Revisionists Puns

What is the worst piece of revisionist history you've ever seen, and what was the actual truth?

For example: Peyton Manning vs Ryan Leaf was hotly debated and came down neck and neck until draft day.

But ask anyone about it and Peyton was the clear cut #1 pick, a generational type talent meanwhile leaf was just a very good prospect in his own right.

I feel like it’s another case of being gaslight but I want to make sure I have my facts straight.

As we know oftentimes vaccine mandates that were required for schools are brought up as a justification for them being applied to all of society. What I’ll counter with many times is that this those vaccines are much more effective than the Covid ones .

At point I’ll basically get told that well actually they were leaky too and we only eliminated the threat of those diseases because of mass vaccination. Also the whole no vaccine is supposed to be 100 percent effective argument while ignoring that those vaccines were better at stopping spread than Covid.

Do I have it wrong? Were those vaccines as leaky as the Covid vaccine at first? All I know is that we weren’t having “breakthrough cases of those vaccines” in my kindergarten class when we got them

There's almost universal agreement that we are currently on a golden era of wrestling, or at least, that these are very promising and enjoyable times. After two decades of WWE's monopoly, now we have AEW as a strong alternative, while NJPW, Stardom, PWG, GCW, and many others have continually been putting great shows, and even Impact has resurged as another good alternative after facing hard times.

Meanwhile, WWE neglected its highly acclaimed black & gold NXT and turned into NXT 2.0, a product more to the taste of Vince McMahon, which hasn't showed very promising result in terms of ratings or reviews.

Still, the American wrestling scene is thriving with former WWE and NXT wrestlers, from CM Punk and Bryan Danielson to Adam Cole and Malakai Black, as well as others like Tay Conti and Matt Cardona.

Furthermore, it is not crazy to think that if competition remains hard, WWE will end up changing their product a little bit in order to keep their TV contracts.

Knowing how WWE likes to rewrite history, like its "WCW were bullies and good ol' underdog Vince defeated them" version of the Monday Night Wars, do you think they'll ever create their own version of the current state of wrestling? Something like "we built the new generation of Superstars and then they were stolen from us" or something like that?

TL, DR: Just read the bold parts.

Have you guys also noticed people talking about "Mechagodzilla always kicks Godzilla's ass it's tradition." And "Godzilla only wins with help." I went back and watched the showa movies all the way up to the millennium films and it looks like most of the time Mechagodzilla just spams projectiles then Godzilla either does something clever to draw him in and rips him apart. Or he just powers through it, and rips him apart. Also it looks like Mechagodzilla needed backup just as much if not more than Godzilla. It seems like most of their actual 1v1s are either a draw/inconclusive. Or Godzilla outright wins. So I don't know where this is coming from. Not trying to sound like I'm whining. Just something I noticed.

It seems that, for all their radical talk, every time a popular movement happens anywhere, they immediately jump to the conclusion that it is a color revolution sent in by the USA to destablize this or that country with a tenuous connection to China's super cool anti-Imperialist Belt and Road Initiative. Even when these protests occur in places that are as far removed from Socialism as you can get, for example, dismissing the protests in Russia, Iran, Belarus, and Kazakhstan as "CIA hatched color revolutions", as if the masses of these countries have no will of their own. While, as Communists, we should analyze the class dynamic of these protests, and acknowledge that, without properly Communist leadership, these movements are doomed to fail, and while we should, additionally, understand that the US would want to hijack these popular movement and subvert it for their own geopolitical aims, it is naive to think otherwise, nevertheless, it is strange that people who claim to be for power for the masses find themselves siding with anti-democratic, anti-people forces of all sort, and even going so far as to refusing the masses any sort of agency beyond what Putin, Xi, or Biden commands of them.

Little Omid is wasting no time with putting the knife in the RF and brand Windsor. And handily he has poor maligned Hazbeen as a yardstick for unfairness.

"For the public watching this saga play out, the ring of protection around Andrew has been confusing, especially when you compare his treatment to Prince Harry, who – love or loathe him – simply wanted to remove his family from an unhealthy environment".

Except they didn't want to leave the unhealthy enviroment. They wanted a half in half out arrangement. They only left in a huff because they were told no.

Had they stayed in the UK am pretty sure they would have been provided with exceptional accommodation much like what Andrew does now but they chose to leave the real estate behind. So please Omid take your false equivalency and shove it elsewhere. For a self styled royal reporter he sure does hate the royals. Maybe its time to go back to Heat magazine and write shit about celebrities instead

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/the-queens-delay-in-punishing-prince-andrew-shows-brand-windsor-always-came-first-1404447?s=08

(I would have done a link thingy but it wouldn't let me post)

I’ll start with the 2 most common ones

“These vaccines stop transmission and will end the pandemic to no one ever said they were supposed to stop transmission”

“No one is gonna make a vaccine mandate/pass to Vaccine mandates have always been required to go to school, we have a different flu shot each year.

help me figure this out

Since I've been banned multiple times, I need a place to vent and correct the LIES on the post about Harry's security lawsuit.

