So I've been reading about Stalin lately, and I cannot make heads nor tails of the guy.
On the one hand, he spent much of the 1930s urging collective security to restrain German and Japanese aggression; when that failed, he cut a deal with Hitler. Once that happened, he warred with Finland, pressured Romania and Bulgaria, was preparing to threaten Iran, and basically turned Xinjiang into a fief.
And after the war, he performed the Berlin Blockade, which risked WW3; and had no problem getting involved in the Korean War.
So, I dunno. Was Stalin a cool customer, only waging war when it was a sure thing? Was he a gambler? Unlike Hitler, or the Japanese High Command, it's hard for me to get a read on what motivated him.
He is likely (?) the person in world history who has managed to gather the most power in his own hands. Therefore I have a deep respect for his abilities (since I cannot see that he was inordinately lucky) and if I had similar ambitions he would be my role model. As for what motivated him, my impression is that it was what was mentioned in the first sentence. My impression is that several of his major decisions should be seen in this light in order to understand them. Gambler or no, I don't know haven't considered the issue.
Erich Fromm provides a short study of Stalin in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. He describes him/his motivations as a case of non-sexual sadism.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 09, 2010, 04:11:32 PM
So I've been reading about Stalin lately, and I cannot make heads nor tails of the guy.
On the one hand, he spent much of the 1930s urging collective security to restrain German and Japanese aggression; when that failed, he cut a deal with Hitler. Once that happened, he warred with Finland, pressured Romania and Bulgaria, was preparing to threaten Iran, and basically turned Xinjiang into a fief.
Did he really? Must impression is that collective security was mostly Litvinov staff, and that in that time Stalin wasn't much interested in foreign policy, preferring to engage in internal purges.
He was an evil shit.
What is worse, being invaded by Hitler's Nazi-Germany, or being 'liberated' by Stalins Sovietunion? :hmm:
He was a strange one.
An evil maniac but not an outright literal nutter like Hitler....sometimes. Other times he was completely loopy.
Its almost like he had some split personality.
He is a hard one to read. Sometimes he comes off as an evil genius and other times like a complete doofus. Refusing to believe Hitler would attack him when all evidence suggested he would...having North Korea invade South Korea while simultaneously boycotting the UN....I mean what was he thinking?
Not to mention his disastrous involvement in the military during the 30s and early on in the war. It was almost like he was working to make sure Hitler had a chance to defeat him.
Generally negative.
The man was a mystery to his contemporaries. He's even harder to discern these days. In some ways he would seem to be a buffoon or a simple thug. He was a bully, a coward, insanely jealous and paranoid, and shockingly ill informed (for instance he apparently didn't know that Belgium and the Netherlands were to different countries. Everyone was too afraid to correct him). He was a cripple with a funny accent who made a point of trying to blend in. He seems like the least likely person to rise to power. Nearly everyone underestimated them, and he pretty much outlived them all. Often by killing them. He had no problem killing friends and family. Beside being
A serial killer/mafiaesque thug who became a head of state.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2010, 06:12:10 PM
friends and family. Beside being
:huh:
Raz the Wrecker Kulak has been: purged? :(
I think he had a massive inferiority complex that made him insanely paranoid and self-delusional. A profoundly unintellectual man in a party full of intellectuals, he made himself the master of bureaucratic infighting because it was the only way he could hold his own. Nearly everyone saw him as a useful lacky; a guy who could "get things done" while the Big Thinkers thought Big Thoughts.
He sought power because he imagined everyone else was seeking power, and purged people because he thought that if he didn't, they would purge him. He thought the Red Army ppurge barely forestalled a pro-Nazi putsch he imagined Tukashevski was planning. He was sure Hitler wouldn't attack him with Britain still standing, and saw all evidence that Hitler was preparing to do so as British tricks to try to start a war between Germany and the USSR (which Stalin had arranged, via the non-aggression pact, to be delayed until Stalin was ready to start it). The fact that he was so illogical scared his subordinates more, I think, than his readiness to use violence. Thus, he often made decisions based on what his staff thought he wanted the facts to be.
I think it is hard to figure out why he did a lot of what he did because I think he himself couldn't tell you.
I don't think he was much of a gambler, but he sometimes seemed like one because he was often so wrong about what the situation was that the things that looked like sure things to him looked like gambles, often insane gambles, to other people who were better informed.
Quote from: syk on January 09, 2010, 04:24:10 PMHe describes him/his motivations as a case of non-sexual sadism.
He had an awfully large rape army for a non sexual sadist
From what I have read of Stalin, most notably the Simon Sebag Montefiore books - http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/ - the overwhelming impression I have gotten is that there was a type of person present in pre-Fall-of-Tsar Russia (ruthless, cold, paranoid), and that Stalin was simply the one of the type that rose to power. If he had failed, another just like him would have sprung up. Perhaps it's the depiction in "Young Stalin" that seems to describe Stalin as the rough equivalent of a Jack Welch type, avoiding family for "higher commitments."
As such, Stalin has always struck me as the "best of the worst."
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 07:58:11 PM
A profoundly unintellectual man
Source? IIRC the Teabag Montefiore Red Tsar book indicated otherwise.
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 07:58:11 PM
A profoundly unintellectual man
Source? IIRC the Teabag Montefiore Red Tsar book indicated otherwise.
grumbler will now cite an obscure academic paper of 639 pages. It will mention Stalin's unintellectuality in a half sentence in a footnote on page 562. Of course grumbler will refuse to tell you where to find it exactly.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 07:58:11 PMsnip
Is there ever a moment when grumbler does not pontificate?
-----
As for Stalin, I'll simply quote Pétain:
QuotePlus tard, le dictionnaire Larousse dira d'Adolf Hitler: "Chef de bande de l'époque stalinienne..."
or
QuoteIn later days the Larousse dictionary will write about Adolf Hitler: "Gang leader during the stalinist era."
G.
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2010, 05:05:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 07:58:11 PM
A profoundly unintellectual man
Source? IIRC the Teabag Montefiore Red Tsar book indicated otherwise.
grumbler will now cite an obscure academic paper of 639 pages. It will mention Stalin's unintellectuality in a half sentence in a footnote on page 562. Of course grumbler will refuse to tell you where to find it exactly.
:lol: ITS FUNNY BECAUSE ITS GRUMBLER
grumbler, you may be interested in Chapter 7 Stalin the Intellectual of Montefiore's Red Tsar book. Pages 93-101.
He was supposed to be very crude adn vulgar. Once while his daughter was serving tea to he and his minions he asked the room at large, "I wonder who is fucking her lately?" or something to that effect.
Quote from: Grallon on January 10, 2010, 09:25:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 07:58:11 PMsnip
Is there ever a moment when grumbler does not pontificate?
:lmfao:
Why don't you give the whiny emo thing a rest?
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 10:09:36 AM
grumbler, you may be interested in Chapter 7 Stalin the Intellectual of Montefiore's Red Tsar book. Pages 93-101.
You might be interested in that as well. :cool:
Do a gooble books search. That chapter is mostly in there.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 10, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
He was supposed to be very crude adn vulgar. Once while his daughter was serving tea to he and his minions he asked the room at large, "I wonder who is fucking her lately?" or something to that effect.
