>Do your research on David Irving
>Stalin was way worse than Hitler
>That's why the POTUS gotta wear a Kipper
What did B.o.B mean by this?
No he's literally denying the Holocaust happened.
David Irving is a Holocaust denier.
B.o.B literally went off topic on his flat Earth Neil Tyson diss so that he could express his views that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Stalin may have had more people killed but the way Hitler did it was much more unhumane and fucked up.
Plus, the point Bobby's trying to make here is that he believes the Holocaust didn't happen.
>the way Hitler did it was much more unhumane and fucked up.
Wouldn't say so. Gassing almost 100% painless, if the gas chambers were still active and I'd ever consider suicide, I'd know where to go.
Meanwhile, Stalin put his political opponents in work camps where they usually died of hunger or disease.
Not really, high modern estimates of the total Gulag casualties during the entire existence of Communist Russia/Soviet places them at less than a third of the deaths in Nazi Germany's camps. The "muh Holodomor" argument doesn't work either, because there's zero evidence to suggest it was intentional, and not just one of many famines the region had suffered through, exacerbated by administrator incompetence, the unlucky coinciding with agricultural collectivization, and post-war scarcity and destruction. Not a single famine took place after agriculture was mechanized in Soviet, which Stalin was responsible for (not saying other policies could have done it, but it's just not something he was directly responsible for, except maybe his fear of intellectuals leading to the bad handling of the situation).
Yeah, it's not like Hitler killed his political opponents or anything, and besides, the Gulag death rate is estimated to have been under 10%. Probably much higher among political opponents, but those were a minority and were incarcerated in separate camps.
And Hitler didn't put people in work camps where they usually died of hunger or disease?
Also you're acknowledging the gassing but you're not acknowledging the burning alive and the hanging and the fucking "medical experiments".
What deaths are you counting as having been caused by ideology? Numbers and statistics can say all kind of things depending on what one includes or wants them to say, so I refuse to answer until I know exactly what you mean.
What of, for example, the Holodomor? It happened under Stalin's regime, was probably worsened by Stalin's regime, but was probably not intended by Stalin's regime. Did Communism as an ideology cause that?
And yet before collectivization and mechanization the area had regular famines, and while the Holodomor was worsened by the fact that it occurred in the middle of being collectivized and mechanized under Communism, it also never happened again once the collectivization and mechanization was completed.
>Communism itself as an ideology killed more people than Hitler did.
1. Most of the deaths due to "Communism," including the circumstances leading to Stalin's rise to power, are results of capitalism attempting to crush "Communism" (put in quotes because USSR was only ever socialist, never approached real Communism as Marx defined it)
2. How many fucking deaths - starvation, suicide, every war in human history - can be attributed to capitalism as an ideology?
3. (somewhat of a side note) Stalin can be partly blamed for Hitler's rise to power in Germany
Why we talking about communism?
What B.o.B meant by the "Stalin was worse than Hitler" line was that the Holocaust DIDN'T HAPPEN.
David Irving is a famous Holocaust denier.
B.o.B is saying that Stalin was worse because the Holocaust didn't happen.
Are you a Nazi apologist by any chance?
Comparing the death counts of Hitler to Stalin (or all communists) is pretty misleading. Hitler was in power for just over 10 years while Stalin was in power for over 30 years. The majority of Hitler's atrocities started when he started to invade the rest of Europe, in about a 5 year span he killed around 20 million civilians and POW. Comparing Hitler to all communist dictators is even more dishonest. By this logic we should include the atrocities caused by other fascists like Mussolini with Hitler's crimes.
But really, whether Stalin or Hitler is technically worse is a moot point because they were both terrible human beings. This is like arguing which serial killer is "better" than another. Is there any point or do you want to present a more sympathetic view of Hitler?
>USSR was never communist
Stop reading there my man, this is just pure commie damage control.
Can you blame Communism for something which would have happened (admittedly less severely, but still bad) without Stalin and which due to Stalin never happened again?