1. The Royal Family has no say over which royals get protection and to what extent. That is up to the Home Office, who works with British law enforcement to assess threats and determine protection. The royals have little to do with it, and sometimes it upsets them.
2. Kate and Camilla did not have RPOs assigned to them until they were engaged to their husbands. I remember this from when Kate and William got engaged. Charles personally hired retired RPOs for Camilla.
3. Andrew is likely to lose whatever protection he may have had. He is like Edward and Anne, he gets an RPO when he's out on royal business, which he is now done with. He lives on a royal estate, so whatever security is there covers him. If any royal should be worried about their safety at the present moment, it's him.
4. The Royal Family did not kill Diana. They did not take away Diana's RPOs, she declined the protection officers. She died because her driver was drunk and she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. This has been investigated and William and Harry have seen the results of the inquiries. They know the paparazzi was a factor, but the drunk driver, high speed, and no seatbelt were the main reasons.
5. The Royal Family does not want Harry, Meghan, or their children harmed or dead. My gourd, it's crazy that this even needs to be stated. They are on the outs, sure, but no one wants anyone dead. These are not soap opera villains, they're real people and this is their family.

Please feel free to correct any other pork pies that are being told on CB today!

Johnny left so many things out when he told Miguel the story of his and Daniel's rivalry. He didn't even tell him that he threw Ali's radio to the ground in a display of manly strength. Or that he tried to teach Daniel karate by pushing him off the side of a hill. He also forgot to mention that Daniel sat his giant New Jersey ass right on Johnny's blueberry pie. Johnny needs to get his facts straight.

I’m not gonna sit here and defend present-day Russ, trust me I think he’s bad too. But lately I’ve seen a decent amount of comments claiming that he was never a “championship caliber” player, or never top tier, or never a superstar, or never top 5 and sometimes not even top 10.

I’m gonna assume that these people became NBA fans post-2017, because between 2014-2017 Russ was recognized as a top 5 player in the league by most people. As someone who got into basketball watching the Thunder in 2012, the general perception before was that KD & Russ were both seen as top-5 players, especially during their last year together.

He finished 4th in MVP in 2014 and 2015 before winning MVP in 2016 and was a back-to-back 1st team all-nba in 2015 & 2016. Not to mention that between 2010-2019, he had 9 consecutive All-NBA selections with (2)First-teams, (5)Second-teams, and (2)Third-teams.

Only made this post because it bothered me with all the revisionist history I’ve seen on this sub, his MVP season is still one of the funnest seasons I’ve witnissed.

Firstly, even though it's a small sample size, Scottie (and Mobley) is looking like the most promising rookie in the draft. In Mike Schmitz's latest podcast, they said they've heard from several GM's that they had Scottie Barnes number 1 on their board. I call BS on that. This is starting to sound like all the front offices that you now hear were trying to get Giannis at the draft (to be fair, we are one of those teams). Very convenient. What, you might ask, do I have as evidence to back this up aside from my tinfoil hat?

I submit as Exhibit A, the 2021-22 GM Survey: https://www.nba.com/news/2021-22-gmsurvey

Note: General managers were not permitted to vote for their own team or personnel.

Who will win the 2021-22 Rookie of the Year?

Scottie received ZERO votes. Receiving votes: Jalen Green, Cade, Suggs, Davion Mitchell, Alperen Sengun

Which rookie will be the best player in five years?

Scottie received ZERO votes. Receiving votes: Mobley, Cade, Jalen Green, Suggs, Davion Mitchell

(TL/DR) How can you say you had Scottie as number 1 on the board and you think that he's neither the best player now, or the best in 5 years??? You would think he's at least 1 of the 2, if you're going to have him at the top of your board.

Scottie did receive one vote for the following question: Which rookie was the biggest steal at where he was selected in the Draft? Those who received more than one vote:

1. Jalen Suggs - 23% (7 votes)
2. Alperen Sengun - 20% (6 votes)
3. James Bouknight - 7% (2 votes)
4. Jalen Johnson - 7% (2 votes)
5. Trey Murphy III - 7% (2 votes)

Bottom line is there can only be one front office that can call themselves the best when it comes to drafting...

