What the world needs, what you need as a country, is for people to be a bit more discerning and conscious about the reliability of what they read online, and that includes not treating Wikipedia like holy scripture in the way that far too many people do.
BrainInABox
joined 4 months ago
Are you saying the article is false?
And do you think the right wing doesn't spend any money to edit Wikipedia?
Articles such as?
Wait, are you saying your "research" was to ask an AI....
Lol, I already did, indeed I made sure to repeat it several times, knowing that you would try to feign amnesia. But of course, you already know that - or you wouldn't have been trying to desperately pivot to "well who even cares about the numbers!" - and are still just being disingenuous on purpose, as people doing Nazi apologia usually do.
I mean, you can stop playing dumb now. We both know you don't actually believe that and you haven't found any evidence that it's true. If you had, after all, you'd have presented it, rather than just endlessly going "oh I definitely found lots of evidence, totally!".
So yeah, you're trolling.
See? You still can't around the fact that my criticism of what you and your source are doing - using inconsistent methods to make it appear like the data says what you want it to - so know you're just throwing out random deflections and bad faith non-sequitors.
Who cares about specific numbers
You, dog. You were the one who thought it was such a big deal to be able to say that Nazis killed fewer people than communists that you went to great length to find and manipulate statistics to falsely suggest it. You were the one who made that claim in the first place. It's much too late for you to try to pretend you don't care now.
I've been waiting for it to do that for the last 3 decades
Well here's the thing, obviously what you said isn't true, and obviously you know that if you've done even basic research, so what you're doing is deliberately spreading things you know to be false as a form of trolling.
By "wouldn't take my source in good faith" you of course mean "wouldn't unquestioningly accept it without reading it". You'll notice that my criticism of what you and your source are doing - deliberately using different metrics to give the data the appearance that it says what you want it to - is completely true and you can't dispute it, so instead you're just going to arbitrarily declare that it's "bad faith" and "tankie" to make completely true criticisms of your deliberate dishonesty
And again, you are doing this as a way to downplay the evil of the Nazis, aka Nazi apologia.
So you were well aware that your "source" didn't hold up even before you posted it.
Though it's unsurprising that a Nazi apologist would be deliberately disingenuous
Kill everyone now, legalise first degree murder, advocate cannibalism, eat shit!