Sounds like a concerned father. :)
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 10:09:36 AM
grumbler, you may be interested in Chapter 7 Stalin the Intellectual of Montefiore's Red Tsar book. Pages 93-101.
You might be interested in that as well. :cool:
Do a gooble books search. That chapter is mostly in there.
I have the book in front of me. Aren't you gonna shoot down the contents?
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 10:43:22 AM
I have the book in front of me. Aren't you gonna shoot down the contents?
:huh: You feeling okay? Are you drunk? Unfunny babbling like this isn't typical of the Brain we have come to know and love.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 10:49:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 10:43:22 AM
I have the book in front of me. Aren't you gonna shoot down the contents?
:huh: You feeling okay? Are you drunk? Unfunny babbling like this isn't typical of the Brain we have come to know and love.
You don't make much sense now. I am almost getting the feeling you're avoiding the topic we are discussing.
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 10:52:08 AM
You don't make much sense now. I am almost getting the feeling you're avoiding the topic we are discussing.
I thought you were babbling about "shoot down the contents" of some book. I have no interest in that, so there isn't a "discussion" going on there.
The discussion I was participating in was "your opinion of Stalin," and I have no interest in engaging in some side discussion about "shoot down the contents" of a book I haven't even read.
You wanna discuss Stalin, join the conversation the rest of us are having. You want to discuss Montefiore's book, find someone who cares about that and discuss away.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 10, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
He was supposed to be very crude adn vulgar. Once while his daughter was serving tea to he and his minions he asked the room at large, "I wonder who is fucking her lately?" or something to that effect.
Yes, he was. He almost got himself booted from power by insulting Lenin's wife while Lenin was still nominally alive.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 10:57:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 10:52:08 AM
You don't make much sense now. I am almost getting the feeling you're avoiding the topic we are discussing.
I thought you were babbling about "shoot down the contents" of some book. I have no interest in that, so there isn't a "discussion" going on there.
The discussion I was participating in was "your opinion of Stalin," and I have no interest in engaging in some side discussion about "shoot down the contents" of a book I haven't even read.
You wanna discuss Stalin, join the conversation the rest of us are having. You want to discuss Montefiore's book, find someone who cares about that and discuss away.
Is your opinion of Stalin still that he was a profoundly unintellectual man?
He was also insanely funny, like all Russian Tyrants. IIRC, he once made Khrushchev dance the hopak in front of him. :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 11:30:02 AM
Is your opinion of Stalin still that he was a profoundly unintellectual man?
Yes, of course it is. Stalin is dead. He couldn't do anything to change my opinion, and I haven't seen anyone else propose any historical evidence that contradicts my belief.
Quote from: Ape on January 09, 2010, 05:12:08 PM
What is worse, being invaded by Hitler's Nazi-Germany, or being 'liberated' by Stalins Sovietunion? :hmm:
Oh, from the perspective of the conquered countries, Stalin was much much better. He focused on his own people mainly, unlike Hitler.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 11:30:02 AM
Is your opinion of Stalin still that he was a profoundly unintellectual man?
Yes, of course it is. Stalin is dead. He couldn't do anything to change my opinion, and I haven't seen anyone else propose any historical evidence that contradicts my belief.
Would you be at all interested in seeing what Montefiore has to say about it?
Edit: Btw grumbler, I am not trying to trick you into anything. It's just that while I always knew that Stalin was intelligent I didn't learn that he was an intellectual until I read M's book. I just found it interesting, 'sall.
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 12:50:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 11:30:02 AM
Is your opinion of Stalin still that he was a profoundly unintellectual man?
Yes, of course it is. Stalin is dead. He couldn't do anything to change my opinion, and I haven't seen anyone else propose any historical evidence that contradicts my belief.
Would you be at all interested in seeing what Montefiore has to say about it?
I only read the one chapter on Google books, and it seemed to me that Montefiore wasn't much interested in the topic (his chaper on "Stalin the Intellectual" was about Stalin's interactions with intellectuals, not about anything that Stalin produced that would show him as an intellectual himself). I certainly believe Montefiore when he says that Stalin called himself an intellectual, but if Montefiore has evidence that Stalin actually
was an intellectual, I would be interested in seeing it. Stalin's statements about art serving the party certainly is unintellectual.
Would you be at all interested in talking about what Montefiore has to say about it, rather than talking about whether I am "gonna," for some reason, "shoot down the contents?" If you have an actual argument, rather than an unfunny troll, by all means make it. Your dancing around the topic bores me, and if that's all you are interested in, I am done with this topic.
Don't feed the grumtroll, kthnx.
Quote from: Fate on January 10, 2010, 01:03:16 PM
Don't feed the grumtroll, kthnx.
Better to just say don't feed the grumbler. "Grumtroll" is an abomination.
Judging from CdM AAR of TOC he was a crappy commander.
Also I tend to agree with Grumbler's analysis. Though it should be noted that not "intellectual" doesn't mean not "intelligent".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2010, 09:43:37 AM
:lol: ITS FUNNY BECAUSE ITS GRUMBLER
He played the opposed move in this matchup, though. Instead of citing obscure sources he refutes them because they don't address the precise point he argues. As usual, he declares victory unless his opponent jumps through all the nitpicky loops he holds up for them.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 12:50:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 11:30:02 AM
Is your opinion of Stalin still that he was a profoundly unintellectual man?
Yes, of course it is. Stalin is dead. He couldn't do anything to change my opinion, and I haven't seen anyone else propose any historical evidence that contradicts my belief.
Would you be at all interested in seeing what Montefiore has to say about it?
I only read the one chapter on Google books, and it seemed to me that Montefiore wasn't much interested in the topic (his chaper on "Stalin the Intellectual" was about Stalin's interactions with intellectuals, not about anything that Stalin produced that would show him as an intellectual himself). I certainly believe Montefiore when he says that Stalin called himself an intellectual, but if Montefiore has evidence that Stalin actually was an intellectual, I would be interested in seeing it. Stalin's statements about art serving the party certainly is unintellectual.
Your reading comprehension is poor, your intellect is weak and you are a troll. I see you haven't changed a bit since 2003. :)
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 01:47:32 PM
Your reading comprehension is poor, your intellect is weak and you are a troll. I see you haven't changed a bit since 2003. :)
And now you'll get chewed out for adhomming him, avoiding to make your point which will prompt him to claim you have no point to make in the first place.
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2010, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 01:47:32 PM
Your reading comprehension is poor, your intellect is weak and you are a troll. I see you haven't changed a bit since 2003. :)
And now you'll get chewed out for adhomming him, avoiding to make your point which will prompt him to claim you have no point to make in the first place.
Syt the Psychic. :o
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 01:54:31 PM
Syt the Psychic. :o
I never argue much with grumps, but I like reading his debates, because they're kind of amusing to predict what moves he'll pull. In most cases he'll just latch into some minutae of the discussion at hand, demand written, credible (in his eyes) proof of the point or dismiss the opponents' argument. This usual goes in circles till the other side throws up their hands, roll their eyes and walk away. grumbler feels better, knowing that he has destroyed yet another interesting discussion.
Of course, if you'd ask him he'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose.