MASAI AND BOBBY BLESS

So guys this is something that I've been meaning to speak about for quite some time of late and now at long last, I finally brought myself to type it up-- Indians claiming parts of our history. I want to speak about it not because I think it's not addressed enough or that most people here are unacknowledged but call it a personal craving. Again, this is no scholarly article, just the rumblings of a disgruntled man (sorry if you came for that).Over the past few years or so the surge in historical revisionism and negationism has been unprecedented with every half-assed e-historian presenting his own case and his own version of history. While this should normally be innocuous and inconsequential, the sheer magnitude at which these counterfeit historical narratives are being peddled is alarming. This 'FERVENT' nationalism especially among the younger Indians mutated into blatant chauvinism which coupled with extreme religious bias has seen to the emergence of multiple revisionist opinions and otherwise risible narratives upon Kashmir and Kashmiri history. One such facet of it is claiming of the medieval (esp. the Hindu) history, the one king in particular I want to talk about here is Lalitaditya Muktapida.Lalitaditya, the intrepid Hindu warrior who would surely have squared off cheek by jowl with his dearest co-religionists against the 'filthy Muzalmanic foreigners'! Now, for the sake of arguing, let's assume for a moment that he was indeed the fervent ruler representing the quintessential brave Hindu who conquered vast lands in name of the Hindu Gods, wouldn't it be contrary to logic to conveniently ignore that the people he conquered, the lands he annexed were also Hindu lands to begin with?(the same lands where countless small kings and princes constantly warred against each other).

Since, unfortunately, the late king would hardly be able to communicate his view of the matter in his current position, Let's take a look at the few records that show what Kashmiris and the king thought of foreigners in general and Indians in particular with especial care towards the king, Lalitaditya's conduct in foreign lands, who essentially ,more or less, embodies the link modern Indian revisionists try to force between India and Kashmir:

Talking about north Indians, who he refers to as Uttarakurus (bear in mind Kalhan has employed a lot of religious mythos into his work), Kalhan writes about the impactfulness of Lalitaditya upon them,

• The ***Uttaraku

I was talking with my dad today. He knows I've left the church, and he takes opportunities to try to explain why it's perfect, yadda yadda yadda. Today, he hit me with "The missourians chased the mormons out because they were a voting bloc that wanted to end slavery."

On today, of all days, he's trying to tell me that the PRIMARY reason the Mormons were chased out of Missouri was their SUPPORT of ending slavery. I tried to tell him that Brigham Young was a big ol racist and that he absolutely supported slavery, but every quote I read him was "out of context" or brigham speaking as a man.

Just another gem from our conversation, on sleeping with 14 year olds, "If joseph did that today, it would be rape. But in that time, it was normal." The mental gymnastics are astounding.

I can't share with my wife because she's still in, so I though y'all could commiserate with me

Seriously, I hate it when they say crap like that, but at the same time, IDK how to respond because I'm poorly educated on China's involvement in Africa. If anyone could also provide sources, that would be great.

Those Fields throws were tremendous, don't get me wrong, and I absolutely love the kid. But, I see a lot of people talking about how 'Dalton couldn't make that throw lol, Nagy is such an idiot'. Let's be real, when Andy Dalton is given a solid pocket like that and 3+ seconds, he can make some of those throws. So could many QBs not named Mitchell Trubisky. What we need to see Fields do is make those quick throws when the pocket is collapsing. That's his biggest weakness right now, pulling the trigger quickly when the time isn't there to throw the bomb. In that respect, I can *somewhat* understand Nagy's mode of thinking. However I, like many, feel like a productive season with Dalton is a waste of time. You are just biding time. Also, the sooner Fields gets more comfortable, the sooner he can start making those 'extra' plays, where his escapability and ability to throw on the run make him even more special.

So, TL;DR - don't tear down Andy to prop up Justin. The kid still has lots to learn.

Been debating Civil War stuff recently and his name / the Abbeville Institute obviously come up a lot, any good public debate with McClanahan or takedown articles/videos? I couldn't find anything. Not needed for my recent conversation, just curious if anything is out there. If not, it should be.

USA; how it originally started: In 1776, the US originally wasn't founded as a country, but rather a civil union of 13 colonies, more akin to the European Union of today. States were more like sovereign nations back then who just happened to unite under a common framework. National party lines were drawn by Federalists who supported giving the federal government more power and Anti-Federalists who wanted to give the states more power.

USA; what it became: As time passed, the federal government became more powerful and the states lost sovereignty. Under a political philosophy dubbed Manifest Destiny, the federal government was undergoing rapid western expansion and incorporated lots of new states in the west`. The US was also undergoing a massive industrial revolution, and the northern and midwestern states became a powerhouse in manufacturing. The southern states did not see the same economic boom in manufacturing, but rather was experiencing a boom in agriculture. Tobacco was one of America biggest exports, and the invention of the cotton gin created massive demand for cotton. Much of the productivity in the South's booming agriculture relied on free labor from the transatlantic slave trade.

