![Kamil Galeev Profile picture](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="73" height="73"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Barely any Slavs before Slavic invasions, barely any Indo-Europeans before Indo-European invasion
The problem with your argument is not that it is wrong. The problem is that it is so universally true that it can be arbitrarily weaponised against anyone
The problem with your argument is not that it is wrong. The problem is that it is so universally true that it can be arbitrarily weaponised against anyone
Arguments are overrated. "Fighting the invader" argument is universally true -> can be used against anyone -> is being successfully used by victors against losers
Should Greek win, they're gonna cleanse Turkish invaders
Should Turks win, they're gonna cleanse Greek invaders
Should Greek win, they're gonna cleanse Turkish invaders
Should Turks win, they're gonna cleanse Greek invaders
If you don't see it, it just means that you're clueless about the agenda of the "other side". Turks weaponised Anatolian nativism against the Greeks just as successfully as Greeks theirs. One could even say that Anatolian nativism was just mirroring (and copying) the Greek one
Greeks be like: we're original Hellens, let's cleanse Turkish invaders
Turks be like: we're original Anatolians, let's cleanse Hellenic invaders
Both arguments have an element of truth. Also if you win, it doesn't matter if your argument is sorta stretched
Turks be like: we're original Anatolians, let's cleanse Hellenic invaders
Both arguments have an element of truth. Also if you win, it doesn't matter if your argument is sorta stretched
One could even speculate that the decline of Anatolian nativism could result from the deescalation
No more need to cleanse the Greeks -> No more need to insist you're so very Indigenous and Autochthonous
Argument was customised to justify the policy, not the other way around
No more need to cleanse the Greeks -> No more need to insist you're so very Indigenous and Autochthonous
Argument was customised to justify the policy, not the other way around
In this case, the argument was customised for the needs of the war of extermination. If the war of extermination is objectively going on, you're gonna say you're autochthonous and they're invaders. In most cases you'll find enough factually true arguments to support your POV
On the other hand, if the war of extermination is no longer going on, you can calm down and stop proving anything. Extermination policy stopped -> arguments that were to justify it are no longer needed
Arguments follow policies way more often than the other way around
Arguments follow policies way more often than the other way around
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
