Gonna cry? Gonna shit your pants?
I guess they should have put “WARNING: NO SAFE SPACES FOR IMPERIALISTS AND GENOCIDE APOLOGISTS” in red on the course catalog.
guy who learns about abu ghraib and thinks it’s good
He actually does go off topic quite a bit. But it’s 100% worth going down whatever rabbithole he goes on an adventure on.
10/10, if you get a chance to talk with him and pick his brain on random early soviet history topics, you should.
you speak as if you know
Because I do
“my professor made me learn about my own country’s barbarism!”
“He was anti American during the class about the time we tried to exterminate the brutes in Vietnam!”
" He said we could read Hansel and Gretel and have warm milk and cookies but tricked us and forced us to read Heart of Darkness!"
these are deeply unserious people and I wish the bottom left one in particular a very join the Marines and drown in the red sea
Edit :just saw that one was in 2007 but my sentiments still stand.
Going to be honest, the bottom right comment would probably be half of us lol. Finding the lectures cool, but struggling to pay attention and desperately wanting to move on to the main part of the course.
There are genuine academic critiques to be made of some of Furr’s work. “He made me learn America bad” and “he made me learn about pirates and communism” aren’t them.
Yes. J Arch Getty - a legit Soviet historian who is a lib but is still very fair to Stalin IMO and generally very USSR-friendly - once said that Furr understands the material in the archives, but he just comes to really weird conclusions.
I think Furr is fine as long as you know you’re getting an apologist more than a historian. There’s a place for that. Furr himself admittedly (on the Proles pod) he thinks Stalin did nothing wrong. If you approach history from that angle you’re going to have blind spots. IMO skip Furr and go to Losurdo.
What do you mean the US isn’t the god sent saviour of all civilization that can do no wrong
Sounds like a good professor with interesting lectures.
When I made /r/groverfurr the reddit admins banned it in under 24 hours with the excuse that it was a copy of a banned subreddit (chapotraphouse) intended for subreddit ban evasion.
it’s really funny that a socdem podcast community became a pretext for reddit to remove any and all marxist discussion.
Anything left of liberal is a breeding ground for critical thinking, and that opens the door for reds.
If you have just 1 single red in a space that people are listening to, more reds are made, because we are correct. Give it long enough and things get spicey.
This is why no matter how many times they exterminate us. No matter how many times they commit unspeakable crimes to set back the left, it will always come back, until it eventually wins.
You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming.
It kind of looks like reddit has permanently marked all accounts and variously fingerprinted users that once posted often in r/cth and now they just ban any new subreddit where they start to congregate regardless of whether it’s an actual attempt to revive the sub or not. It’s like a soft shadow ban where we can still comment on most posts in most subreddits, but if we start talking politics with like minded people, it alerts the admins.
How is r/thedeprogram still up then?
The vibe I get from that places is that its younger members who probably weren’t part of r/cth. But I’m sure they’ll ban it eventually.
they’re doin COINTELPRO for posters. they know we can never be allowed to reunite.
i too had a history teacher who went on wild tangents with the smallest provocation
he was a stinking lib though
if it’s not “plain text” he will send your essay back
Anti-Formatting Aktion
Yet your comment is formatted. Curious! :very-intelligent:
Furr’s Natopedia page is wild. The very first line:
Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
And the edit history is a war zone. The 2 most recent changes are someone rewording a sentence to make it less biased:
before after Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history, especially the Stalin era, in which he has stated that the Holodomor, the 1932–33 government-createdfamine in Soviet Ukraine, was not deliberate, describing it as a fiction created by pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalistsFurr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history, especially the Stalin era, in which he has stated that the Holodomor, the 1932–33 famine in Soviet Ukraine, was not deliberate, describing the story of it being deliberate as a fiction created by pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists with edit summary Word correction - could have previously be interpreted as famine denial, made the language less biased.. Within 4 minutes, it was undone, with edit summary Previous version appeared more neutral.
I do these edits all the time all over socialist articles. I just write in “does not conform to wikipedia NPOV rules, biased language removed”.
I use the abbreviation to sound all official wikipedian legalese and make people think twice about reverting lmao
Of course fucking Mzajac/Michael Z is on that page. He defends pro-Western narratives about Ukraine all over Wikipedia.
Mzajac is such a fucking asshole to every editor he interacts with. He’s been pulled into ANI so many times, and people are like “why is he still an admin”. I do think that the war in Ukraine broke his brain tho, since he’s been so much more unhinged and aggressive since then.
Who’s Grover Furr?
A Soviet archive enthusiast
He’s literally the right wing boogeyman Stalinist college professor in the actual existing flesh. He’s written books defending Stalin from the perspective that Stalin could basically do no wrong.
“After my death, a lot of garbage will be put on my grave, but the wind of history will mercilessly dispel it.”
stalin shouldn’t have stopped at berlin
Is his stuff worth reading or is he more of a quack with an occasionally good take?
100% quack. He’s good at finding sources but his analysis is very poor.