Trans-Atlantic slave trade: The Trans-Atlantic slave trade had been going on for centuries and predates America itself. As it relates to America, American traders would sail to West Africa, where they would buy slaves from the African governments with gold. Once returning back home with the slaves, the traders would then sell those slaves (for more gold than they paid for them) to plantation owners, who used the slaves as free labor to work their farms. Slaves were legally regarded as property, but for tax purposes was 3/5ths of a human.

Abolitionists rise: Most Americans did not own slaves and could not fully understand what was happening in these plantations. That changed when Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was published. The book was a massive cultural success and created a abolitionist movement in the north. Northern states one by one started abolishing slavery within their states, and talks of a national ban started happening.

Secession: Because the South's economy was so reliant on slavery, a ban on slavery would their cripple their economies. That's when South Carolina announced in 1860 that they would be seceding from the union. In the months following, several states in the South decided to secede too, and they formed a new

Is Zion still your man? I’m betting most would take Ja 1st. Do you take Zion 2nd, 3rd, or does he now drop out due to lingering health/weight issues? Does RJ stay in top 3?

Mine:

1. Ja
2. Zion - flyer here hoping he recovers/gets his ass in shape
3. RJ

Does Coby White or DeAndre Hunter leapfrog RJ?

What says you?

I'm interested in what Maoists think of the Prague Spring of 1968, the Polish and Hungarian uprising of 1956, Tiananmen in 1989 and other uprisings in coutries that were revisionist at that time, would you support them or not?

Something something Deng Xiaoping

It seems that, for all their radical talk, every time a popular movement happens anywhere, they immediately jump to the conclusion that it is a color revolution sent in by the USA to destablize this or that country with a tenuous connection to China's super cool anti-Imperialist Belt and Road Initiative. Even when these protests occur in places that are as far removed from Socialism as you can get, for example, dismissing the protests in Russia, Iran, Belarus, and Kazakhstan as "CIA hatched color revolutions", as if the masses of these countries have no will of their own. While, as Communists, we should analyze the class dynamic of these protests, and acknowledge that, without properly Communist leadership, these movements are doomed to fail, and while we should, additionally, understand that the US would want to hijack these popular movement and subvert it for their own geopolitical aims, it is naive to think otherwise, nevertheless, it is strange that people who claim to be for power for the masses find themselves siding with anti-democratic, anti-people forces of all sort, and even going so far as to refusing the masses any sort of agency beyond what Putin, Xi, or Biden commands of them. Do these people really think that people can't take to the streets on their own without the NED coming in with phamplets?

USA; how it originally started: In 1776, the US originally wasn't founded as a country, but rather a civil union of 13 colonies, more akin to the European Union of today. States were more like sovereign nations back then who just happened to unite under a common framework. National party lines were drawn by Federalists who supported giving the federal government more power and Anti-Federalists who wanted to give the states more power.

USA; what it became: As time passed, the federal government became more powerful and the states lost sovereignty. Under a political philosophy dubbed Manifest Destiny, the federal government was undergoing rapid western expansion and incorporated lots of new states in the west`. The US was also undergoing a massive industrial revolution, and the northern and midwestern states became a powerhouse in manufacturing. The southern states did not see the same economic boom in manufacturing, but rather was experiencing a boom in agriculture. Tobacco was one of America biggest exports, and the invention of the cotton gin created massive demand for cotton. Much of the productivity in the South's booming agriculture relied on free labor from the transatlantic slave trade.

Trans-Atlantic slave trade: The Trans-Atlantic slave trade had been going on for centuries and predates America itself. As it relates to America, American traders would sail to West Africa, where they would buy slaves from the African governments with gold. Once returning back home with the slaves, the traders would then sell those slaves (for more gold than they paid for them) to plantation owners, who used the slaves as free labor to work their farms. Slaves were legally regarded as property, but for tax purposes was 3/5ths of a human.

Abolitionists rise: Most Americans did not own slaves and could not fully understand what was happening in these plantations. That changed when Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was published. The book was a massive cultural success and created a abolitionist movement in the north. Northern states one by one started abolishing slavery within their states, and talks of a national ban started happening.

Secession: Because the South's economy was so reliant on slavery, a ban on slavery would their cripple their economies. That's when South Carolina announced in 1860 that they would be seceding from the union. In the months following, several states in the South decided to secede too, and they formed a new