint pens.
Now your own memes are generally more fact-based and historical than this, and I value that. But the general movement refuses to put forward a consistent narrative by a known public figure in a cogent series of progressive demonstrations. And that is a big weakness for it. **I love conspiracies,** but some are true at the core and some are just trying to make much of human inconsistency that is better explained by other reasons than the core hoax belief.
Tell you what. **Make one or three propositions that you wish to educate me on, and I'll tell you where I stand on them and we can see what I can still learn.** You make two propositions here, for example. On #1 I can see some support for the idea that Hitler advanced public Christianity, but I also see support for the idea that diehard followers of Jesus were persecuted by him, and thus the upshot of his work may have been that Christianity became more statist. On #2 I can certainly affirm that many Jews are satanists, as are even more Gentiles; and Jews are the "curators of communism" in generally having a special affinity and advocacy for it; but to use the statement unvarnished, as it implies "all" Jews are satanists, cannot be concluded as a proposition without dogmatic racial theory. So you've produced propositions where I would need to define what you say before I could approve them with the meaning you do.
If you'd like to present propositions for testing in such a way that I can affirm their binary negation, then we'd be able to join a more formal debate. I appreciate your interest.
Normally **to debunk a mass mistaken view** an author would sequentially need to present several lines of narrative in response: a documentation of the actual data presented by the apologists for the mistake; a demonstration of reasons why the data is mistaken or conflicted; an alternate explanation for how the data arose and came together; and facts that argue in favor of the alternate explanation. For 9/11 we have all those lines, for instance.
It seems strange to me that **when people recommend me things about Holocaust denial and Nazi purity, they never follow that approach.** For instance, in about 3 minutes, the same time it took to form an opinion about your link, I noticed in WP that *the DAP (later NSDAP) was founded by Karl Harrer, a member of the Thule Society or Germanenorden Walvater, a secret society founded by occultist Rudolf von Sebottendorf.* These appear to be historical facts stated straightforwardly, and they pique my learning interest for source-based research much more than memes theorizing about wooden doors and ballpoint pens.
Now your own memes are generally more fact-based and historical than this, and I value that. But the general movement refuses to put forward a consistent narrative by a known public figure in a cogent series of progressive demonstrations. And that is a big weakness for it. **I love conspiracies,** but some are true at the core and some are just trying to make much of human inconsistency that is better explained by other reasons than the core hoax belief.
Tell you what. **Make one or three propositions that you wish to educate me on, and I'll tell you where I stand on them and we can see what I can still learn.** You make two propositions here, for example. On #1 I can see some support for the idea that Hitler advanced public Christianity, but I also see support for the idea that diehard followers of Jesus were persecuted by him, and thus the upshot of his work may have been that Christianity became more statist. On #2 I can certainly affirm that many Jews are satanists, as are even more Gentiles; and Jews are the "curators of communism" in generally having a special affinity and advocacy for it; but to use the statement unvarnished, as it implies "all" Jews are satanists, cannot be concluded as a proposition without dogmatic racial theory. So you've produced propositions where I would need to define what you say before I could approve them with the meaning you do.
If you'd like to present propositions for testing in such a way that I can affirm their binary negation, then we'd be able to join a more formal debate. I appreciate your interest.
None
Toast message