Famines were regular long before Communism, and under Communism they stopped altogether. Communist policies didn't cause the famine.
No I am not a Nazi apologist.
Are you a Commie apologist by any chance?
Oh wait, this term doesn't exist because for some reason it is stil perfectly acceptable to express yourself as a Communist after all that happened, but not as a Nazi.
And you said it yourself, both are terrible. But only one of them is actually demonized.
Sorry, but what world do you live in where Stalin isn't demonized? I know you're likely pretty young, but there was a cold war for roughly 50 years in the west. Stalin has NEVER been seen as a sympathetic character.
If we're talking strictly about the second world war, then yes, Stalin isn't "demonized" in the same way as Hitler. That might have something to do with the fact that Stalin was fighting with the "allies" and that the USSR didn't implement anything close to an attempted genocide.
If anything, Lenin is the one who has gotten a bit of a free pass despite being responsible for quite a few deaths.
The only people I've ever seen defend Stalin are some Russians and some Leninist-Marxists. Otherwise, Stalin has just as bad a reputation as Hitler.
The fact that you've spent this much time defending Hitler in comparison to other violent dictators is troubling.
They're literally lizards but lizard conspiracists are usually also anti-semetic.
Actually, most conspiracy nutjobs blame the jews one way or another.
Nah I am sorry I just don't like this kind of name calling in arguments so I had to point it out.
I am from Europe and Stalin isn't really demonized at all here, while Hitler really is. I can understand it's probably a lot different in the US.
B.o.B believes in the Vril, who are essentially a race of alien lizards that live underground.
They eat people and can also take over the human body and brain so they can act on the surface.
They aren't related to the Jews.
That being said, the "That's why the POTUS gotta wear a Kipper" line in his new track implies that he also believes that the Jews control the world and shit. So I guess he believes in both the Jew thing and the lizard thing.
I still don't get your objective in this thread. It seems like you're defending the view of a holocaust denier who thinks Hitler did nothing wrong. You had the audacity to defend the Nazi's use of gas chambers to commit genocide because it's "100% painless." Then you intentionally tried to skewer the facts to make Hitler seem relatively harmless in comparison to the death count of all communists ever. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest. You've tried to defend your shitty beliefs by complaining that Stalin isn't as demonized as Hitler. Everything you've said and done reeks of a nazi apologist.
Where in Europe are you?
I think so. He could maybe get away with flat earth and lizard men, but holocaust denial is career suicide. Even if he comes out as "just pretending" people will rip him apart for the antisemitism.
I already told you why, but I'll spell it out for you even more:
a) Trying to defend genocide by claiming that gassing is "100% painless." You neglected to mention that Nazi's were gassing innocent Jews for no reason other than being Jewish. You also neglected to mention that Nazi's didn't always gas their enemies and often used much more cruel methods of killing. You neglected to mention the piss poor conditions Jews were kept in before heading to the gas chamber, and you neglected to mention that painful or not, being forced into a crowded chamber, naked to slowly die might not be the most ethical action in the world.
b) You tried to belittle the 20million deaths by the hands of the Nazi's by comparing them to ALL communists ever. Do I really need to tell you why comparing the death count of one regime over the span of 5-10 years to SEVERAL regimes over 90+ years is incredibly dishonest. It's like saying that Ted Bundy wasn't so bad because he didn't kill as many people as every French murderer ever. It's stupid and only serves to try to make Hitler more sympathetic.
Well B.o.B believes that the edges of the Earth are on Antarctica and the poles and shit, and we're not allowed to go there.
He believes the reason that there are "such tight laws on visiting the Poles" is because it's the edge of the Earth and they don't want you to know that.
He believes that the Vril, or the lizard people, live on the other side.
I don't understand his thing about the North Pole and Antarctica. You can literally go to Antarctica on a cruise. You can even go on the supply ship if you sign up early enough. Is he saying that once you're there you can't explore? I mean, there might be rules about that, I don't know, but it's not like anyone is going to enforce them or prevent you from going off on your own.
