By “wouldn’t take my source in good faith” you of course mean “wouldn’t unquestioningly accept it without reading it”. You’ll notice that my criticism of what you and your source are doing - deliberately using different metrics to give the data the appearance that it says what you want or to - is completely true and you can’t dispute it, so instead you’re just going to arbitrarily declare that it’s “bad faith” and “tankie” to make completely true criticisms of your deliberate dishonesty
And again, you are doing this as a way to downplay the evil of the Nazis, aka Nazi apologia.
Look dawg, you can just say tankie ideology had more time to massacre those under its influence. I won’t get mad. Nazis had a shorter run. Who cares about specific numbers when the slaughter of innocents is involved? They both grind up children, women, and men into lost opportunities…
See? You still can’t around the fact that my criticism of what you and your source are doing - using inconsistent methods to make it appear like the data says what you want it to - so know you’re just throwing out random deflections and bad faith non-sequitors.
Who cares about specific numbers
You, dog. You were the one who thought it was such a big deal to be able to say that Nazis killed fewer people than communists that you went to great length to find and manipulate statistics to falsely suggest it. You were the one who made that claim in the first place. It’s much too late for you to try to pretend you don’t care now.
Lol, I already did, indeed I made sure to repeat it several times, knowing that you would try to feign amnesia. But of course, you already know that - or you wouldn’t have been trying to desperately pivot to “well who even cares about the numbers!” - and are still just being disingenuous on purpose, as people doing Nazi apologia usually do.
So you were well aware that your “source” didn’t hold up even before you posted it.
Though it’s unsurprising that a Nazi apologist would be deliberately disingenuous
No, I knew you wouldn’t take my source in good faith because you’re a tankie.
That Nazi angle is wild 🤣. Please quote me praising Nazis.
By “wouldn’t take my source in good faith” you of course mean “wouldn’t unquestioningly accept it without reading it”. You’ll notice that my criticism of what you and your source are doing - deliberately using different metrics to give the data the appearance that it says what you want or to - is completely true and you can’t dispute it, so instead you’re just going to arbitrarily declare that it’s “bad faith” and “tankie” to make completely true criticisms of your deliberate dishonesty
And again, you are doing this as a way to downplay the evil of the Nazis, aka Nazi apologia.
Look dawg, you can just say tankie ideology had more time to massacre those under its influence. I won’t get mad. Nazis had a shorter run. Who cares about specific numbers when the slaughter of innocents is involved? They both grind up children, women, and men into lost opportunities…
See? You still can’t around the fact that my criticism of what you and your source are doing - using inconsistent methods to make it appear like the data says what you want it to - so know you’re just throwing out random deflections and bad faith non-sequitors.
You, dog. You were the one who thought it was such a big deal to be able to say that Nazis killed fewer people than communists that you went to great length to find and manipulate statistics to falsely suggest it. You were the one who made that claim in the first place. It’s much too late for you to try to pretend you don’t care now.
I’ll hear you out if you can detail those, “inconsistent methods,” you keep squawking about.
Lol, I already did, indeed I made sure to repeat it several times, knowing that you would try to feign amnesia. But of course, you already know that - or you wouldn’t have been trying to desperately pivot to “well who even cares about the numbers!” - and are still just being disingenuous on purpose, as people doing Nazi apologia usually do.