Deadlines? What Deadlines?

No. They’re getting dumber. I’m not a person that looks back with rose coloured glasses. Most people confuse nostalgia for “the good old days” with nostalgia for their youth. Things were simpler back then because *they* were simpler back then. This is not that. Use your hypothetical Time Machine to go back to 1990. Go to a dog park and as the dog owners if they’re concerned about vaccines and canine autism. Half of them would slap you silly for mouth words that confuse and infuriate them.

God damn it. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4177294-majority-of-us-dog-owners-now-skeptical-of-vaccines-including-for-rabies-study/amp/

I said from *my* Twitter account. You can’t because there isn’t one. You seem sure that I’m a Twitter user because you apparently don’t understand how embedded links work. I also post links from YouTube as well. Guess what? No YouTube channel. Another observation: you seem fond of a form of argumentation that boils down to, “Gee, you sure like to ‘X’ a lot”. I got news for you; that’s not the own you think it is.

Fine. Since you have it all figured out and have twice now called me a liar, show me one example of me posting something on this thread that came from my Twitter account, Genius. Once again you get it wrong. Color me surprised.

Literally anyone in the world can post links from Twitter. Someone as media savvy as yourself should know this. Yeah, you keep saying that.

Don’t have a Twitter account. Sorry. The UK press have certainly gone after more obscure personalities with more vigor. Regarding those other guys, I’m not commenting on whether or not the level of coverage or even the type of coverage was appropriate. I’m disputing the claim that Wooton is too low-interest to warrant greater interest. In addition to GB news, he also writes for the Daily Mail. He was a presenter on ITV for a time. He testified at Levinson. He was a figure in the Caroline Flack tragedy. He injected himself into the Depp-Heard insanity. He was sued by Depp for libel. You think the millions of people who felt honor-bound to take a side in that insanity have never heard of this guy? He’s been called out publicly by several high-profile figures, including a mention in the fastest selling non-fiction book of all time. Out of the millions of people who purchased “Spare”, you think none of them were tempted to google, “Sad Little Man”?

I’m certainly not an expert. And yet, this guy Dan Wooton, who you claim is a figure so obscure that he doesn’t warrant any high profile press coverage; Clueless as I am, I know who he is. I think you’re underestimating his notoriety.

I don’t even live in the UK and I know who he is. And he has the highest rated show on GB news if I’m not mistaken. And he’s done several other things to gain him notoriety. This idea that no one is covering him because he’s too low profile is laughable. The other guys: Schofield, Edwards, throw Lineker in as well (though not for the same reason); I had no idea who they were until recently.

I just watched the highlights of Boebert’s recent antics. I hadn’t seen it except for the bewb grab. If she was sober I’ll eat my hat. Again, I have nothing against people getting frisky; I have nothing against “Miller Time”; and I’m sure history is replete with American politicians who got up to some scandalous shit. But goddamn. During Beetlejuice?

Diamond’s. Funeral.

Especially after the recent freak outs regarding other British media figures (who's names escape me at the moment). I'm convinced Wooton's got dirt on someone big.

Trump's brain is disintegrating and he never shuts his yap so he's capable of saying anything*. Once in a while it'll actually sound pretty good. Monkeys and typewriters and that sort of thing. *See his eulogy at Diamond's funeral. Also, why the hell is he droning on about the panama canal lately?

I have no idea what this means. I never said, "the west forced him" into anything. Nevertheless, it was obvious in the late 1930's that things were in play and the Soviets were still isolated. They desperately wanted to form a military alliance for their own security and Germany was not their first choice. That's documented. Was he a fucking monster? Absolutely. Extraordinarily so. But history is full of them. During the Russian civil war, American, British, and French troops were sent into Russia to fight on the side of the Whites. I'd have to find the reference but one of the American Officers said of the White Russian Generals that he had never seen people that put a lower value on human life. Not to mention all the atrocities that happened under the Tsars. Monsters were basically what they had to offer. The ones that weren't monsters ended up in the ground.

Jonas. Motherfucking. Salk.

I shall endeavour to continue to not do the thing that I have not done and you acknowledge I have not done but sort of sounds like I’m doing but not really.

Correct. After signing the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, they decided to seal the deal by tag teaming Poland. But remember, Stalin only did a deal with Hitler after the Brits and the French basically told him to fuck off. The Brits sent some clown to Moscow with no mandate to negotiate anything and I don’t think the French ever even met with them.

Yeah, pretty crazy. The first time in 20 years or something that the 3 highest grossing films world wide have been non sequels. Then again, maybe Aquaman or the Marvels can make a morbillion dollars.

Correct. He was not the one to break the non-aggression pact with Germany. That certainly diminishes him as a political animal; as it came as a total surprise. But I don’t see how that diminishes him as a historical figure. I’d imagine he was at least as involved as Churchill was in Britain and Roosevelt was in the USA. Stalin definitely has a cult of personality vibe about him. I don’t know what kind of public speaker he was. Stalin didn’t need to speak. Dead wrong. Remember that Stalin’s career starts long before ww2. In the wake of the revolution and the subsequent civil war, they were left with the wreckage of a country that was a basket case to begin with. A country that never really had their Industrial Revolution and was mostly illiterate potato and wheat farmers who were shitfaced for half the year. And they were isolated. They had no allies. The other great powers were hostile to them. They understood that they had to industrialize to survive. The means were horrifying and brutal, sure, but it’s not like they were the first nation to build wealth by turning people into livestock. Those people that got sent off to gulags and forced labor camps were the grist that made Soviet industrialization happen. The industrial policy of the 20’s and 30’s was deliberate and might not have happened under anyone else. If the whites actually win the civil war, not only does it not happen, but when ww2 happens, there’s a good chance they enter the war on the side of the axis, and the world today is a fascist hellscape. For example, in the 30’s when the rest of the world was dealing with the Great Depression, American architects and engineers were in the ussr building factories. It turns out that a factory for building tractors or construction equipment can easily be restructured to build tanks if it’s designed that way from the start. This would be important later. As I said, if it’s anyone else (eg Trotsky) history happens different. Stalin was not a passive figure.

Sure you can. It’s possible to be a monster and still be a consequential figure. And if one of those consequences is you preempt other monsters, just as well. Speaking of which, has Gengis Khan been mentioned? Throw in Alexander the Great as well. Those two should be at the top of the list actually.

Also one of the nicest, thank god.

Fine, Zhukov then. Regardless, the eastern front in ww2 wasn’t a sideshow. It was the show. The red scare and Cold War kind of papered over this. If Soviet resistance to the Nazi invasion collapses any time before there’s a real second front in Europe, the world looks like a very different place today.

Yeah, but the play is name after him. Yeah that’s kind of cool ngl. Yeah, but I’ll give Churchill this: regarding ww2, absolutely the right guy at the right time. Stalin doesn’t get enough credit for winning ww2.

He was Dictator for 5 years, but he was a significant player in Roman politics for decades. In a system as competitive and dysfunctional as the late republic, that's saying something. He was a brilliant politician and an extremely successful military leader. He was also an author who's writings are still read today. He has a month named after him. There is some speculation that he was aware of the assassination plot and let it play out due to his declining health. Churchill, when he was First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, was one of the architects of Galipoli, which was a disater. In the years before ww2, he favored building more ships whereas Chamberlain directed investment into spitfires and radar, which would come in handy during the battle of britain. Chamberlain is an interesting subject for this topic.

Cleopatra. Probably overrated, but definitely famous, definitely consequential in a world-historical sense, likely far more politically savvy than he had any business being.