Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    You post quite similarly to Bismarck, a fellow mod, though he's secular.
    That is because I am able to argue the facts and logic without allowing my own personal feelings to cloud my judgement or blind me to another's view. Or at least I hope I'm able to.


    (Original post by happybob)
    I never try and justify myself to anyone who uses the word "racist" to make a point, neither do I admit nor deny being "racist". It's a stupid scare word used to repress speech and thought, I try not to give it any credit and laugh when people call me "racist"
    There would be little point trying to claim that you aren't racist so it's probably just as well you don't bother. And the fact that you consider "racist" to be only a scare word speaks volumes in itself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Happybob, would you hate yourself if you were black? I mean, if you were born black but with exactly the same personality and upbringing, would your race [something which was uncontrollable after all] affect your political views. Bear in mind that you wouldn't be the "typical Anglo-Saxon" [whatever that is - certainly not me with part Irish, part German, part whatever else, in my blood].
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Happybob, would you hate yourself if you were black? I mean, if you were born black but with exactly the same personality and upbringing, would your race [something which was uncontrollable after all] affect your political views. Bear in mind that you wouldn't be the "typical Anglo-Saxon" [whatever that is - certainly not me with part Irish, part German, part whatever else, in my blood].
    Nope, he'd hate whitey :p:.

    Whilst facebook can ban whom they wish for whatever they wish, I'm not sure they'd be doing themselves many favours here. As much as I dislike the BNP, I keep some of my dislike back to spend on the UAF...near as fascist and far more whingy!

    'No Platform for Labour, they say things I don't like, and I've got some mateys that agree with me!'
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    You seem to be quite defensive about fascism, strange that for a lib.
    It's not strange at all. It's tolerance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    On a side note, it's possible to be tolerant of something whilst still not supporting, defending or praising it. In fact, the opposite applies as well, I can criticise something quite strongly whilst still being tolerant of it. Whilst Facebook have an absolute right to ban the BNP, I don't agree with it's decision, for they are adopting a political position [saying that the BNP is wrong] rather than simply censoring the racist and offensive remarks.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    It's not strange at all. It's tolerance.
    I should have added "as well as being so vehemently offensive towards socialism". If it was tolerance, he'd extend at least the same decency towards socialists.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    I should have added "as well as being so vehemently offensive towards socialism". If it was tolerance, he'd extend at least the same decency towards socialists.
    I haven't seen him calling for them to be gagged; merely making fun of them. And it's not as if Socialists are regularly in danger of being forcibly silenced.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well just stopped short of calling them to be silenced, but that isn't the point. Perhaps there is no point..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    "life became worse even than it was under the Tsars"

    Did it? That's entirely subjective and I could easily argue the many ways which that's quite untrue.
    That life under the "communists" was worse than under the Tsars? Quite possibly the one thing historians are agreed upon generally...
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Soc)
    That life under the "communists" was worse than under the Tsars? Quite possibly the one thing historians are agreed upon generally...
    I don't know about that. I'm sure there are plenty of Cold War historians who have taken every opportunity to enlarge on the horrors of life for many under Stalin, but this doesn't make Tsarist Russia a bed of roses all of a sudden. It's not my area though - which historians are you referring to?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    tbh I prefer to live longer, be "allowed" a job, legal abortion, an education, and a far more equal (notice not "an equal") society.
    In a genuinely communist society I would be inclined to agree with you, but Soviet Russia was NOT genuinely communist! It was a corrupt dictatorship. At least not once Stalin came to power. And your life expectancy wasn't too good during the purges...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    tbh I prefer to live longer, be "allowed" a job, legal abortion, an education, and a far more equal (not "an equal", before you say it) society.
    None of which you would have got under the Soviets. Except possibly the abortion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    tbh I prefer to live longer, be "allowed" a job, legal abortion, an education, and a far more equal (not "an equal", before you say it) society.
    That was available under Stalin? Not sure what history you've been reading...


    (Original post by Oswy)
    I don't know about that. I'm sure there are plenty of Cold War historians who have taken every opportunity to enlarge on the horrors of life for many under Stalin, but this doesn't make Tsarist Russia a bed of roses all of a sudden. It's not my area though - which historians are you referring to?
    The horrors under Stalin were pretty real. 20 million killed is hardly a small number. I'm not arguing that Tsarist Russia was a bed of Roses, but they were weak and Alex II was actually open for a bit of reform. Weak government is better than strong government, especially of the Stalinesque type.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    Weak government is better than strong government.
    Hooray! Another convert! This way to the milk and honey.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Hooray! Another convert! This way to the milk and honey.
    I'm a member of the Libs, in case you didn't know :hmmm:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    It wasn't AS level history for beginners in 20th century britain.
    Ah Russia for dummies...figures.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    Yeah you're quite right, absolutely no steps were taken towards women's emancipation, women weren't brought into the factories and collective farms, they weren't given equal status in marriage, they weren't allowed to be educated :rolleyes:

    AS I expected more.
    Oh, women. In that case you're probably right; I thought you just meant people in general. The average Soviet citizen wouldn't have had a job, an education (as distinct from a systematic indoctrination and brain-chewing) or any real equality - woman or not.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    I'm a member of the Libs, in case you didn't know :hmmm:
    Since when? I had you down* as having Liberal Democrat tendencies. Not in a sexual way, obviously. Or maybe. I don't know.


    *ON MY LIST!!!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Since when? I had you down as having Liberal Democrat tendencies. Not in a sexual way, obviously. Or maybe. I don't know.
    I've been a Lib TSR MP since the beginning of this parliament's term. I've been fairly centre for about a year now.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thud)
    absolutely. Literacy didn't rise from less than 1% to almost 100%, schools weren't built, the population of the cities didn't increase 10 fold, the country didn't undergo massive industrialisation and millions of jobs weren't created.
    Literacy and building schools is not the same as education, although perhaps I did overstate my case somewhat. Nor are industrialisation and urbanisation the same thing as equality and employment. Millions of jobs may have been created, but artificially so. Under the Tsars most people didn't have a Job as such, but worked on the land. Then, as you say, many of them moved to the cities and suddenly they became Unemployed. So jobs had to be created (and until 1861 the employment rate was technically 100% ).

    Besides, job or no job, you couldn't actually buy very much in those days. Yevtushenko's In the Store is a fairly accurate picture of things, I think.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.