3 ms·
If you critically examine the source that provided you this number and follow the rabbit hole, you will probably learn that it is wildly pessimistic AND not tel
by sebastos 3y ago
If you critically examine the source that provided you this number and follow the rabbit hole, you will probably learn that it is wildly pessimistic AND not telling you what you think it’s telling you. E.g. these estimates often include estimated casualties from sectarian violence that was merely uncorked by the Iraq war. You are clearly not taking pains to prevent the casual reader from assuming that 600k (already a specious number) were all directly killed at the hands of US soldiers.
- overstay8930 3y agoThe people throwing these kinds of numbers around don't actually care about reality, it's not worth engaging them.
- khokhol 3y agoYep, and they're literally worse than Stalin in this regard. At least he had an appreciation for statistics, and accurate body counts.
- ein0p 3y agoIs that a new Godwin’s law we’re witnessing here? When someone needs to defend the indefensible they say you’re “worse than Stalin”?
- khokhol 3y agoActually it was what you might call a "joke". I have no idea what you think I'm defending, but whatever.
- foverzar 3y ago> they're literally worse than Stalin in this regard. > and accurate body counts. Ironically, not really, the numbers people typically refer to were calculated by extrapolating birthrate dynamics, not an actual accurate body count. Applying the same method to calculate the victims of the Great Depression will yield about 7 mil dead. I remember some Americans being real pissed when some Russian historian did this kind trolling, mirroring Stalin-related western propaganda.