Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

  • AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah that’s pretty bat shit my guy. It also conveniently feeds into Russian propaganda since Fomenko thinks Ukraine isn’t a real people and just a part of the Russian horde, the same shit putin tries to peddle in his justification for genocide and invasion of Ukraine.

    • zephyrvs
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.