He reminds me of a guy called Hannibal Barca (there's a HannibalBarca now, not the same) over at P'dox during the HoI1 beta. I suggested something about adding time outs for units that were redeployed, because I thought that moving some divisions from Poland to France as Germany was too fast. It was not until I racked up a rough calculation about troop/vehicle numbers, freight trains and rail capacities until he conceded the point. Since then I decided I'd rather avoid such discussions, because they're usually not worth the effort. :P
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2010, 01:38:37 PM
He played the opposed move in this matchup, though. Instead of citing obscure sources he refutes them because they don't address the precise point he argues. As usual, he declares victory unless his opponent jumps through all the nitpicky loops he holds up for them.
:lmfao:
This is trolling at its finest! When I argue that facts support my position, I am "nitpicking." When I argue that the mere mention of a book (or a chapter title) is not an argument, I am "refusing to acknowledge" something or other. I
cannot be doing this except as a ploy, because that would mean all of Syt's character assassination and trolling was wrong!
Tell me, Syt: what are, in your opinion, the most salient points of the argument for Stalin being an intellectual, according to Montefiore?
Don't tell me you don't know, because that, in Syt-speak, is to "hold up" some " nitpicky loops" (which is a term I'm sure you alone know the meaning of). And don't tell me that I know already, because The Brain refuses to say! :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 01:47:32 PM
Your reading comprehension is poor, your intellect is weak and you are a troll. I see you haven't changed a bit since 2003. :)
So, in the end, you simply
won't say what you think Montefiore has to add to the discussion?
I kinda figured, the way you were weaseling around to avoid actually saying anything about Montefiore while trolling for
me to say something about Montefiore, that you weren't making an honest attempt at discussing this. I guess neither of us have changed since 2003, then. :)
We are done with this. :)
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2010, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2010, 01:54:31 PM
Syt the Psychic. :o
I never argue much with grumps, but I like reading his debates, because they're kind of amusing to predict what moves he'll pull. In most cases he'll just latch into some minutae of the discussion at hand, demand written, credible (in his eyes) proof of the point or dismiss the opponents' argument. This usual goes in circles till the other side throws up their hands, roll their eyes and walk away. grumbler feels better, knowing that he has destroyed yet another interesting discussion.
Of course, if you'd ask him he'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose.
He reminds me of a guy called Hannibal Barca (there's a HannibalBarca now, not the same) over at P'dox during the HoI1 beta. I suggested something about adding time outs for units that were redeployed, because I thought that moving some divisions from Poland to France as Germany was too fast. It was not until I racked up a rough calculation about troop/vehicle numbers, freight trains and rail capacities until he conceded the point. Since then I decided I'd rather avoid such discussions, because they're usually not worth the effort. :P
Indeed. I learnt in 2003 that grumbler isn't a serious poster, but today I tried some discussion that seemed harmless. I was wrong of course and shouldn't have fed him. Maybe my next try in 2017 will do better. Or not.
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2010, 02:03:20 PM
I never argue much with grumps, but I like reading his debates, because they're kind of amusing to predict what moves he'll pull. In most cases he'll just latch into some minutae of the discussion at hand, demand written, credible (in his eyes) proof of the point or dismiss the opponents' argument. This usual goes in circles till the other side throws up their hands, roll their eyes and walk away. grumbler feels better, knowing that he has destroyed yet another interesting discussion.
I always enjoy these kinds of posts. It makes me all tingly to know that you continue to dance on your crank, explaining how you "know what grumbler will do" and then, when I do the opposite, argue "oh, I knew he was secretly going to do the opposite."
You will note that I have latched onto no minutia in this discussion. Asked for an opinion, I gave it. When trolled, I simply stated that i was not interested in playing along with the troll. That you would jump in alongside the troll is unsurprising. So far, it looks like you and The Brain are the only ones interested in derailing this discussion. I have simply asked what people's counter-arguments
are - and, signally, The Brain has
absolutely refused to say, preferring instead to address his beliefs about me rather than his beliefs about Stalin.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 02:05:12 PM
Tell me, Syt: what are, in your opinion, the most salient points of the argument for Stalin being an intellectual, according to Montefiore?
I'm not attacking your point of whether or not Stalin was, in my opinion or someone else's, an intellectual, so I'm not going to enter that discussion.
I'm calling you out on your tedious and pedantic type of discussion that may be by the book and letter of how debating should be done but that is neither interesting nor rewarding to quite a few people on these boards, judging by the comments they make in your discussions. Your habit of mocking your opponents by aping their certainly doesn't endear you either.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 02:14:13 PM
I always enjoy these kinds of posts. It makes me all tingly to know that you continue to dance on your crank, explaining how you "know what grumbler will do" and then, when I do the opposite, argue "oh, I knew he was secretly going to do the opposite."
I haven't said that, but rather made a surprised comment that you went the other way this time.
With regards to the rest of your other comments (no, I won't list them) - Let's just say that this is the point in the discussion where I shake my head and walk away smiling.
I have a wonder grumbler; did you ever publish anything? I mean beyond the bottom drawer of your high school desk? I'd be interested to read you. :)
G.
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2010, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 02:05:12 PM
Tell me, Syt: what are, in your opinion, the most salient points of the argument for Stalin being an intellectual, according to Montefiore?
I'm not attacking your point of whether or not Stalin was, in my opinion or someone else's, an intellectual, so I'm not going to enter that discussion.
So your argument is that it is me who has "destroyed another conversation" because I
want to talk about the topic, and it is you who didn't destroy it because you
don't? Entering a conversation when one has no interest in the topic sounds like trollspeak to me.
QuoteI'm calling you out on your tedious and pedantic type of discussion that may be by the book and letter of how debating should be done but that is neither interesting nor rewarding to quite a few people on these boards, judging by the comments they make in your discussions.
When I consider who agree with me, and who does not, I get all tingly again. The fact that you, Fate, Peter Wiggin, and The Brain are doing the dogpiling tells me I am doing something right. :smarty: You are welcome to that company (I expect Martinus and grallon would join in if they saw this, and that thought warms me as well).
QuoteYour habit of mocking your opponents by aping their certainly doesn't endear you either.
I never even attempt "aping their certainly." That's a mug's game. :cool:
trollbler has written many excellent pieces of Babylon 5 fan-fiction.
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2010, 02:17:57 PM
With regards to the rest of your other comments (no, I won't list them) - Let's just say that this is the point in the discussion where I shake my head and walk away smiling.
I have been smiling from the start. As soon as The Brain mentioned a chapter title but refused to state what was in the chapter, I knew where this was going.
Anyway, as regards Stalin, Raz is correct that "unintellectual" does not mean "unintelligent." Stalin was obviously highly intelligent, in some ways. To use Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences model, thouygh, we would say that he probably had a very high Mathematical/Logical Intelligence but low Interpersonal, Linguistic, and Interpersonal Intelligences. He was much better at the concrete than the abstract, IMO, which marks him as unintellectual.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 02:33:04 PM
When I consider who agree with me, and who does not, I get all tingly again. The fact that you, Fate, Peter Wiggin, and The Brain are doing the dogpiling tells me I am doing something right.
:lmfao:
All I've done was attack Fate's use of the English language. Though I am honored to be grouped with Syt and Teh Brain.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2010, 03:00:59 PM
All I've done was attack Fate's use of the English language.
