4 ms·
> This is a truly bizarre and random attack. It is a discussion, not war. Nobody got attacked. That comment is not an attack, this comment is not an attack. >
by krisoft 2y ago
> This is a truly bizarre and random attack.
It is a discussion, not war. Nobody got attacked. That comment is not an attack, this comment is not an attack.
> it's the widely known history, and are we attempting to contradict that?
No. One can reach true statements with faulty reasoning. Just because the statements are true doesn't mean that the logic behind them is right.
> I don't think OP claimed the book as "proof" of radical socialist fervor in the first place
I can't read the sentence I quoted from their comment in any other way.
- CrazyStat 2y agoThe sentence you quoted is > Socialism was already in the air in 1870s Russia such that it's often discussed by characters in the novel. Socialism was in the air therefore it was discussed in the novel. You interpreted it as “Socialism is discussed in the novel therefore it was in the air,” but that’s not what was said.
- krisoft 2y ago> You interpreted it as “Socialism is discussed in the novel therefore it was in the air,” Yes. I still read it that way. > but that’s not what was said. If you say so. I re-read the comment and I interpret it the same way still. If we are not using the book as evidence of what was going in Russia, but evidence of what topic was interesting to its audience then I'm happy with that.
- asimpletune 2y agoThe OP just said socialism was in the air in 1870, which it clearly was since the book this article about came out in the 1860s.