Wendy Darling and iambiguous contend...

[WendyDarling]

100 Years of Communism—and 100 Million Dead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810

Wiki

In 1994, R. J. Rummel's book Death by Government included about 110 million people, foreign and domestic, killed by communist democide from 1900 to 1987.[30] In 1993, Rummel wrote: "Even were we to have total access to all communist archives we still would not be able to calculate precisely how many the communists murdered. Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still disagree by over 40 percent on the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis. We cannot expect near this accuracy for the victims of communism. We can, however, get a probable order of magnitude and a relative approximation of these deaths within a most likely range".[17] Due to additional information about Mao's culpability in the Great Chinese Famine from the work of Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, in late 2005 Rummel revised upward his total for communist democide between 1900 and 1999 to about 148 million, using their estimate of 38 million famine deaths.[31][32]
In 1999, the Stéphane Courtois introduction to the Black Book of Communism gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed.[s] In his foreword to the book, Martin Malia noted "a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million".[t]
In 2005, Benjamin Valentino stated that the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[u][v] Citing Rummel and others, Valentino stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was up to 110 million".[u][w]
In 2010, Steven Rosefielde's book Red Holocaust said that communism's internal contradictions "caused to be killed" approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more.[33]
In 2011, Matthew White published his rough total of 70 million "people who died under communist regimes from execution, labor camps, famine, ethnic cleansing, and desperate flight in leaky boats", not counting those killed in wars.[x]
In 2016, the Dissident blog of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile updated ranges of estimates and concluded that the overall range "spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000" killed, with 100 million the most commonly cited figure.[y]
In 2017, Professor Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that communism killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017: "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering."[z][34]

[iambiguous]

The objectivist mind at work:

Is that you nodding that dying makes you a winner?

In what context? For example, if your life has become a living hell then, sure, dying can be seen as a victory. Or suppose you believe in God and that, upon dying, your soul goes to Heaven. Wouldn't that make you a winner?

Or, again, are we to just accept that only your own assessment of the relationship between dying and winning counts here?

And it is as though I never noted this all:

Most reasonable, rational people would not agree that the overwhelming majority of soldiers wanted to become winners in heaven or that they were suicidal. My way of thinking might be crass, even ugly in some light, but it's more honest than how you are trying to rebuff my point. Death from this life is not winning, when the vast majority of people place utmost value in remaining in the game of life.

All she provides us with is yet again her insistence that "most reasonable, rational people" would think like she does. They would "naturally" accept her own assessment as in fact true. Axiomatically as it were. She is after all shaped and molded by Satyr.

Trust me though: It has nothing to with being crass or ugly, and everything to do with being a run-of-the-mill objectivist.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

But then the part where she says "most people" or the "majority of people". Meaning that not everyone is a declamatory reactionary spewing rabid Kidstuff in post after post.

Or, okay, something like that.

[surreptitious75]

The war stopped the north from creating the domino effect past south vietnam and the
rest of Asia in their attempt to flip each democratic nation each regime into communism

Not true as both Laos and Cambodia went Communist the same time as South Vietnam and so the domino effect occurred anyway
Pol Pot then went on to murder at least one million of his own citizens in only four years in a country of just seven million people
America was in Vietnam for twenty years yet it failed so spectacularly to stop the spread of both Communism and totalitarianism

[Karpel Tunnel]

The war stopped the north from creating the domino effect past south vietnam and the
rest of Asia in their attempt to flip each democratic nation each regime into communism

Not true as both Laos and Cambodia went Communist the same time as South Vietnam and so the domino effect occurred anyway
Pol Pot then went on to murder at least one million of his own citizens in only four years in a country of just seven million people
America was in Vietnam for twenty years yet it failed so spectacularly to stop the spread of both Communism and totalitarianism

Though it's hard to say if that was a domino effect from vietnamese communism. In fact, US bombing in those countries was more causal than Vietnam. Further it was Vietnam who overthrew the Khmer Rouge.

Note: I don't by Wendy's theory. I don't think the domino effect was prevented by the war. And in fact you are always on shakey ground if you are arguing what would have happened in what basically might as well be a parallel universe. I don't think the whole domino effect theory has much backing.

[iambiguous]

Mr. refuses to explore your deluded framework of his inferiority and delusions, rather his sole interest is why your delusions rest on his delusions? Why Biggie? Being in denial of one’s inferiority is not a competition although you seem to think it is.

Also like your delusion that you only spend a couple hours a day involved in ILP affairs is believed by anyone but you.

Now, given a particular set of circumstances of your own choice let's explore what you mean by this. You know, substantively.

What are my delusions in your view? And how here would you describe the manner in which my delusions rest on his delusions? What do you imagine I am arguing are his own delusions?

Look, over on his poop thread, I broached this with him:

How about this:

We choose a subject relating to "distinctions" that we both make in regard to moral and political value judgments at the existential intersection of identity, conflicting goods and political economy.

We discuss our respective philosophies in an intelligent and civil manner.

And then along the way you can point to particular instances that nail down your accusations here.

His response: "nah bruh im good"

Same challenge to you.

Or, as with so many other of the objectivists and fulminating fanatics here, are you just one more chickenshit in this regard?

[WendyDarling]

Mr. refuses to explore your deluded framework of his inferiority and delusions, rather his sole interest is why your delusions rest on his delusions? Why Biggie? Being in denial of one’s inferiority is not a competition although you seem to think it is.

Also like your delusion that you only spend a couple hours a day involved in ILP affairs is believed by anyone but you.

Now, given a particular set of circumstances of your own choice let's explore what you mean by this. You know, substantively.

What are my delusions in your view? And how here would you describe the manner in which my delusions rest on his delusions? What do you imagine I am arguing are his own delusions?

Look, over on his poop thread, I broached this with him:

How about this:

We choose a subject relating to "distinctions" that we both make in regard to moral and political value judgments at the existential intersection of identity, conflicting goods and political economy.

We discuss our respective philosophies in an intelligent and civil manner.

And then along the way you can point to particular instances that nail down your accusations here.

His response: "nah bruh im good"

Same challenge to you.

Or, as with so many other of the objectivists and fulminating fanatics here, are you just one more chickenshit in this regard?

No point, Bigstir, when you deny facts based off of definitions you accepted.

[iambiguous]

Mr. refuses to explore your deluded framework of his inferiority and delusions, rather his sole interest is why your delusions rest on his delusions? Why Biggie? Being in denial of one’s inferiority is not a competition although you seem to think it is.

Also like your delusion that you only spend a couple hours a day involved in ILP affairs is believed by anyone but you.

Now, given a particular set of circumstances of your own choice let's explore what you mean by this. You know, substantively.

What are my delusions in your view? And how here would you describe the manner in which my delusions rest on his delusions? What do you imagine I am arguing are his own delusions?

Look, over on his poop thread, I broached this with him:

How about this:

We choose a subject relating to "distinctions" that we both make in regard to moral and political value judgments at the existential intersection of identity, conflicting goods and political economy.

We discuss our respective philosophies in an intelligent and civil manner.

And then along the way you can point to particular instances that nail down your accusations here.

His response: "nah bruh im good"

Same challenge to you.

Or, as with so many other of the objectivists and fulminating fanatics here, are you just one more chickenshit in this regard?

No point, Bigstir, when you deny facts based off of definitions you accepted.

Say it with me my brothers and sisters: "Chickenshit! Chickenshit! Chickenshit!"

And even her refusal is in "yak yak yak" mode!!