Basically there are internationally place authorities in these places that want to stop people from destroying the delicate ecosystem and from getting themselves killed.
If they let retards like B.o.B. "explore" Antarctica looking for "clues," he'd probably die within a few hours from hypothermia.
I was reading that today. The fucktard spent about 15 pages repeating "12 yards of wool = 1 coat" and went on about how the shared value wasn't rooted on anything intrinsic/material (no shit) and then compared it to transubstantiation and referenced Shakespeare a few times
Why do people rate this kraut again?
You still COULD though is my point. Flat earthers like to bring this up like there's guards with guns preventing you from just wandering off and that's obviously not the case. They just use this line to avoid actually going to Antarctica themselves.
Yes you can, and some commercial planes fly over a pole to get to their destination. I think that the problem is that any flat earther will not be convinced no matter how much you try to show them. They'll likely be convinced that it was some sort of trick and completely reject the evidence shown to them or demand that they do it again in a more convincing way (whatever they decide that means).
It's similar to conspiracy theorists who demand another investigation of 9/11. The reality is that they could have 100 independent investigations that came to the same conclusion and truthers would reject them, make unfounded claims about government interference and ask for a "real" study. In other words, when conspiracy theorists ask for evidence what they really want is evidence that conforms with their worldview.
>They just use this line to avoid actually going to Antarctica themselves.
For sure. In fact, I have a feeling B.o.B. would probably reject an offer to go to the North Pole if someone offered to foot the bill themselves.
Yeah I think the go-to excuse is that pilots all know "the truth" and will turn around or something to trick you. Of course literally anyone can become a pilot and fly a plane themselves, but these people don't want to admit that.
Also see: Paris attacks. "Obviously didn't happen, otherwise there would be images" (day or two later images start popping up) "ah but these ones are fake."
>British explorer Henry Worsley has died attempting to be the first person to cross the Antarctic unaided, in an epic charity mission inspired by Ernest Shackleton.
>The 55-year-old former British Army officer died after being airlifted to a hospital in Punta Arenas, Chile, suffering severe exhaustion and dehydration.
HURR DURR THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TRY TO FIND THE TRUTH
The reason Stalin and Mao get away with it is because they targeted political and cultural segments rather than purely ethnic ones, and they were part of a long-lasting political system, rather than being immediately replaced by a democracy.
>Paris attacks. "Obviously didn't happen, otherwise there would be images" (day or two later images start popping up) "ah but these ones are fake."
Had no idea people denied the fucking Paris attacks of all things
Most people in gas chambers died of the stampede to escape, which is both a horrific way to die and evidence that there was something they were at-all-costs trying to escape from, and not a quick and painless death
1) There is actually no evidence Hitler ordered The Final Solution, it is likely that high ranking nazis did it to impress him rather than on his orders.
2) Most Holocaust deaths werent murders, there were very few death camps (the official number has gone down repeatedly)
3) Hitler repeatedly encouraged Jews to move out of Germany, repeatedly made deportations plans and even in the camps phase the nazis would deport children. He wanted Jews out of his country but he did not seem to want to genocide them.
4) Stalin had Gulags which were significantly more horrible than nazi camps (Even fucking Aushwitz had a Women's orchestra, a swimming pool and a fucking dentist)
Marxists always like to push Hitler as the all-time worst human ever but it was probably Stalin. Mao was a horrible dictator too but there was much more incompetence in his policies rather than the nasty shit happening under Stalin.
Did capitalist ideology cause millions of native Americans to die of disease and famine once the US moved into the interior of the west? The actions of Stalin do not represent communism, they represent the USSR. This isn't just because the USSR was hardly communist, its also because the actions of a state can't be attributed to an ideology not related to that state in a specific manner (nationalism, as opposed to communism being only incidentally related to the USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc.
>muh specific brand
kek nice holodomor denial you dirty marxist fuck.
they fucking took the food away from ukranians with guns and then they sealed the borders to stop them escaping. how is that not genocide?