Okay. I withdraw your name.
QuoteThough I am honored to be grouped with Syt and Teh Brain.
All you need to do is constantly try to change the subject from Stalin to grumbler and you can be right with them. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 02:45:46 PMTo use Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences model, thouygh, we would say that he probably had a very high Mathematical/Logical Intelligence but low Interpersonal, Linguistic, and Interpersonal Intelligences. He was much better at the concrete than the abstract, IMO, which marks him as unintellectual.
Wait, interpersonal intelligence is abstract whereas mathematics is concrete? :huh:
I want to get involved in the spat.
But I can't think of anything, so I'm Stalin for time.
I apologize for my previous post. that was awful.
Why does anyone even bother to argue with grumbler anymore? It's not like you guys are new to Languish. :huh:
I don't know what Gardner's intelligences thingy is but I do know he actually wrote a paper on linguistics.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2010, 03:36:43 PM
Why does anyone even bother to argue with grumbler anymore? It's not like you guys are new to Languish. :huh:
Same reason people argue with you, to pass the time.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 10, 2010, 03:36:38 PM
I apologize for my previous post. that was awful.
It fit right in, then! :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2010, 03:36:43 PM
Why does anyone even bother to argue with grumbler anymore? It's not like you guys are new to Languish. :huh:
I'm not arguing with Grumbler.
This thread reminds me of a family episode a while back. We used to have a relative that was a vulgar piece of shit. He had no redeeming qualities about himself. For the next family meeting, my grandma's sister resolved to give that POS a piece of her mind. Unfortunately, she was so ready to unload that she went prematurely. She blew up during one of the few times where the guy's behavior was not objectionable.
It seems like Syt was so ready to denounce grumbler that he went before grumbler really started acting like grumbler.
I would like to say that I am arguing with everyone here.
Quote from: PDH on January 10, 2010, 04:48:08 PM
I would like to say that I am arguing with everyone here.
:D
Actually, I'm a bit interested in this book declaring Stalin an intellectual. It goes very much against my impression of the man. What does it say?
I'm assuming he was kind of a douchebag.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 10, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Actually, I'm a bit interested in this book declaring Stalin an intellectual. It goes very much against my impression of the man. What does it say?
That Stalin read a lot of history and literature on his own.
"a nervy intellectual who manically read history and literature" (p.6)
"Constantly reading in his huge library, educating himself with Tsarist history textbooks (and the novels of Balzac and Dickens)" (p.63)
See also Chapter 7 - "Stalin the Intellectual"
http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Court-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/1400076781/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263162695&sr=8-1#reader_1400076781
Hitler read quite bit on his own as well but nobody would have mistaken him for an "intellectual". Something that was sore spot for him as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2010, 06:10:10 PM
Hitler read quite bit on his own as well but nobody would have mistaken him for an "intellectual". Something that was sore spot for him as well.
Hitler was too busy ranting about fonts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDiDATbIG-o
Yes, I went there. the tired Hitler meme. I'm so edgy.
I wonder if someone made the Hitler video about all those tiresome Hitler videos.
:rolleyes: Guys, to be an intellectual you don't just read a lot, if that were the case Tim would be one. To become an intellectual you have to get the other intellectuals to vote for you to be in the club.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
I wonder if someone made the Hitler video about all those tiresome Hitler videos.
You're kidding, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5JPRpxJzMM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu1atk9b5bk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vMUvgce_5s&feature=related
And those were just the first 3 I saw.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
I wonder if someone made the Hitler video about all those tiresome Hitler videos.
yes.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 10, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
He was supposed to be very crude adn vulgar. Once while his daughter was serving tea to he and his minions he asked the room at large, "I wonder who is fucking her lately?" or something to that effect.
Russians (including wannabes like Stalin) are generally crude, vulgar, brutal, etc. Such is the Russian peasant mind.
Dumbasses shouldn't have killed/chased off their aristocracy.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2010, 09:29:08 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 10, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
He was supposed to be very crude adn vulgar. Once while his daughter was serving tea to he and his minions he asked the room at large, "I wonder who is fucking her lately?" or something to that effect.
Russians (including wannabes like Stalin) are generally crude, vulgar, brutal, etc. Such is the Russian peasant mind.
Dumbasses shouldn't have killed/chased off their aristocracy.
Yeah, their aristocracy did make the peasants look smooth, erudite, and compassionate by comparison. Once they were gone, the truth became more obvious.
Quote from: PDH on January 10, 2010, 04:48:08 PM
I would like to say that I am arguing with everyone here.
No you aren't.
Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 06:22:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
I wonder if someone made the Hitler video about all those tiresome Hitler videos.
You're kidding, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5JPRpxJzMM&feature=related
That one was pretty good, as far as anti-Hitler-memes Hitler memes go.
My impression of him is that he was quite intelligent, see f.ex. his arguments with H.G. Wells on matters of political philosophy and economics: http://www.rationalrevoluton.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm
(Other interviews will give you the same impression, see f.ex. this one with the famous german biographer E. Ludwig: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13.htm)
Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 06:22:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
I wonder if someone made the Hitler video about all those tiresome Hitler videos.
You're kidding, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5JPRpxJzMM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu1atk9b5bk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vMUvgce_5s&feature=related
And those were just the first 3 I saw.
Too many options. Which one should I click?
Democracy is a pain. I need somebody to choose for me.
Which one is the best?
Quote from: Siege on January 11, 2010, 04:31:01 AM
Democracy is a pain. I need somebody to choose for me.
Which one is the best?
Think of a number between 1 and 3.
Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 06:22:06 PM
You're kidding, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5JPRpxJzMM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu1atk9b5bk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vMUvgce_5s&feature=related
And those were just the first 3 I saw.
Stalin has made a statement about all of them as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mt-3guVJlQ&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mt-3guVJlQ&feature=related)
I haven't posted in this thread yet nor have I read most of it's post.
Everyone's opinion so far is wrong.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2010, 08:04:06 AM
I haven't posted in this thread yet nor have I read most of it's post.
Everyone's opinion so far is wrong.
to Languish, you belong :hug:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2010, 08:04:06 AM
I haven't posted in this thread yet nor have I read most of it's post.
Everyone's opinion so far is wrong.
When I first read this, I understood it immediately.
That made me wonder who hijacked GF's account, because his English usually needs a bit of deciphering.
The I saw "it's" and "post" and relaxed. It is the real GF.
:lol:
I'm still unsure how I should have written "it's"? Its? Be easier if I could just use "his".
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2010, 09:11:01 AM
:lol:
I'm still unsure how I should have written "it's"? Its? Be easier if I could just use "his".
In the possessive, "it" does not have an apostrophe any more than "he" does: "its" and "his."
"It's" is an abbreviation for "it is" just as "he's" is one for "he is."
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2010, 09:17:35 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2010, 09:11:01 AM
:lol:
I'm still unsure how I should have written "it's"? Its? Be easier if I could just use "his".
In the possessive, "it" does not have an apostrophe any more than "he" does: "its" and "his."
"It's" is an abbreviation for "it is" just as "he's" is one for "he is."
