Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "The BEST and WORST history sources (tier list)" video.

A lot of times it isn't even the sources, it's how people perceive sources and their legitimacy in general, almost like holy relics. I find it very annoying when I here someone say "TIK is lying because the sources he uses contradict his arguments." It's baffling to me personally because, just because someone uses a specific source doesn't mean they agree with said source. TIKhistory can cite any source he wishes, even if he doesn't agree with the conclusions the author comes to in said source. How someone doesn't understand that, and believes if you're citing a source, that you have to agree with the author's conclusion and not doing so is some how manipulating history is beyond me. That isn't how it works. Did these people ever take Composition 1 and 2 in college? When I try to explain to them that the reason TIK doesn't agree with said author is because that author does a great job describing "Red" but then concludes it's "Blue." Since author concludes it's blue often the author's readers believe it's blue, as if they didn't understand what they were actually reading. The contradiction is already there, but since TIK doesn't say "Blue" he's the one who is some how the contradiction.
104
@VocalBear213 I have to agree with others on that. That video is actually one of the reasons I made my comment as the uploader relies heavily on a BAD ARGUMENT. My favorite was when he criticized TIK for not properly citing a source for a Comic that showed Marx being funded by Capitalist. Despite the comic was used in jest by TIK and worse the video of TIK he cited it from was a Critique video of a book that tried to make such a claim. Issue is he did a Gotcha when he tried to claim TIK didn't cite it so people couldn't find the source. An illustrator who was an Anarchist who later became a Leninist. Saying why would a Marxist make that comic? Of course TIK would hide that... bla bla. Ignoring 1. Who made the comic isn't that relevant. 2. Ignoring at this time in history a lot of Anarchist broke ranks or were opposed to Marxism. So bring up that the guy was an Anarchist and became a communist explains why the comic was made to begin with. The whole argument held no relevance really. Smoke and mirrors. What is worse #2 actually supports when TIK mentioned many people at the time believed it was true.. and guess what including anti State Anarchist who viewed Marx as a tool. So.. he actually helped TIK. Basically the whole comic thing was a waste of viewers time to paint TIK as dishonest and he does this a lot. It also shows he knows not nearly as much as he thinks if he didn't realize Anarchist had a beef with Marxist. The guy pulls at straws in short. The fact he built a whole argument over that and failed at the same time made it stick out so much. He ignores the most fundamental part of my original comment as well. Which is why I made it. That TIK doesn't have to AGREE with the authors. That is where most of TIK's supposed contradictions come from as well Ignoring conclusions the authors often make within the same paragraphs. Issue is the contradictions are already there and the AUTHORS made them not TIK.
6