78 ms·
Things like this are always interesting to me. It's interesting that people who were subject to this sort of treatment created the constitution limiting the US
by geggam 7y ago
Things like this are always interesting to me.
It's interesting that people who were subject to this sort of treatment created the constitution limiting the US govt.
It's interesting that people who aren't subject to this sort of treatment are trying to change the constitution and give the govt more power.
It's interesting to me that democide is the number 1 cause of death in the 20th century and everyone ignores that fact.
Its also interesting to me that the internet allows people to communicate and learn how much all govts lie.
Change is coming as govts try to control the internet and the communication people have with each other.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 50656E6973 7y ago>It's interesting to me that democide is the number 1 cause of death in the 20th century and everyone ignores that fact. It's estimated to be the number one cause of non-natural deaths
- legatus 7y agoI know democide has been mostly coined by Rummel. Do you by chance refer to him? If so, could I ask for your sources? I know that Rummel's data has been heavily criticized by many historians. His work is usually about taking the largest estimate, which is fruitful if you want big titles (à la Black Book of X), but unfruitful if you are interested in the truth.
- 50656E6973 7y ago>unfruitful if you are interested in the truth. Do you really think its possible to find "the truth" of numbers when it comes to things like democide?
- legatus 7y agoNo, no historian thinks he will find the definitive truth. My point is that there are valid historians (I only know about a few fields, but you can see which historians are valid by how much their peers respect their work) that at least try to get as close to the the probable number of, in this case, deaths. One example: taking a look at Rummel's data on the Soviet Union, he reports 60 million deaths 1917-1987, which is laughable (he even claimed that was a low estimate!). That's the number reported by Solzhenitsyn, which is not considered a reliable source in contemporary Sovietology (probably not a source at all). Here is a relevant thread on r/AskHistorians if you're interested: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3v5u2t/are_rj_rummels_death_toll_estimates_on_democides/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3v5u2t/are_r...
- giggles_giggles 7y agoIs the irony of saying Solzhenitsyn is unreliable while linking a Reddit thread as a better source lost on you?
- legatus 7y agoI'm really sorry an AskHistorians thread is not good enough for you. Let me paste Jonathan Smele's remark about Rummel's work (Smele is known for his compiled bibliography on the Russian Revolution): >A poorly researched, obsessively anti-Soviet polemical general survey. [1] Unsurprisingly, you would have read that exact quote in the reddit thread I linked. Guess that was too much to ask for. [1] Jonathan Smele, Russian Revolution and Civil War Annotated Bibliography
- Fins 7y agoWhat's wrong with being anti-Soviet?
- legatus 7y agoThe point is that in this case Rummel doesn't even attempt to be objective. You can be biased, everyone is. A real historian, someone who is respected by his peers, actively tries to remove his bias from his work. It isn't really profitable (you earn much more by writing extremely biased pop-history) but some individuals, such as me, value it.
- zzzeek 7y ago> It's interesting that people who were subject to this sort of treatment created the constitution limiting the US govt. > It's interesting that people who aren't subject to this sort of treatment are trying to change the constitution and give the govt more power. You mean like, when the 13th amendment was passed to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude? Pesky "govt" now telling folks they can no longer own human beings as property, that kind of thing? Not all government power is oppression. A huge ton of it is vital for basic human welfare. Simplistic assertions like "those who seek to change the consitution are trying to give the government more power and therefore obviously have not experienced real oppression" are not furthering the conversation productively.
- conanbatt 7y agoAre you arguing that the 13th amendment was a positive right addition to government responsibilities? If so, the main issue with slavery was that it was legal, not that it was rampant.
- zzzeek 7y agoI'm arguing that changing the Constitution is not always a bad thing.
- conanbatt 7y agoI think the example is backwards, because the 13th amendment restricted the government, not the people.
- zzzeek 7y agoparent poster said "change the constitution", as though the original document represented perfection, when it clearly did not. they should have provided more specifics if they meant something more specific.
- winston_smith 7y ago
- sevenstar 7y agoThe "solid" program, from Sir Tim Berners-Lee may be a solution to freeing up people to communicate a bit easier. https://solid.inrupt.com/ https://solid.inrupt.com/
- yongjik 7y agoI'm not sure why the top comment for a story about Chinese politics is "From an American's point of view, the government is evil, because REASONS". An entirely predictable discussion ensues.
- scottlawson 7y ago> It's interesting to me that democide is the number 1 cause of death in the 20th century and everyone ignores that fact. Can you please provide a reputable source for this claim? I find this difficult to believe.