Usually, my mistakes arent on the words I wrote, it's that I had no idea how to write the proper word or the alternative so I just go with whats fits phonetically.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 11, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
Awesome find MB. :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 11, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
The Montefiore book does not remotely suggest that Stalin was an intellectual. All it indicates is that:
+ he liked reading.
+ he read a lot - primarily novels and poetry but some history as well - particularly ancient and classical.
+ he was capable of distinguishing good literature from bad
+ he was respectful to some professorial types.
The point is not that Stalin was an intellectual - of the major Bolshevik figures, he is virtually alone in never having written a tract of any importance or relevance in the Marxist-Leninist canon (which is not really setting that high a bar to begin with). The point is that as a person who understood the underpinning of power, he saw the usefulness of recruiting and controlling writers, poets and other artistis for political purposes. There is also the pyschological dimension of a person who recognized himself to be at best a crude auto-didact with a certain sense of intellectual inferiority to his main competitors (Bucharin, Trotsky) and tries to compensate by hob-nobbing with intellectual types specially selected for their tractibility.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2010, 04:43:58 PM
This thread reminds me of a family episode a while back. We used to have a relative that was a vulgar piece of shit. He had no redeeming qualities about himself.
Up to this point in your post, I wasn't sure if you were talking about Stalin or grumbler. :)
Stalin wasn't Jewish. ;)
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2010, 11:21:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2010, 04:43:58 PM
This thread reminds me of a family episode a while back. We used to have a relative that was a vulgar piece of shit. He had no redeeming qualities about himself.
Up to this point in your post, I wasn't sure if you were talking about Stalin or grumbler. :)
Neither, actually. I don't think grumbler is vulgar, and I do think that Stalin had redeeming qualities.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2010, 11:10:22 AM
The Montefiore book does not remotely suggest that Stalin was an intellectual. All it indicates is that:
+ he liked reading.
+ he read a lot - primarily novels and poetry but some history as well - particularly ancient and classical.
+ he was capable of distinguishing good literature from bad
+ he was respectful to some professorial types.
The point is not that Stalin was an intellectual - of the major Bolshevik figures, he is virtually alone in never having written a tract of any importance or relevance in the Marxist-Leninist canon (which is not really setting that high a bar to begin with). The point is that as a person who understood the underpinning of power, he saw the usefulness of recruiting and controlling writers, poets and other artistis for political purposes. There is also the pyschological dimension of a person who recognized himself to be at best a crude auto-didact with a certain sense of intellectual inferiority to his main competitors (Bucharin, Trotsky) and tries to compensate by hob-nobbing with intellectual types specially selected for their tractibility.
Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 01:09:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2010, 11:10:22 AM
The Montefiore book does not remotely suggest that Stalin was an intellectual. All it indicates is that:
+ he liked reading.
+ he read a lot - primarily novels and poetry but some history as well - particularly ancient and classical.
+ he was capable of distinguishing good literature from bad
+ he was respectful to some professorial types.
The point is not that Stalin was an intellectual - of the major Bolshevik figures, he is virtually alone in never having written a tract of any importance or relevance in the Marxist-Leninist canon (which is not really setting that high a bar to begin with). The point is that as a person who understood the underpinning of power, he saw the usefulness of recruiting and controlling writers, poets and other artistis for political purposes. There is also the pyschological dimension of a person who recognized himself to be at best a crude auto-didact with a certain sense of intellectual inferiority to his main competitors (Bucharin, Trotsky) and tries to compensate by hob-nobbing with intellectual types specially selected for their tractibility.
Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?
:lol:
And then, MM, you can say whether you agree with the Syt that "grumbler will now cite an obscure academic paper of 639 pages. It will mention Stalin's unintellectuality in a half sentence in a footnote on page 562. Of course grumbler will refuse to tell you where to find it exactly," "instead of citing obscure sources he refutes them because they don't address the precise point he argues. As usual, he declares victory unless his opponent jumps through all the nitpicky loops he holds up for them" and "he'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose?"
And then you can address The Brain's argument that grumbler's "reading comprehension is poor," his "intellect is weak," that he is a troll" and that "grumbler isn't a serious poster."
You
have to deal with those contentions, because they are what the thread has turned out to be about! :lol: No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to be the slightest bit interested in Stalin! :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2010, 12:03:22 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2010, 11:21:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2010, 04:43:58 PM
This thread reminds me of a family episode a while back. We used to have a relative that was a vulgar piece of shit. He had no redeeming qualities about himself.
Up to this point in your post, I wasn't sure if you were talking about Stalin or grumbler. :)
Neither, actually. I don't think grumbler is vulgar, and I do think that Stalin had redeeming qualities.
Well he's dead for one. That's a redeeming quality.
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2010, 01:48:33 PM
No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to be the slightest bit interested in Stalin! :lol:
It's tough for me to advance my "best of the worst" theory any further, since we don't have much of a control group. The most you can really say is that Beria did some liberalization post-Stalin.
What I got from this thread is that Stalin and Tim can be considered intellectuals because they both read history books.
The question of whether Stalin actually understood anything he read appears to be an open question for Brain.
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
Quote from: ulmont on January 11, 2010, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2010, 01:48:33 PM
No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to be the slightest bit interested in Stalin! :lol:
It's tough for me to advance my "best of the worst" theory any further, since we don't have much of a control group. The most you can really say is that Beria did some liberalization post-Stalin.
Some say that Beria's liberalization was a tactical retreat, and just a way to curry favor with the people so that he could cement his power. Like many in his position, Beria was a sadistic murderer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
What I got from this thread is that Stalin and Tim can be considered intellectuals because they both read history books.
The question of whether Stalin actually understood anything he read appears to be an open question for Brain.
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
Also I have a big cock.
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2010, 02:26:01 PM
Quote from: ulmont on January 11, 2010, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2010, 01:48:33 PM
No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to be the slightest bit interested in Stalin! :lol:
It's tough for me to advance my "best of the worst" theory any further, since we don't have much of a control group. The most you can really say is that Beria did some liberalization post-Stalin.
Some say that Beria's liberalization was a tactical retreat, and just a way to curry favor with the people so that he could cement his power. Like many in his position, Beria was a sadistic murderer.
BB has yet to murder.
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
What I got from this thread is that Stalin and Tim can be considered intellectuals because they both read history books.
The question of whether Stalin actually understood anything he read appears to be an open question for Brain.
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
Also I have a big cock.
A giant in a land of midgets may still be short in comparison to the rest of the world.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
What I got from this thread is that Stalin and Tim can be considered intellectuals because they both read history books.
The question of whether Stalin actually understood anything he read appears to be an open question for Brain.
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
Also I have a big cock.
A giant in a land of midgets may still be short in comparison to the rest of the world.
I rarely leave Languish.
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 02:27:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2010, 02:26:01 PM
Quote from: ulmont on January 11, 2010, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2010, 01:48:33 PM
No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to be the slightest bit interested in Stalin! :lol:
It's tough for me to advance my "best of the worst" theory any further, since we don't have much of a control group. The most you can really say is that Beria did some liberalization post-Stalin.
Some say that Beria's liberalization was a tactical retreat, and just a way to curry favor with the people so that he could cement his power. Like many in his position, Beria was a sadistic murderer.
BB has yet to murder.
:shifty:
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2010, 02:26:01 PM
Like many in his position, Beria was a sadistic murderer.
