Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4.  @TheImperatorKnight  Of course you agree with OP, TIK. Because you know you're wrong, and the best way to ignore that is to engage in fallacy, as you've been doing. All i've been doing, this whole time, is disagreeing and debating. Not one time have I thrown an insult, at least not nearly as insane and serious as yours, and I have addressed your points each time. I know you want to ignore this, because it proves that you cannot back up many of your points, but it won't go away, and this is a public forum where only a few minutes of scrolling with prove you wrong. You can accuse use of "meaningless insults" all you want, but this entire time (and even now) you call random people marxists, post modernists, anti semites because they simply disagree with you. And of course, you instantly leap into an insult. You really can't defend your points, can you. Your agenda has always been to redefine history, revise it, and the whole time with the absurd goal in mind that the "popular narrative" or "mainstream understanding" must be wrong. You have decided that you would build your content off of the back of needless contrarianism and fearmongering. When you say "the comment sections are normally better," you mean, "they commenters normally don't know enough to call me out on my nonsense." But i've seen them do it, and i've seen you brush off first time commenters with the same baseless insults that you've attributed to me. And of course, here you are again, engaging in needles contrarianism. You know why you can't subject this to mainstream historians, because they'd prove you wrong in an instant, as even most of your comments have done. I see you've never actually been to university or understand the state, because buddy, most that i've been to teach Austrian economics first, and all else last. Hell, you remember Pinochet? The only reason he came into power was that the state sponsored Austrian-School economists to teach Chileans about their ideology, who were then sent back to form the new country. This country despises socialism more than you, but you can't bear to hear that. Some of the Austrians also blamed the great depression on capitalism, but i'm sure you don't want to hear that. You also, of course, don't want to hear that Austrian economics has been mainstream, ever since it wormed itself out of the Fatherland Front. But I do find it comedic that you think Austrians understand basic economics, or even why you feel the need to bring this up in a comment complaining about this you don't like. Why's that? Oh, right, you refuse to engage in nuance and try to associate everyone you don't like into one giant anti-TIK conglomerate. You also refer to me as a statist and you not as one, which is personally funny to me. I hate to bring this up. but we've already been over it. You did redefine these words, explicitly, under the pretense of going back to their base roots in an early language and connecting them there. I hate to remind you, but etymology didn't end before the english language really existed. When a socialist, say marx, talks about a "state" they don't mean your definition. When they talk about "collective ownership," they don't mean your definition. You try to make up these definitions to apply them, long after they're dead, as a way of obscuring their goals and associating them with other groups. Postmodernists actually tend to be against the state, but you've been redefining the term, so who knows. When you decide to take a thousand year old definition and plaster it across the entire english language, yes, it doesn't work. You can complain about your fictional "marxists" all you like, you're not going to get a participation trophy for being wrong because of them.
    3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19.  @Wtiberon  I know you're not arguing, because doing so would mean you're opening up yourself to the possibility of being wrong, and you'd rather not self reflect that much. I have put more effort into even this conversation than you by far, you are of course projecting again. I portray myself as someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research. Call that whatever you want, but that's the truth about me. And here's your best piece of denialism - "What does it matter if his sources disagree with him?" Kid. This is history. History isn't subjective, isn't opinions. History is based on facts. If I was to site 3 people saying 2+2=4 in my essay on why 2+2=5, my essay would be invalid, not only is it false, but the citations I give would be taken out of the context of their ultimate conclusion. That's why it matters, because he cited numerous sources that easily prove the nazis were not socialists... and then ignores the conclusions of said sources to cherry pick information. TIK isn't a historian, he's some gob with a youtube channel. And yes, i'm arguing peer reviewed and decades-credited historians have more credibility than this youtuber. I have already given you nothing but specific, coherent, logical reasons why he is wrong, and I have not committed anything close to the amount of logical fallacies you have. That's the thing - I don't care if you listen. You have proven yourself to be acting in bad faith and constantly shifting the goalposts. You don't care about evidence or citation, you don't want to have to research. We both know i'm right, that's why you keep asking for me to make arguments that don't requite you to actually look into the subject matter. If you don't want to debate me, you want to walk away with your ignorance, go ahead. That's your choice.
    3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3