So all your family fought on the side of socialism against fascism and now you spit on their tomb by saying “socialism is just as bad”?
My family fought against totalitarian systems not “for socialism”. The USSR wasn’t socialist and it never planned on becoming that after the communists lost the first election.
My family fought fascists and authoritarians. You back authoritarians who oppress the people. Do you see the difference?
Why do you think your whataboutism will work this time?
hence the “might not get enslaved”. You might not get enslaved in the US system. The USSR was enslaving all in the gulags.
As you have repeatedly backed the evils of an authoritarian racist system are you in a place to judge anyone morally?
Please change, we don’t need more people defending racism.
Not according to people I know who experienced both. In the USA you know your charges and you might not be enslaved.
The USSR was evil and racist. It’s one of the reasons why they failed.
It’s crazy to tell me that the only nation that helped the fight against fascism in my homeland was “evil and oppressive”
No, it is entirely accurate. They did some good and a LOT of evil. Totalitarian states tend to be evil. They were no exception.
Your grandpa, a Jewish man, would have been murdered if it weren’t for the Soviets.
No my FORMER BOSS was in a gulag again without a trial which you seem to be avoiding discussion of.
My grandfathers fought the Nazis in Europe and Japanese in the Pacific. A great uncle fought in Spain and in Germany against fascists both times. MY ancestral history empowers me to fight the evils of totalitarianism, why doesn’t yours?
The very fact that you’re here is because of the 27 million lives that the Soviet Union sacrificed in order to save Europe from Nazism.
Obviously this is not true at all.
No one is in a US prison who has not had the opportunity to be present at their trial or know why they are charged.
The nation I am talking about ceased to exist decades ago so whatever “your country” is it isn’t the USSR which is what we are talking about.
I am not talking about WWII at all because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. WWII was over for years by the time he was imprisoned for no apparent reason without a trial he attended.
You are bringing up WWII because there is no moral ground for you to support and justify the USSR’s evil actions otherwise so you keep hamming your irrelevant claim because otherwise you’ll have to accept the USSR wasn’t a good moral nation bit was really quite racist, evil and oppressive (all of which are true).
My degree is in the downfall if the USSR. I have spent a lot of time reading accounts of prisoners. Many never knew because they were not present at their trial.
He has the numbers tattooed on his arm. I know people who knew him in Belarus that I knew separate of him who talked about it.
There were prominent Jews in the politburo. There was also a fuckload of antisemitism as anyone who lived in the USSR could tell you. The USSR was just as racist as every other European nation.
Surely people going to jail for the wrong reason is something exclusive to the Soviet Union and not to all countries with a legal system?
It isn’t common for people to be sent to slave camps as a punishment for years without knowing why they were charged. That’sthe kind of evil unique to totalitarian shitholes like the USSR.
Your boss may have spent his teens in a gulag, but the fact that he lived to tell you that is because the Soviets managed to miraculously defeat the Nazis and prevent them from genociding the Slavic peoples they categorised as “Untermenschen” according to the infamous “Generalplan Ost”, which implied genocide of almost all people between Germany and the Urals. If it wasn’t for the Soviets, your former boss would have been murdered in a concentration camp by the nazis.
The same nation you are praising put him IN a concentration camp for no fucking reason other than potentially because of his race.
Like, damn, I feel sorry for your boss, but in dire circumstances such as those of the late 30s / early 40s in the USSR, excesses and abuses were sadly made because of the overwhelming conditions.
No, you don’t. You wouldn’t be supporting their evil actions in this case if you had any empathy.
You are making a lot of apologies for overt racism, why are you doing this and why do you think the USSR’s racism should be praised?
The diet bit is correct because Soviets typically have less meat and more veggies in their diet as well as less sugar.
My former boss was in a gulag for most of his teens. He was not paid and to this day he has no idea what crime he was convicted of. He just knows he served time and was targeted by guards because he was Jewish and the Soviets were very bigoted.
Maybe take a second to ask yourself what your real life experience is with the USSR.
Actually it is worse because they were better and then actively decided to make things worse.
The maximum hours you can work did not apply to everyone as my former boss has stories of working 12+ hours in the gulag he was sent to for reasons he does not know.
If that’s buttercream that’s excellent work
This isn’t like understanding a child’s game so I would say your baseball analogy is a false equivalence.
I’m not qualified enough to know what science is (ad hominem)
That isn’t ad hominem. Suggesting that the roots of your misunderstanding is due to your lack of experience or education in the field is not a personal attack. I am also not making an emotional appeal which is an alternate form of ad hominem.
Ad hominem would be if I suggested you couldn’t have an understanding because you are stupid (which I am absolutely in no way suggesting that you are unintelligent). I have not done this. I have suggested your lack of expertise in the field might be a good reason for you to question your own conclusions.
directing me to read an entire field of philosophy that for all I know has its entire existence bent towards proving that the social sciences are sciences exactly in the same way that natural sciences are
You dont need to become an expert but if you want to understand what we believe science is this is the place to start as the other place is a terminal degree in a science field which would be silly to suggest. The philosophy of science is the best field for you to get the answers to the uncertainty you have in your understanding
This is also not an example of ad hominem.
Why not read about the philosophy of science to expand your understanding? Why do you need to do it because I proved something to you?
No one is “pretending” anything.
You literally have no experience or knowledge to determine what science is and is not since you have no background in any form of it.
Im sorry if the above offends you but it is the xase that a lack of education and/or experience in a field does mean you aren’t going to be someone who has an understanding of it.
If ypu are interested in learning why these are seen as sciences consider looking into the philosophy of science. You might be surprised what you learn when you try to.
i have a degree, but not in science. Does that make me unqualified to state that the field of psychology, and most other social sciences lack the epistemic rigor of something like physics or biology and therefore are not real sciences?
That would depend on your actual field. If you had a masters or phd focusing on the philosophy of science, then yes. If you have a degree in anything else I would suggest considering that your lack of experience within science might be what is behind your misconception.
My education was in political science and international relations. At the undergraduate level for most programs political science is more pre-law or governmental studies and does not seem like a science. When you go for your masters it suddenly become very much a statistcal science.
What the anti-science (not you) ,science agnostic (not you), and those without a background in science (this is you) typically miss is that not all sciences are created equal. Things that rely on metastudies, as many social sciences do, typically will be less conclusive than say an experiment that can be observed directly, but that doesn’t mean both are not science.
Economists aren’t trying to predict the future. That’s a misconception that is done away with in the first few days of intro.
I don’t think you understand what economics is if you think they are attempting to predict the future. That’s one of the first misconceptions done away with in intro.
No it’s what was said in a previous post. Your lack of reading comprehension in this case is worth noting in light of what follows which is incorrect and inane.