His position of a Georgian in a position of authority?
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 02:31:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
What I got from this thread is that Stalin and Tim can be considered intellectuals because they both read history books.
The question of whether Stalin actually understood anything he read appears to be an open question for Brain.
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
Also I have a big cock.
A giant in a land of midgets may still be short in comparison to the rest of the world.
I rarely leave Languish.
Where there is only one other person who feels the need to share info about the size of his penis.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2010, 02:37:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2010, 02:26:01 PM
Like many in his position, Beria was a sadistic murderer.
His position of a Georgian in a position of authority?
I think we can generalize to "Russian autocrat."
I like Beria. :)
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2010, 02:37:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2010, 02:26:01 PM
Like many in his position, Beria was a sadistic murderer.
His position of a Georgian in a position of authority?
His position as head of secret police. He also murdered plenty of people on the way up.
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
What I got from this thread is that Stalin and Tim can be considered intellectuals because they both read history books.
The question of whether Stalin actually understood anything he read appears to be an open question for Brain.
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
Also I have a big cock.
Are you saying that crazy canuck can vouch for this? That's, uhm, interesting
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2010, 01:48:33 PM
You have to deal with those contentions, because they are what the thread has turned out to be about! :lol: No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to be the slightest bit interested in Stalin! :lol:
Well to be honest, he's not really my type. I like'em female, alive, no mustache.
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 01:09:37 PM
Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?
I think if your aim was to needle grumbler, this was not a good example to use.
Kind of funny though to see poor Tim:
(a) get hit by collateral damage in the grumbler fight
(b) compared to Stalin
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2010, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 01:09:37 PM
Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?
I think if your aim was to needle grumbler, this was not a good example to use.
I don't follow.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2010, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 01:09:37 PM
Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?
I think if your aim was to needle grumbler, this was not a good example to use.
Kind of funny though to see poor Tim:
(a) get hit by collateral damage in the grumbler fight
(b) compared to Stalin
He was born to be collateral damage.
"In this evening's news a US predator drone attacked and killed 6 suspected terrorists. Some poor Puerto Rican kid with cancer was also killed."
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2010, 04:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2010, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2010, 01:09:37 PM
Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?
I think if your aim was to needle grumbler, this was not a good example to use.
Kind of funny though to see poor Tim:
(a) get hit by collateral damage in the grumbler fight
(b) compared to Stalin
He was born to be collateral damage.
"In this evening's news a US predator drone attacked and killed 6 suspected terrorists. Some poor Puerto Rican kid with cancer was also killed."
lol.
This is discussion made me go to Wiki to refresh my knowledge on the matters. I was shocked by what I found. I know that Obama was dressed up as a terrorist, but I didn't know that he also on one occassion dressed up as an NKVD officer.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F55%2FEzhov.PNG&hash=4d4053b55286614e35eda0d8334f2caf960672b0)
hott.
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2010, 01:48:33 PM
You have to deal with those contentions, because they are what the thread has turned out to be about! :lol: No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to be the slightest bit interested in Stalin! :lol:
I feel rather unfairly treated to be left out of your list, as I posted examples of Stalin debating with H.G. Wells on a fairly high level which clearly speaks against Stalin being a profoundly unintellectual man, and yet did not mention you. I could have said, for example, that whatever intelligence Stalin might have had he seems to have been a lot more pleasant to argue with than you are.
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 05:26:55 PM
I feel rather unfairly treated to be left out of your list, as I posted examples of Stalin debating with H.G. Wells on a fairly high level which clearly speaks against Stalin being a profoundly unintellectual man, and yet did not mention you. I could have said, for example, that whatever intelligence Stalin might have had he seems to have been a lot more pleasant to argue with than you are.
Your links were both busted when I tried them, so I didn't know if you were being serious. My apologies if you were.
Your
ad hom is noted with pleasure.
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 05:26:55 PM
I feel rather unfairly treated to be left out of your list, as I posted examples of Stalin debating with H.G. Wells on a fairly high level which clearly speaks against Stalin being a profoundly unintellectual man, and yet did not mention you. I could have said, for example, that whatever intelligence Stalin might have had he seems to have been a lot more pleasant to argue with than you are.
Is it too late to go back to Paradox OT?
I am very surprised that Stalin did not mention Grumbler in his discussion with H.G. Wells since it is well known within Languish that Grumbler has been a significant figure in history since at least the battle of Actium.
Also, it is surprising that everyone failed to grasp the importance of your post. Everyone except you of course. Could it be all of us or just you? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2010, 04:15:50 PM
This is discussion made me go to Wiki to refresh my knowledge on the matters. I was shocked by what I found. I know that Obama was dressed up as a terrorist, but I didn't know that he also on one occassion dressed up as an NKVD officer.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F55%2FEzhov.PNG&hash=4d4053b55286614e35eda0d8334f2caf960672b0)
And they said he was to young and inexperienced.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 05:38:34 PM
I am very surprised that Stalin did not mention Grumbler in his discussion with H.G. Wells since it is well known within Languish that Grumbler has been a significant figure in history since at least the battle of Actium.
Was he with Octavian or Antony?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 05:38:34 PM
I am very surprised that Stalin did not mention Grumbler in his discussion with H.G. Wells since it is well known within Languish that Grumbler has been a significant figure in history since at least the battle of Actium.
Was he with Octavian or Antony?
Since he is still with us I would think the answer was obvious.
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 05:26:55 PM
I could have said, for example, that whatever intelligence Stalin might have had he seems to have been a lot more pleasant to argue with than you are.
That depends on how unpleasant one finds discussing semantics as opposed to say having ones finger nails torn out by an NKVD thug wielding red hot tongs.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2010, 06:16:18 PM
And they said he was to young and inexperienced.
I hope he'll lasts more than two years at his current job.
After reading so many goddamned pages, I have come to the realization that most of you have little Stalins inside.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2010, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
:rolleyes:
Suck it, Patriotard. Brady's bunghole is still throbbing in pain.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2010, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
:rolleyes:
Ok, I may have been wrong. Nobody has taken the position Tim understood anything other then the numbers setting out the score beside all the letters which described the beating the Patriots took. Letters which formed words that Tim may or may not have understood.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 05:26:55 PM
I feel rather unfairly treated to be left out of your list, as I posted examples of Stalin debating with H.G. Wells on a fairly high level which clearly speaks against Stalin being a profoundly unintellectual man, and yet did not mention you. I could have said, for example, that whatever intelligence Stalin might have had he seems to have been a lot more pleasant to argue with than you are.
Is it too late to go back to Paradox OT?
I am very surprised that Stalin did not mention Grumbler in his discussion with H.G. Wells since it is well known within Languish that Grumbler has been a significant figure in history since at least the battle of Actium.
Also, it is surprising that everyone failed to grasp the importance of your post. Everyone except you of course. Could it be all of us or just you? :hmm:
I never was much at Paradox OT to begin with. It should be quite obvious from the way I phrased my post that it was I who never mentioned grumbler; whether everyone failed to understand this or just you I don't know.
