this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
499 points (94.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43747 readers
2316 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Have you read any of it or did you just skim Wikipedia? I'm perfectly aware of people's biases and that he's likely to tend towards a pro-Russian spin. But after years of researching I can't deny that a lot of his claims aren't that unlikely.
I'm not here to convince you. OP asked, I answered.
From a Western perspective, you'll have a hard time reading fringe criticism of the West without someone chanting "bUt tHiS iS RuSSian prOpAganDa" from the sides. The immediate shift in reporting about Ukrainian politics in Western media was so blatantly obvious propaganda and yet you come at me with this.
We've all been fed propaganda since the 40s, from all sides, in every country, the media is either heavily centralized or state-controlled, no journalist covering socialist/anarchist topics is likely to dig deeper into this (hell, they're likely fighting for truth in smaller areas where they can actually move the needle, more power to them), we have almost no real journalists with reach and impact left, Assange has shown that investigative journalism is as good as dead, we're being fed Ministry of Truth crap as "fact checks" and we've all been programmed with our go-to responses for dissenting voices. I've had my share of normie "Anarchists" coming at me only to debunk their BS as centrist garbage dressed in nice patches, shirts and rhetorics.
Have you debated a historian at a university about Fomenko (and they actually read it!) and hit them with facts until they had to admit that a lot of our history was under strict control of very few influential people of shady untrustworthy organisations and that there's no irrefutable proof that certain documents, drawing and writings haven't been either been manipulated or may be outright forgeries and that there's a lot of trust involved in keeping it all together?
Just consider it a hobby interest of mine if it makes you sleep any better. If you read at least one of Fomenko's books, let's debate without resorting to boring "you're basically Putin's right hand" rhetoric.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not into genetics, I don't care who belongs to which race, I don't want to paddle to any nation state that their narrative about some race being superior is true. I can read scholars without having to adopt their entire world view.