Comments by "Kora Na" (@korana6308) on "The BEST and WORST history sources (tier list)" video.

Wow, I feel so honoured. That's my comment at 8:00 . Just to clarify something. I agree with 95% of what you are saying in your videos TIK. More so, your videos were like a breath of fresh air for me. So I appreciate your work and your response and I agree with your tier list. The only part I was not agreeing with is that something "should be ignored" (namely the "F tier"). And you seem to interpret it as it should have been TAKEN as a source with great relevance... NO. I haven't said or implied that. The tier list is important, but you shouldn't "ignore" anything, that is just WRONG and non scientific. I've already started writing a really long response comment to your objections, and it took me like an hour already, and I haven't even gotten past like the 10% mark of what I wanted to say, so to properly answer your comment with due amount of respect that I want to give it, it would take me a really long time... And youtube wouldn't allow such a long comment anyway, and nobody would probably even read it anyway... So if you or anyone else has some specific questions to my original comment that require my clarification, I would gladly elaborate on it in this comment section... Or if there's any interest on my full response to the TIK document, I could do a proper response comment too but that would be a long read... I will only do it if I know there's any interest to it in the first place... And just to reiterate I have a huge amount of respect for you and your work TIK, and I agree with 95% of it, doesn't mean that I'm not going to criticize the other 5%. Cheers, your Kora Na / Max.
5
Thank you. That was my comment that TIK was replying to at 8:00 and I got completely misinterpreted. That was my whole point and I agree with you. TIK is saying that something could just be "ignored". My point is that it has less relevance. but NOTHING can be "ignored" everything has something worth of value to it. Since everything!!! is information. Even if you forge something, that forging is relevant, though it still is in the lowest of tiers of relevancy. However it can't just be disregarded. The more I live, the more I understand it.
3
@Jayare175 the problem is that your opinion is subjective. Because I've only used Cartesian Doubt because you've thought that I did, and you'd classified it as such. Where in fact I did not. And it is only your misinterpretation of my comment. I actually for some reason see alot of the times people misinterpreting things, and my comments in particular, and then getting punished for it... I will give you an example from my personal experience... there was this SC2 streamer like 10 years ago or so, the rule on his stream was "Don't give me any advice or you will get banned". He was busy inside his game and got to the comment section for like 15 seconds... And is reading the comment which came down from me, where I was discussing with another guy what I was doing in that exact situation(there were only like 2 of us there). And he misinterpreted my comment and thought that that comment was addressed at him, and that I was trying to give him an advice... of how he should have done things better in his game... Which was not my intention at all, and I wasn't even addressing him, I was speaking to someone else in the comment section. He misinterpreted my comment, because of his personal b. fallacy, and I got punished for it. Now why did he misinterpret it? Because his mind chose to interpret it the way he wanted it to for one or the other reason. I've had no control over and, and couldn't react or have a last word... I got "ignored". I was forced by him and his mind into his f. interpretation of events of things that I've said. That he interpreted a certain way... which were purely his wrong interpretation of my words and it wasn't the actual meaning that was implied by those words... but rather his interpretation... So you are effectively forcing your mind to an interpretation of reality which is always subjective. The difference is the amount and deepness of a thought you are willing to give or allocate for an interpretation of anything in life. Which is right back to my point... You can't disregard or "IGNORE" any source even in the "F tier". Because your view on anything in this life is always subjective. And your subjection changes throughout your life.
2
@Jayare175 That is again, only your misinterpretation of my words. Objectivity is relative and is in a sense subjective. Because in order to get objective truths you have to subject them to your views and interpret them. Your subjection or interpretation of things may change over time, but not the fact of the objective truth or reality. Which could be subjected from infinite amount of views and interpretations, keeping only the relevant ones for the moment... As in subjection is just a testimony to the reality of an "objective entity or a thing". And it's relevancy get's looped back into it's personal subjection' , so you can only know certain things with relevant enough certainty only. And that relevant enough certainty comes from your values which comes from your culture, and that is your objective reality that you know subjectively which makes you certain in knowing things from your subjective point of view... So your subjective point of view is real and is certain but only for you. So saying that you can't know anything for certain is misinterpreting and twisting my words. I am afraid to say more, because half of my comments get censored by wonderful youtube. And I'm not sure at this point what words I am allowed to say...
2
@Jayare175 And my comment got censored, right as I expected. So I can't even answer you . great.
2
Lol I kinda agree. With more control it is easier to forge the truth. Even stuff that lies on your hard drive can be manipulated... Let alone videos or photos or documents in the cloud...
2
Stalin's genocide was not a thing. So your sources are biased in the first place.
1
That's the thing. Newspapers are biased!... And I'm not gonna say more, because TIK might misinterpret the meaning of my words again...
1
Surprisingly that is exactly what I was trying to imply as well. Yet I got misinterpreted completely implying that I wanted to defend smearers and forgerers. Which I never said or implied.
1
Yep. That was my point too. Unfortunately my comment got misinterpreted. The F tier is relevant, just obviously not as relevant as the other tiers.
1
Great point.
1
What's your definition of a primary source? Closest to the thing that happened in physical distance, or closest to the time of the even or closer to be written by some kind of an authority that you trust? like a professional historian etc? Regardless either of them can be biased too. And the source closest to the event is usually the most biased of them all. With an example of Khatyn , Germans claim one thing, Soviets claim the other. Who is right? the debate is still ongoing. But the west obviously blames Russians, and Russians blame Germans. Who is more right, and which source is "primier" (more prime)?
1
@lars9925 so if everything is biased i. e. subjective, (which is true) how do you identify the truth, that is the main question. Which in the end comes down to studying and analyzing as many of different sources and different types of sources, as you can get, that is the only way to get to the truth. Which comes back at my original point. You can't disregard or "ignore" any of the information which TIK is actively suggesting here, even from the "F" tier. That is just un scientific. You can obviously give them less of a value which is precisely what tiers are made for in the first place, and not include their contradictory positions on certain stance in a more reliable source, but you can't just "ignore" them, if not for anything, but that an alleged forgery may end up being wrongly labeled and might actually turn out to not be forged. A great example of which I can give you is the Book of Veles. There's is still an ongoing debate, and majority of the scholars agree that it's a forgery... but to many "alternative" historians like to cite it as a primary source. That is what I mean by not disregarding any sources. Even if you consider something less of a value like a forgery, you can't completely disregard it.
1
Great point. 👍
1