I was indeed serious in making my point and refrained from participating in the general anti-grumbler sentiment. I don't really have anything against grumbler, it's just that he tries to put me in my place time after time because I'm a noob but often find me going on the counter-offensive, at which point he accuse me of using ad homs and declare victory - I don't think I've gone on the offensive against grumbler unprovoked except possibly just now, but even this must be seen in a larger context.
Minsky is of course correct in saying that I would not like to argue with Stalin as a subject of his absolutist dictatorship, but he seems a perfectly charming partner of discussion in an argument between equals where neither party has the power to kill the other, such as in his argument with H. G. Wells (I might add that if I was under the rule of grumblers absolutist dictatorship I would like to argue him even less as he'd probably have me put to death on charges of semantics, something which Stalin, to my knowledge, never killed anyone for).
H. G. Wells was a socialist but not a marxist; he was of the opinion that the world would have been a better place if Marx had never been born; and while he was at first cautiously positive to the Soviet union he soon abandoned all hope in the project after Stalin came to power. And yet he speaks of his personal meeting with Stalin in the following words: "I have never met a man more fair, candid, and honest" and made it quite clear that he felt the sinister image of Stalin usually presented was unfair or simply false.
The discussion between H.G. Wells and Stalin, which is available in book form under the title "Liberalism vs. Marxism" which aptly desribes the argument between them, can be found here (I apologize for my earlier broken link and I hope this one will work better): http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2010, 07:07:57 PM
After reading so many goddamned pages, I have come to the realization that most of you have little Stalins inside.
I keep mine in a big mayonnaise jar and feed him June bugs. He shoots them in the neck before he eats one.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2010, 09:22:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2010, 07:07:57 PM
After reading so many goddamned pages, I have come to the realization that most of you have little Stalins inside.
I keep mine in a big mayonnaise jar and feed him June bugs. He shoots them in the neck before he eats one.
Once in a while, when you're lucid and not hallucinating, you're funny.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2010, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2010, 09:22:49 PM
I keep mine in a big mayonnaise jar and feed him June bugs. He shoots them in the neck before he eats one.
Once in a while, when you're lucid and not hallucinating, you're funny.
He's nearly always funny; it's just that sometimes he is also humorous.
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 09:04:59 PM
The discussion between H.G. Wells and Stalin, which is available in book form under the title "Liberalism vs. Marxism" which aptly desribes the argument between them, can be found here (I apologize for my earlier broken link and I hope this one will work better): http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm
You still lack a sense of humour.
A couple points.
QuoteH. G. Wells visited the Soviet Union in 1934 and on July 23 he interviewed Joseph Stalin. The conversation, lasting from 4 P. M. to 6:50 P. M., was recorded by Constantine Oumansky, then head of the Press Bureau of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. The text, as printed in this pamphlet, has been approved by Mr. Wells.
1) There is not chance the conversation as recorded lasted almost three hours.
2) Given that fact and given the author of the "notes" there is a significant amount of spinning going on.
3) However given all of that some of the true Stalin still shines through the editing:
Quote"Now I have come to you to ask you what you are doing to change the world. . . .
STALIN: Not so very much. . . .
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 10:17:41 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 09:04:59 PM
The discussion between H.G. Wells and Stalin, which is available in book form under the title "Liberalism vs. Marxism" which aptly desribes the argument between them, can be found here (I apologize for my earlier broken link and I hope this one will work better): http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm
You still lack a sense of humour.
A couple points.
QuoteH. G. Wells visited the Soviet Union in 1934 and on July 23 he interviewed Joseph Stalin. The conversation, lasting from 4 P. M. to 6:50 P. M., was recorded by Constantine Oumansky, then head of the Press Bureau of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. The text, as printed in this pamphlet, has been approved by Mr. Wells.
1) There is not chance the conversation as recorded lasted almost three hours.
2) Given that fact and given the author of the "notes" there is a significant amount of spinning going on.
3) However given all of that some of the true Stalin still shines through the editing:
Quote"Now I have come to you to ask you what you are doing to change the world. . . .
STALIN: Not so very much. . . .
Not very surprising he should say that, given his policy of socialism in one country and his victory over Trotskij who favoured global revolution.
And I don't see why H. G. Wells would be practicing intellectual dishonesty in the defense of Stalin, and approve an editing of the text which he would feel to be incorrect. He was no friend of the Soviet union nor Stalin. Other interviews will give you the same impression of Stalin. See for example Emil Ludwig's interview of him that I linked earlier in the thread. I might lack a sense of humour, but I don't think Stalin lacked one, see for example his reply to this question:
QuoteLudwig: Do you not consider that among the Germans as a nation the love of order is more highly developed than the love of freedom?
Stalin: There was a time when people in Germany did indeed respect the law. When I spent two or three months in Berlin in 1907, we Russians Bolsheviks used to laugh at certain of our German friends for their respect of the law. There was, for instance, an anecdote to the effect that on one occasion the Berlin Committee of the Social Democratic Party organised a demonstration fixed for a certain day and hour at which the members of all the suburban organisations were to attend. A group of about 200 from one of the suburbs arrived in the city punctually at the hour appointed, but they failed to appear at the demonstration. It turned out that they waited two hours on the platform of the station because the ticket collector at the exit was missing, and there was nobody to take their tickets. It was said in jest that a Russian comrade had to show them an easy way out of the situation, namely, to leave the platform without surrendering their tickets . . .
But is there anything like that in Germany now? Is there respect for the law in Germany today? What about the National Socialists, who should be the first to guard bourgeois law and order, do they not violate the laws, break up workers' clubs and murder workers with impunity? I will not speak of the workers, who it appears to me, long ago lost all respect for bourgeois law and order. Aye, the Germans have changed considerably in these days.
He first tells a rather amusing anecdote, and only then does he tie up his answer to the question, relating it to the anecdote. This is clearly not the work of polishing and editing: how would you create something like that through editing? It's impossible: you'd have to replace his real answer with an entirely different answer. This is clearly Stalins real reply: a funny anecdote. Nor does Ludwig have any reason to practice intellectual dishonesty in the defense of Stalin. Ludwig was a biographer: He interviewed many important men in his time including the fascist Mussolini. I own a collection of his biographies of historical figures; his row model is Plutarch and in his book he says something like, (I quote from memory), "the smallest details can reveal the true character of a person". My impression of Ludwig is scarecly that he is an ideologue: his interest is in portraying humans. I have no reason to believe his interview is in any way coloured by political sympathies to Stalin. Nor do I have any reason to belive H. G. Well's interview is coloured by any political sympathies to Stalin (if anything, any such inclination would be the opposite one).
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 11:21:19 PM
I have no reason to believe his interview is in any way coloured by political sympathies to Stalin. Nor do I have any reason to belive H. G. Well's interview is coloured by any political sympathies to Stalin (if anything, any such inclination would be the opposite one).
Nor do I have any reason to believe this interview actually took place as published.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 08:12:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2010, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
:rolleyes:
Ok, I may have been wrong. Nobody has taken the position Tim understood anything other then the numbers setting out the score beside all the letters which described the beating the Patriots took. Letters which formed words that Tim may or may not have understood.
What the hell? Since when have been on your shit list?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 11:41:11 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 11, 2010, 11:21:19 PM
I have no reason to believe his interview is in any way coloured by political sympathies to Stalin. Nor do I have any reason to belive H. G. Well's interview is coloured by any political sympathies to Stalin (if anything, any such inclination would be the opposite one).
