Ah this is the London Hackney Cab flourish. It’s kind of like yelling ‘Yeehaw’ as the bull leaps into the air and somehow you are still attached.

Ed Balls

That’s such a Kissinger frame of mind.

Order with injustice over justice with chaos (sic).

Not to condone it but it was the zeitgeist. There were so many so much worse from that period across all forms of media. His mildly toxic edginess is at least not hidden away.

Last thing I want to do is turn up the volume on my jogging.

My genX ass was trying skibidi on its own cause most of the rest of the text is usually auto-suggested while typing in the search terms.

Potty mouth.

Yeah that was part of the first red scare. McCarthyism was considered the second. All part of intrenching inequality by ensuring that the best paths to a healthier society are associated with authoritarianism.

And further on from that the number of real tankies I’ve actually seen on here is miniscule compared to the howling mass of McCarthyites that crawl out of the woodwork.

There even used to be a pigment sold to painters made from the ground up flesh of mummies.

Just the five minutes. Thank you. Anyway, I did.

Oh I’m sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

A stitch in time saves nine.

-Pliny the elder

Limiting by time period and a crude summation of deaths is a dishonest framing for any discussion regarding how one political system may be more the catalyst for famine than another. It is basic correlation vs causation. By all means make a cognizant argument that shows how these limits can promote a fair comparison of the political factors that influence a countries descent into famine. I would like to hear something from you that amounts to more than some article of capitalist (bad) faith. I feel that you will struggle to do so because you are not interested in making an earnest effort to understand famine just in weaponising contrived stats.

Skewing the comparison by using totally different countries with totally different situations seems weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result.

Russia and China both had an unfortunate history of famines before any pesky revolutionairies popped their heads up. Examining a longer time period reveals this highly relevant fragility. Also the facts that both of these huge countries were badly underdeveloped at the time of their revolutions: And the period you wish to limit it to had both of the world wars and the extended periods of international instability associated with them: And both countries suffered invasions and other unusual external pressures over a long period of time. These are relevant factors.

Limiting the time frame for a comparison based solely on a summation of deaths is a leading, manipulation of the study of the phenomena of famines.

That would only make sense if there was some tangible link between the occurance of famines and the passing of time. But there isn’t really. There is to things like war, drought, flooding, epidemics, vermin infestation, mis-management, a country’s degree of development etc etc. If you want to make some qualitative comparison between systems of government then use those not some superficial framing set to prejudice the outcome.

On the contrary. There is no cognizant reason to limit the timeframe other than to bury relevant facts unfavorable to anti-left rhetoric.

Only if you wanted to hide all the earlier famines that happened under capitalism under the tenuous argument that there’s some overarching uniformity of development, opportunity, meteorological events, natural disaster etc etc worldwide that allows for fair comparison within the same timeframe.

That’s certainly commendable but it ignores the power of easily repeated lies.

There is great value in earnest discussion. It, however, requires all sides to be ingenuous. If someone’s opening gambit is calculated artifice then all you are doing is giving them soapbox from which to bend pliable minds to their regressive agenda. By all means try to draw them into open discussion but only within a framework of honest representation.