Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money, health and everything else that matters. Our goal is to ensure that everyone, regardless of income or status, can access accurate information that empowers them.
If you’re refuting my evidence, you should be able to type out a brief summary of your argument for why that massacre shouldn’t matter or whatever. A brief paragraph summarizing the most important point would be fine. That’s fairly traditional instead of just “go read this stuff”, which may or may not even fully pertain, knowing passionate ideologues on the internet.
No, go call your mother and stop begging me for attention. Engage with the material and come back. If you devoted a fraction of the energy you do to annoying people online to reading, you could eventually be as literate as the average Chinese teenager.
That’s cute, but I think we both know who is acting more like a teenager here.
That would be the person setting arbitrary conversation rules and pouting when being presented with homework. Now get your sore buttocks out of my mentions and read
No, I think it’s the whiney one making personal attacks and posting their own favorite propaganda links instead of actually engaging in conversation.
You can stop replying any time you know, if you’re oh so upset.
I think the guy who believes politics on Lemmy are “compromised” and needs to huddle under Bluesky moderation may be a little perturbed actually. The evil Russians are corrupting the website! Oh no. Can you stop any time you want? Because it seems possible to juggle you without a fight. I think I can stunlock you for the rest of your life. This is history, you can’t opt out of it any time you like. What you fail to understand about historical discussions is there is no last word, people die. Refusing to consider criticisms of your premises and resssuring yourself with tirades accomplishes nothing. You are only throwing off your own understanding of the world. All of the sources of your Wikipedia articles are addressed across these two books.
Funny that you accuse me of tirades when I’ve been nothing but measured and polite, while you spout stuff like:
I gave you your chance to explain yourself, in your own words. I know that takes some effort, no question, but if you really had confidence in your position, you’d be more than happy to at least briefly summarize. Instead you punted. It’s a common tactic, don’t think people haven’t noticed. Science communities deal with tough questions all the time, you see people try to explain, because they care and love their topic. They don’t just go “read two books, now shut up”.
In 2025 pseuds don’t demand to be read books aloud like you’re their mommy, they “give you the chance to explain yourself”. You’re not the only one who can make reference to a context outside the thread of conversation. To begin with, there is no reason for me to believe you read the first article I posted. If you can even make an attempt to attack one point made in the article, I will have a reason to believe it. You may not be aware of how ridiculous you come off to someone with a background in this.
Really? Because my initial, unedited comment includes a year (1922 if I recall) that I could have only gotten from reading the first article you gave me. So, this:
is just blatantly, provably, false. That said, this specific conversation is actually not about that, it’s about something else. Not that I expect you to care, unless it’s convenient for you.
Lastly, asking you to address one single point in your own words does not, and should not, require a book. That’s very disingenuous.
edit for grammar
Augh the app is shidding itself bc im replying too much augh