>muh specific brand
damn right asshole,
theres a huge difference from a dictator that uses communes to organize the economy from the actual ideology of communism. Hitler socialized portions of Germany's government but I sure wouldnt' compare Nazism to modern Swedish socialism. One is a little more accepting of foreigners lol
The Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels
>Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole
true in Soviet Russia (except for Lenin's NEP)
>Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.
true in Soviet Russia
>The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other
true in USSR and Soviet Russia
>communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance
true in Soviet Russia
where do they differ from 'the actual ideology of communism'
can someone explain 911 to me please? just watched zeitgeist: the movie (lol i know) and the whole thing seems incredibly fucking sketchy. i know such a film could be terribly biased tho, so pls tell me why zeitgeist is retarded
The ideology of communism is derived from the ideas of Marx and Engels, but the definition that they specifically give is not the accepted by economic theorists. Communism was seen as the logical conclusion of a workers revolution, which foreshadows a government ruled by the workers. Lenin believed that the workers revolution and the subsequent government should be led by a educated and exclusive group of intellectuals working for the greater good.
Then we get to your examples. The first isn't true because though society does own and operate industry as a whole, it is controlled by s government that is not related to the proletariat at all.
Thats interesting considering the amount of state sponsorship that the orthodox church received (so that they would in turn, make russian orthodox Christians subservient to the USSR government).
And once again, the core of the argument lies in the "blame." An ideology can't be held responsible for an action, that makes no sense at all. Stalin worked (and killed, the topic of interest) for consolidation, a phenomenon that has happend in many nations under many governments forever. Communism =/=the policies and actions of Russia, China, Khmer Rouge, etc.
I haven't watched Zeitgeist but if it's anything like Loose Change, it's full of inaccuracies, bad science, things taken out of context and half truths. It's also the motherload of leading questions. Basically, you know a conspiracy theory is bullshit when they start asking questions instead of providing real evidence of whatever they're claiming. In other words: there is no smoking gun linking 9/11 to the government, instead truthers tend to do things like take quotes out of context and then ask a question like "what would the government have to gain from this?!?!?" It's a common tactic from bullshitters.
A basic thought experiment you could/should do is ask yourself how many people would have to be in on this "conspiracy," what motivation, if any, the majority of them have and why not a single person has spoken out in over 10 years.
Basically, you should stop taking information from places like youtube. If you'd like some actual rebuttals, check here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11
>"Once you go flat, you never go back"
I refuse to believe anyone's this retarded. I just can't do it. I'm ded
I wouldn't have believed it either until I started working with a bunch of black people who constantly surprise me by telling me they believe these things. And they always tell me by talking down to me, like they don't think i'm smart enough to understand these remarkable truths.
yea i was totally making fun of black people just because they're black because i'm obviously a /pol/tard.
wrong. i was talking about my personal experience dealing with a lot of ghetto black people and being surprised how idiotic their thought process is. but these are also the same guys who will quit their job because it's racist that the boss won't let them smoke weed in the breakroom. i'm not trying to stereotype all black people, only saying what i see on a near daily basis. call me racist if you want but it's really irrelevant to the story. a lot of people believe dumb shit like this, but black people take it to extreme levels because they feel that the government (the white man) intentionally deceives black people.
yea i forgot that people just randomly end up tripping out of the blue and are unable to stop.
i already know about tripping and all that, because i used to do it but you aren't even commenting or posting anything with value. it's not even something funny that adds to whatever image you're trying to project. it's been two or three typical, basic posts and that's it.
2012 is a closer pic of the Earth than 2007. When the satellite is closer to the Earth, more of the land disappears behind the horizon. As a result, Mexico takes up a larger portion of the circle of view in 2012 than in 2007. Pic related is a diagram of what I mean
the picture clearly shows the same size earth. If what you said was true the sizes of the 2 earths would be different, not that I agree with BOB, but those pictures are retarded looking