History hasn't held up because it wasn't really brought up. The things we spoke about was personal, manga, music and other. But go off.
...when we try to make it about history he just talks about Columbus anyway, and he doesn't elaborate on how they mean more than the inventors of world-changing inventions beyond "Well... we took it and made it cooler!" before using phrases like "Age of Enlightenment" as if it means more than a bookmark for a place in time.
The way I've seen him do research has just been him picking a favorite book/website or two, turning to a random page, and then trying to find where that quote resonates in his mind in relation to his own life. His entire means of research is constantly played against what he's specifically looking to find in it and ignores everything else, and used to lead to times where he'd tout people like Napoleon as "had the right idea".
I see a lot of projection from someone using anecdotal reads of my psychology from conversations we had years ago lmao.
You've said the same thing for years, even this cope is a pattern, even over short term appraisals of your behavior instead of long term patterns.
You quickly aim to dismiss people's analysis on you so that you don't risk internalizing it, and you always have over a myriad of excuses. You straight up ignore it and fight strawmen so that you don't have to have your position challenged.
You handle politics like faith.
You're really triggered by me becoming religious. I've answered every one of your points with a solid reason as well as supporting details.
It's a consistent theme with you lately. It seems everytime I make a point you just happen to remember me having a contrary stance in some arbitrary conversation that's never really pinned down.
Not lately, over the entirety of our knowing eachother.
COPE. Another sidestep. Keyword: Lately
I make comparisons, that's my thing, but you'll come up with any excuse as to how you can't possibly be the thing they're saying you are, and will straight up re-invent your perceptions of past events and realities to coast on the new self-concept's promises of comfort.
You're afraid of facing yourself, even your past mistakes are just you saying you "were" immature, but you're "smarter" now. You aren't, you're just in a new spot and can't relate to your older stances from refusing to make comparisons.
You make comparisons, provide vague points which you support with barebones philosophical concepts and provide another vague example when I contradict your testimony with real world examples while providing none of your own.
What makes you think you have an accurate gauge on my internal narration anymore? We haven't had a real conversation in literally years even these back and forths are spaced half years apart. The idea that you are confident enough to claim that and use it in place of concrete evidence is scary. I'm not the same person I was when we lived together, you're going to have to come to terms with that and not whip it out when you're in a corner.
Also, I'd even humor this from someone who has an interest in history. You admitted you didn't in our talk about white innovation, don't push your improvised wikipedia scholar approach at me. This history shit is my hobby I do on a daily basis
You are not a historian you're a supremacist. As I stated before, historians don't cherry pick, have a more diverse range of knowledge, and don't use it to flex some misplaced sense of pride. I'm not the one covering History in this case simply over how I'm not an expert, and either of us would be fools to claim that we are. I'll instead leave it to people like Inquirer who clearly know what they're talking about within a more reasonable framework than your own.
They speak like Time Lords, while racists speak like you're doing right now. Being two races at once doesn't give you some sort of get out of jail free card or something, you're becoming a zealous bigot without even noticing. Like how the fuck are you ignoring China's impacts on the world this hard by comparing it to some names you probably barely know anything about?
Some future you will look back at this time as shameful, as childish, no different from your stalker phase. You can't just assume you're always better than your older self to justify your current position, especially when future you keeps proving you wrong.
I must be cherry picking because I have points you don't like. I can and when called on have, cited all of my information with real world events. Inquirer wrote an entire paragraph of hot air and got contradicted in a single sentence. History doesn't care about your feelings, whites have been the main innovators of history. But by all means, do leave it to people who actually at least claim to know history instead of providing no information of your own but claiming my historical sources are cherry picked and false.
The fact that I'm a minority and telling the unpopular truth about white people hurts you. Once again you fall for the midwit balance meme rationale. You'd be far more accepting if I was claiming another race had the bulk of human innovation. But yet you're here telling me, I don't know anything about history when you dont even have an understanding of history itself to base your claim after. OR, COULD IT BE, THAT YOUR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE IS WHAT YOU'VE JUST LOOKED UP, THE SAME THING YOU PROJECTED ONTO ME. I'm not denying china's impact on the world, just that it isn't as big as whites.
And when the chips are down, cards are out, feelings are hurt and out of vapid psuedo-psychology contradictions, you resort to a disgustingly condescending explanation that summarizes out to "I know you more than you do"
It really didn't have to be this way, you really could've taken an impartial stance about something you self admittedly weren't well versed on and raised skepticism during certain parts. But instead you were offended by the truth, rationalized ill-informed arguments and swear them to still be the case despite being ignorant to the subject matter as well as being disproven. An objective person wouldn't have done this.
