Does it matter? If you’re struggling with your sexual identity because of something like this, you need to resolve that. If you are attempting to rationalise it from a cultural and societal perspective, I doubt that distinction is going to matter. You did it with a dude and that’s it, I doubt the excuse “Oh, but I pretended it was a woman doing it!” is going to pass.

Just be happy and have fun, no need to lie

I guess I have interpreted this in two forms when I looked at your post title:

I think that communist have killed more people than the Nazi

1. Literally the title
2. Communists are worse than nazis (generally) Which breaks down to “Communism is worse than a ethnic-exclusionary political system”

Which, sure if you want to examine just 1. Then the questions I made in my previous post still haven’t been answered: So what’s your resolution here and what is your criteria and your definition of nazi in this case? Are we going to examine when something is a direct cause or a side-effect? How do you want to distribute responsibility of a death as well?

However, to reply to this:

All Nazi’s and all communist should be jailed for the mass murderers they are.

If you have participated in a mass murder, you should be jailed, regardless of ideology. I can only infer that you are attempting to just group people of a particular ideology as being responsible for another’s action. You may have a particular argument for nazis as they do vilify particular ethnicities but it’s going to be a stretch for a communist.

Now, we’re going to examine point 2 which still factors in point 1 but is viewing communism differently than what you appear to see it as.

right because Communist are worse than nazi’s. They kill more people and commit more evil.

Okay, so… it really seems like you missed my point here. Stalin was a meteorologist, do we round up all the meteorologist because Stalin was a fascist meteorologist that excluded people based on ethnicities? No… of course not, that’s silly. However, the practice of excluding ethnicities is one shared with nazism.

Yes communist policies are evil. Because of the killing.

You have to do better than: because a communist did X, therefore it is a communist policy. Trump signed and enacted stimulus cheques during COVID, I wouldn’t be going so far to say suggest that Trump is now some communist and is now best friends with Bernie Sanders).

Nazi’s were trying to address socioeconomic problems for Germans.

Sure, with a huge ethnocentric backdrop around their policies.

It’s obvious that the ideology of those policies are aligned more with nazism than communism and hence the point I am making.

It’s kind of funny that you have danced around the ethnic-exclusionary part of my argument and simply concluded:

Week arguments. 0/10

What I got at in my previous post is that, due to the concentration of power and both states forming a fascist government, they have the power to enact horrible things onto the populace (see: ethnic cleansing). However, the root of that action is just racism which is more aligned with nazism.

Communism doesn’t promote ethnic cleansing but more or less, the most notable practices of communism do involve this (however, you can clearly make a similar argument with capitalism in which the common pattern is concentration of wealth and power which then enables fascist). Actions like deportation of ethnic-minorities are nazi/nazi-like policies, not communist policies.

If you have a low IQ you aren’t likely to pass your PhD program

Tell you right now, they can pass :P

In saying that, I am indicating that there is more to how someone passes a PhD program.

Back to the point though, lets say in theory this is true (it’s not but whatevs), and someone had a low IQ on a particular snapshot, there are multiple factors here such as: When it was made, how someone conducted themselves in that test (how much preparation was involved), their reading ability (let alone comprehension), educational background, discipline, knowledge, health and etc. Best this does, is provide a qualitative feedback.

However, why stop at ethnicity as an indicator for intelligence? We could retrieve similar data where people from rural areas typically have a lower IQ than those in city areas? Does this mean that city people, being ethnically similar to rural people are just superior? Of course not!

Same comparison can be made on wealth lines. A justification that aristocrats have used in the past which we can see is bullshit :)

So,

• A snapshot doesn’t really show that someone is ‘incapable’ of obtaining a PhD but that the situation at the time may indicate that they may not be able to obtain it within a particular time frame.

• It is very much dependent on the field of academia they are in, but hey… I see researchers publish shit all the time so… y’know.

• The PhD situation is likely to have its own challenges involved, not all PhD programs are made equal and not all problems are made equal.

To conclude:

There are far too many factors involved to use IQ as a serious quantitative measurement. To suggests that all IQ tests are conducted in a fair environment and conclude that it is a direct measure of racial intellectual performance is a joke. (I’d agree that the researchers probably have given it their best but realistically it isn’t enough. It amounts to getting a report card from school saying that you are either not studying enough or you’re doing well, what you do with that information is your choice).

Hi, I think you should understand socioeconomic status and how that can directly influence the scores you see there. Strictly showing averages doesn’t really mean shit as there is likely sub-sets of these group that could be considered outliers (I can guarantee that).

Also in saying this, most governments have some kind of epidemiology department of which that obtain data which can explain these results in clearer sense. More of less, you’ll find that studies like this usually conclude that socioeconomic status is the main culprit here, which comes in many forms, but for some insight:

• Income
• Accessibility to education, healthcare, transport, etc
• Occupation
• Neighbourhood

Pretty much a quick summary (and why governments usually bang on about keeping the economy going so much), your economy does influence quality of life. However even with a strong economy, factors like corruption which actions that would further a wealth gap negatively impact quality of life.

So, concluding that one is a greater evil out one particular set of criteria is a fairly weak justification.

Also the premise of this needs examining as well. Realistically both include deaths that are directly related to abusing their authority. The difference here is that communism isn’t focused on excluding ethnic groups unlike nazism.

So, even though Stalin was labelled himself as communist, his actions that triggered those deaths are more aligned with nazis than communism itself. He pushed for mass deportations and was an antisemitic. Focused on confiscating food from ethnic minorities for the homeland. What I am getting at here is that fascist dictatorships that also have political and social instability, try to create in-groups and out-groups and blame the out-group for their issues. It’s part of how they maintain control in the face of scarcity.

To also point, how the policies were enacted was problematic as well which, can constitute as a fair criticism when looking at the history of communism. However capitalism already has a colourful history of that :).

So, really… fascists are fucked is your answer. Trying to have a throw down about an ideology which staple is focused on racial-exclusion and racial-purity over another which is focused on addressing socioeconomic problems that exist and eliminate concentration of wealth and power.

Also, as @thann@gtio.io pointed out, what period of time do you want to examine? Do we want to examine all deaths of people that died under a particular political system so we can count accurately?