Nor do I have any reason to believe this interview actually took place as published.
Both interviews paint the same picture. I'm not saying these are the exact words of Stalin: it is probable, for example, that interpreters were used in both interviews (this would also explain the length of the interview relative to it's time: everything had to be said twice). But there are characteristics relating to his mannerism and style apparent in both the Ludwig interview and the Wells interview; characteristics clearly going beyond what is possible with editing and polishing. Have both these interviews been fabricated independently? We also have Wells personal impression of Stalin.
Anyway I don't know if Stalin was good or evil or intellecutal or unintellectual, but I don't see the need for anti-marxists to cling to myth-making (Uncle Joe is our friend, oh wait, Stalin is evil). Surely if Stalin was
not all bad, and yet did all the evil things he did, that is a
stronger argument against marxism as practiced in the Soviet Union? :huh: At least that's how it seems to me.
Now it is of course entirely possible, not to say likely, even, that Stalin merely continued the cult of leadership where the Tsar was considered by the Orthodox church to be if not semi-devine then at least a little more than just a mere mortal. He expanded, so to say, to fill this role, as the Russian people would expect of a leader (after all that is all they had known). Stalin was a religiously inclined person who studied in an orthodox seminary before he traded this faith to faith in a kind of marxism little different from a religion.
He is, so to say, channeling a kind of spiritual leadership in his words. He knows people trust in him as they would trust a religious authority. This would explain his charisma - but he is enough of a realist to know, of course, that this is a gift that can be taken from him. And he will defend it by all means.
The Ludwig's interview is a little creepy. You actually get the feeling that Stalin believed what he was saying, and yet we know how things turned out after 1931.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2010, 11:49:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 08:12:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2010, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
:rolleyes:
Ok, I may have been wrong. Nobody has taken the position Tim understood anything other then the numbers setting out the score beside all the letters which described the beating the Patriots took. Letters which formed words that Tim may or may not have understood.
What the hell? Since when have been on your shit list?
NOBODY LIKES YOUR FUCKING TEAM.
For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.
This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.
Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.
The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.
Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.
So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2010, 07:46:10 AM
For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.
This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.
Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.
The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.
Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.
So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.
I'm sorry, citation needed.
Quote from: Sahib on January 12, 2010, 08:55:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2010, 07:46:10 AM
For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.
This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.
Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.
The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.
Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.
So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.
I'm sorry, citation needed.
Tamas will now cite an obscure academic paper of 639 pages. It will mention Stalin's unintellectuality in a half sentence in a footnote on page 562. Of course Tamas will refuse to tell you where to find it exactly. Instead of citing obscure sources he refutes them because they don't address the precise point he argues. As usual, he declares victory unless his opponent jumps through all the nitpicky loops he holds up for them. He'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 08:59:15 AM
*unoriginal copy/paste with names exchanged*
Still going on about this, gramps? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2010, 07:07:57 PM
After reading so many goddamned pages, I have come to the realization that most of you have little Stalins inside.
Well, yeah.
But a little Ex-Lax(tm) will take care of that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2010, 11:49:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 08:12:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2010, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2010, 02:21:54 PM
Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.
:rolleyes:
Ok, I may have been wrong. Nobody has taken the position Tim understood anything other then the numbers setting out the score beside all the letters which described the beating the Patriots took. Letters which formed words that Tim may or may not have understood.
What the hell? Since when have been on your shit list?
Its NFL playoff season and the Patriots lost. You are going to be a target until at least next weekend.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2010, 07:46:10 AM
For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.
This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.
Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.
The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.
Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.
So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.
The worst thing about Stalin is he didn't totally destroy Hungary.
I don't think Stalin was less destructive than grumbler.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
The worst thing about Stalin is he didn't totally destroy Hungary.
Not Stalin's fault you can't control your appetite.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2010, 11:48:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
The worst thing about Stalin is he didn't totally destroy Hungary.
Not Stalin's fault you can't control your appetite.
:yuk:
Bad one.
Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2010, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 08:59:15 AM
*funny-as-balls shit copy/paste with names exchanged*
Still going on about this, gramps? :huh:
Sure, gramps; it is still funny as balls. :lol:
Some stuff is so mind-blowingly stupid that it is fun to throw it back into the originator's face repeatedly.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2010, 11:46:12 AM
I don't think Stalin was less destructive than grumbler.
And I don't think Stalin less fundamentally unintellectual than The Brain.
Should we: get a room?
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 12:14:13 PM
Sure, gramps; it is still funny as balls. :lol:
Some stuff is so mind-blowingly stupid that it is fun to throw it back into the originator's face repeatedly.
Well, I'm glad that you're easily amused. I guess it takes some load off the shoulders of your male nurses at your old people's home. :)
Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2010, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 12:14:13 PM
Sure, gramps; it is still funny as balls. :lol:
Some stuff is so mind-blowingly stupid that it is fun to throw it back into the originator's face repeatedly.
Well, I'm glad that you're easily amused. I guess it takes some load off the shoulders of your male nurses at your old people's home. :)
As the resident nurse I have to ask: Would it help to know that I own an obscure 1943 nursing textbook of 544 pages I could cite from?
Quote from: syk on January 12, 2010, 12:31:34 PM
As the resident nurse I have to ask: Would it help to know that I own an obscure 1943 nursing textbook of 544 pages I could cite from?
I guess it has some "interesting" suggestions for the treatment of patients. :ph34r:
Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2010, 12:34:37 PM
Quote from: syk on January 12, 2010, 12:31:34 PM
As the resident nurse I have to ask: Would it help to know that I own an obscure 1943 nursing textbook of 544 pages I could cite from?
I guess it has some "interesting" suggestions for the treatment of patients. :ph34r:
Depends. Is it a
German nursing textbook from 1943? :D
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 12:38:50 PM
Is it a German nursing textbook from 1943? :D
syk is a fellow North German kraut, so chances are good. ;)
Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2010, 12:40:40 PM
syk is a fellow North German kraut
Really,
the avatar didnt give it away at all.
Chapter B: Hereditary and Racial Care
Yes it's a German book.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2010, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2010, 12:40:40 PM
syk is a fellow North German kraut
Really,
the avatar didnt give it away at all.
You're from Switzerland then?
Though responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Poles, Stalin did not go far enough to remove Martinus from the timeline. Work incomplete, so I will give him a C- for effort.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 12, 2010, 12:48:08 PM
Though responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Poles, Stalin did not go far enough to remove Martinus from the timeline. Work incomplete, so I will give him a C- for effort.
Indeed an argument could be made that Stalin so weakened the Polish nation that he created the conditions for Marti to exist. Stalin Fails completely.
You might want to check out Montefiore's chapter 11: Stalin the Fag Enabler.
Quote from: syk on January 12, 2010, 12:45:36 PM
Chapter B: Hereditary and Racial Care
Yes it's a German book.
Hmmm. I wonder what "racial care" I'd receive. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: syk on January 12, 2010, 12:45:36 PM
Chapter B: Hereditary and Racial Care
Yes it's a German book.
Hmmm. I wonder what "racial care" I'd receive. :lol:
:lol:
Canadians were to be snipped and set to work on New Berlin.