Seriously depends on the context, and what you mean by defending. "The Soviets are the reason WW2 was won" and "Churchill was awful but doesn't get nearly as much scrutiny" are more lib-friendly defenses, for instance.
Also the fact that more or less all the world leaders of the western countries were massive Nazi sympathizers.
Nah, that is a hill we have to die on. Iberals care about that kind of thing. We have to say "stalin did nothing wrong", so they instinctively compromise with us and end up at "comunism can do good stuff"
I feel like there's probably a way to start from those infamous pics of farmers dumping tanks of milk down the drain, and get to "destroying the country's most important crop during a shortage to own the libs"
No, really, many years ago I understood change in society can only be achieved thanks to radicals pushing furiously in one direction. Milquetoast acchieve nothing.
I agree that while framing your message in a certain way for your audience can be helpful, compromising it and conceding incorrect points can only be harmful. You don't need to fly into your local community center like a wrecking ball with "Stalin did nothing wrong", but you shouldn't agree with the western view of Stalin just to keep the peace in debates.
There's ways to argue over these things that frame it so people are more receptive, and that's what should be done, without compromising your principles.
It depends. Some people simply do not consider things like we do. The approach you describe is correct for some situations. There are others where it is not. Where people are emotially motivated a forceful argument is better than a well reasoned one. Since most people didn't reason themselves into their current ideology it would be silly to try to reason them out of it.
70% good, 30% bad. That's the official Chinese stance on Stalin and it's a great way to get libs to think more critically about him. The guy made mistakes and he even acknowledged some of them ("dizzy with success" for example) but still lead the Soviet Union to great victory and successful economic industrialization. In Russia and former USSR he is far more often remembered and appreciated for these things than the times he had his political rivals shot or ate all the grain.
After Stalin's death Khrushchev dumped literally everything wrong with the USSR on to Stalin for political gain (bruh you were literally First Secretary of Ukraine I think you would also bare some responsibility) and finally people are starting to recognize that it was just a heated Corn Lord Moment and his claims should not be taken seriously.
Eh, it needs to be addressed eventually (and we definitely shouldn't be feeding into the myths), but I do think it shouldn't be frontloaded. Definitely off-putting and the people treating it like the most important thing, like it needs to be front and center at all times, are very disconnected from where most people are at.
Defending Stalin.
EDIT: You all make great points, but I try not to fuck with Great Man Theory.
Seriously depends on the context, and what you mean by defending. "The Soviets are the reason WW2 was won" and "Churchill was awful but doesn't get nearly as much scrutiny" are more lib-friendly defenses, for instance.
Also the fact that more or less all the world leaders of the western countries were massive Nazi sympathizers.
The opposite is 1000x more unconvincing.
Oh I'm a Socialist but every attempt to do Socialism has led to Evil Authoritarianism.
It would be ludicrous to get on board with that project.
Nah, that is a hill we have to die on. Iberals care about that kind of thing. We have to say "stalin did nothing wrong", so they instinctively compromise with us and end up at "comunism can do good stuff"
the_marketplace_of_ideas.png
I like to go further and I say I wish Stalin had killed more kulaks
This is actually the power move because it:
Remind them: Those "peasants" that "Stalin killed" were setting their own crops on fire to deny their countrymen food.
I feel like there's probably a way to start from those infamous pics of farmers dumping tanks of milk down the drain, and get to "destroying the country's most important crop during a shortage to own the libs"
That kinda thing is proven to work for the GOP bullying liberals.
In retrospect stalin did at least one thing wrong
yeah this is a great example for the thread
Playing the centrist game correctly
:liberalism: :stalin-gun-1::centrist:
No, really, many years ago I understood change in society can only be achieved thanks to radicals pushing furiously in one direction. Milquetoast acchieve nothing.
I agree that while framing your message in a certain way for your audience can be helpful, compromising it and conceding incorrect points can only be harmful. You don't need to fly into your local community center like a wrecking ball with "Stalin did nothing wrong", but you shouldn't agree with the western view of Stalin just to keep the peace in debates.
There's ways to argue over these things that frame it so people are more receptive, and that's what should be done, without compromising your principles.
It depends. Some people simply do not consider things like we do. The approach you describe is correct for some situations. There are others where it is not. Where people are emotially motivated a forceful argument is better than a well reasoned one. Since most people didn't reason themselves into their current ideology it would be silly to try to reason them out of it.
70% good, 30% bad. That's the official Chinese stance on Stalin and it's a great way to get libs to think more critically about him. The guy made mistakes and he even acknowledged some of them ("dizzy with success" for example) but still lead the Soviet Union to great victory and successful economic industrialization. In Russia and former USSR he is far more often remembered and appreciated for these things than the times he had his political rivals shot or ate all the grain.
After Stalin's death Khrushchev dumped literally everything wrong with the USSR on to Stalin for political gain (bruh you were literally First Secretary of Ukraine I think you would also bare some responsibility) and finally people are starting to recognize that it was just a heated Corn Lord Moment and his claims should not be taken seriously.
OMG, DJ Khaled is a ripoff.
have you read https://redsails.org/tankies/ I think it makes a good case for it
I will read this because I would love to rub Stalin into my lib friend's faces.
yeah, fuck stalin for stopping at berlin
Eh, it needs to be addressed eventually (and we definitely shouldn't be feeding into the myths), but I do think it shouldn't be frontloaded. Definitely off-putting and the people treating it like the most important thing, like it needs to be front and center at all times, are very disconnected from where most people are at.