Operationalizing the Magnitude of Underplayed Leftists within Social Conversations

[Fulanito de Tal]

I get irritated when people downplay important leftists like Lenin, Stalin, Che, Castro, King Jr., etc. For example, a lot of people in Miami tend to say that Fidel is a shit-eater and he is really a nobody. People completely overlook the contribution of Stalin to the Soviet Union (industrialization) and the world (defeating the Nazis). I have heard Che considered revolutionary, but that could not get anything started. Also, Lenin was just lucky that he was there when the Russian Revolution happened. People criticize Dr. King, but cannot even vaguely describe the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Lol


So, I was talking with someone the other day and came up with the following rebuttal. Ask the person downplaying the leftist (Insig) to pick any leftist (Leftist) she or he knows of. Keep in mind the country where Leftist is from. Ask Insig to guess how many people people in her/his country know of Leftist. Then, ask Insig to guess how many people in Leftist's country knows of Insig. Divide the former by the later. Inform Insig that this number is one measurement of how many times Leftist is greater than Insig (:lol:). Tell Insig that it is okay to be insignificant, but to at least acknowledge the contributions of people that struggle for equality and to focus on building some modesty in order to be a more complete person.


Limitation
This could have a drawback. An obvious one is that the method can be used for anyone, not just leftists. For example, Hitler would scored outrageously high. To counter this argument, one should take into consideration what the person is known for, which would be another topic. The purpose of this method is to counter the argument that some Leftists were insignificant, so the method still maintains its functionality.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I get irritated when people downplay important leftists like Lenin, Stalin, Che, Castro, King Jr., etc. For example, a lot of people in Miami tend to say that Fidel is a shit-eater and he is really a nobody. People completely overlook the contribution of Stalin to the Soviet Union (industrialization) and the world (defeating the Nazis). I have heard Che considered revolutionary, but that could not get anything started. Also, Lenin was just lucky that he was there when the Russian Revolution happened. People criticize Dr. King, but cannot even vaguely describe the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Lol


So, I was talking with someone the other day and came up with the following rebuttal. Ask the person downplaying the leftist (Insig) to pick any leftist (Leftist) she or he knows of. Keep in mind the country where Leftist is from. Ask Insig to guess how many people people in her/his country know of Leftist. Then, ask Insig to guess how many people in Leftist's country knows of Insig. Divide the former by the later. Inform Insig that this number is one measurement of how many times Leftist is greater than Insig (:lol:). Tell Insig that it is okay to be insignificant, but to at least acknowledge the contributions of people that struggle for equality and to focus on building some modesty in order to be a more complete person.


Limitation
This could have a drawback. An obvious one is that the method can be used for anyone, not just leftists. For example, Hitler would scored outrageously high. To counter this argument, one should take into consideration what the person is known for, which would be another topic. The purpose of this method is to counter the argument that some Leftists were insignificant, so the method still maintains its functionality.
Which destroys your whole little argument. The Great Stalin is not mainly known for defeating Nazis and industrialization, but for being responsible for millions of people dead. Same with just about every person you mentioned except MLK.

[Omsk]

'The great Stalin' was known for leading his people against the Nazi's.The people achieved the victory,but he leaded them,so,lets say that he is 1% responsible for the victory of the glorious soviet motherland in the Great Patriotic War.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

'The great Stalin' was known for leading his people against the Nazi's.The people achieved the victory,but he leaded them,so,lets say that he is 1% responsible for the victory of the glorious soviet motherland in the Great Patriotic War.
So if you go up to a random person in America and asked what Stalin is known for do you think it would be "defeating the Nazis".

First would probably be "Stalin who?
Second would be "MURDERER! GENOCIDAL DICTATOR! BOO!"
Maybe it's different in your country but I don't think many people know Stalin as the person who defeated Nazis or industrialized Russia. We don't see Castro as part of anything good, he has a beard and he's the reason why people escape from his prison island on homemade rafts.

[Omsk]

You are from America,why the hell should i care about America?

[Fulanito de Tal]

Which destroys your whole little argument. The Great Stalin is not mainly known for defeating Nazis and industrialization, but for being responsible for millions of people dead. Same with just about every person you mentioned except MLK.

Except that the method is designed to illustrate the magnitude of the person's ability to create social change through being famous. Whether that change is wanted or unwanted, ethical or not is a completely different topic. I covered that in phrase immediately following and sharing the same sentence with the phrase you bolded. If you do not understand the concept, then please ask questions. Also, if you think my argument is little, take a look at your own argument. It's only three sentences long.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You are from America,why the hell should i care about America?
Seriously? Is this a joke?

[Omsk]

Yeah,i was not serious,but to be honest,i dont really care what an American think's about Stalin,of course the answer is negative,im wondering what opinion of Stalin do they have in Russia.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Except that the method is designed to illustrate the magnitude of the person's ability to create social change through being famous. Whether that change is wanted or unwanted, ethical or not is a completely different topic. I covered that in phrase immediately following and sharing the same sentence with the phrase you bolded. If you do not understand the concept, then please ask questions. Also, if you think my argument is little, take a look at your own argument. It's only three sentences long.
I understand the concept, I just think when used in reality it wouldn't do much, as there is a pretty big drawback like you already explained. This can be used by for and people like Hitler would score way higher as you already said. And this naturally leads to a talk about the person which just goes back to them talking shit about Stalin. So really it's like going in a full circle. You end up exactly where you started, they're talking bad about Stalin, Fidel, etc.

Sometimes you only need three sentences to say what you need to say.

[Obs]

Yeah,i was not serious,but to be honest,i dont really care what an American think's about Stalin,of course the answer is negative,im wondering what opinion of Stalin do they have in Russia.
Largely positive, but for the wrong reasons. United Russia officially denounce Stalin, but many of their voters uphold him because of what they perceive to be his contribution to Great Mother Russia, rather than his contributions to class struggle. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which is in reality an ultra-nationalist centre-right party, upholds Stalin for similar reasons, though they do throw in some pseudo-socialist rhetoric.

Russia is in a sorry state.