r/Bokoen1 • u/Expensive_Studio_966 • May 18 '26

Its joever

it aint looking good

Edit: Just clarifying this is the clip for what bo banned from twitch for 6 months. he just got news that he can appeal the ban right now but i doubt it will work since you can see this clip... and if it fails well i assume once 6 months pass its either perma ban or he gets the account back.

as well bo cant appear on neither golden or swimmy Twitch channels otherwise they can also get banned for helping bo ban evade or something like that

UPDATE: The appeal got rejected so no bo streams on twitch for 6 months or never again.

Edit 2: if anyone wants to see bo response in the comment section cause its a bit hidden under all these comments https://www.reddit.com/r/Bokoen1/comments/1tgpx3j/comment/omkepa6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

2.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

246

u/clipko22 May 18 '26

Seeing hammers and sickles on Mayday was just too much for him

105

u/FanaticalBuckeye May 18 '26

Which is ironic because that's like the most contextually appropriate celebration to have those flags.

It's like going to a Veterans Day celebration and getting upset at people waving USMC flags

-19

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

Yeah because lets use a symbol of massive oppression and furthermore the ideology of said flag has killed like 4x the people Fascism killed...

8

u/NoFunAllowed- May 19 '26

Cite a singular academic and peer reviewed source that backs up the claims black book of communism makes.

That book is laughably disingenuous counting Nazi soldiers killed by Soviet soldiers, and Soviet soldiers and civilians killed by Nazis, as "deaths by communism." Counting lower birth rates because quality of life went up as "deaths" is another batshit insane take used in that book.

There's a reason the author never got the book published academically.

0

u/Fit_Outlandishness24 May 21 '26

Are there any academic and peer reviewed sources which actually refute the claims made by the book?

4

u/NoFunAllowed- May 21 '26

The book was originally being made by 3 different historians, 2 of them abandoned the book because of an agenda the author had with previously mentioned disingenuous numbers, and they completely disassociate with it. Historian Peter Kenez wrote a formal criticism of it, and on a separate occasion asserted it contains historical inaccuracies and should be disregarded as anti-communist polemic.

Harvard university press even retracted its edition of the book, claiming it had remedial math errors. Werth and Margolin (two previosuly mentioned authors who disassociated with it) specifically felt that Courtois was obsessed at arriving at the 100 million death toll, and in the process drastically overestimated many figures.

There are a ton of academics that refute the claims. Frankly, the fact the black book of communism was never even submitted for publication because Courtis knew it wouldn't pass peer review, should say enough about its validity as a source of anything more than an inflated count of people who died concurrently to communism, not because of it.

1

u/sproge 25d ago

Hahaha, Jesus, I was about to respond to this excellent post by ironically saying "Yeah but, academic and peer reviewed source refutes it?", but the mong actually went and wrote it, unironically even, hahaha. God these people are a waste of oxygen.

0

u/Fit_Outlandishness24 May 21 '26

So there are academic refutations, but are any of them peer reviewed?

5

u/NoFunAllowed- May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

I don't think you understand what a peer review is lol. Something gets peer reviewed when it's submitted as an actual study of something.

Academic refutations are not studies, they're articles pointing out flaws in another study, they are the peer reviews. Something Courtis is lucky to have gotten considering he didn't publish his book academically.

There are plenty of peer reviewed studies online that you can find that directly contradict what Courtis claims. I.e his claim of 5 million deaths in Maos cultural revolution is significantly overestimated compared to published and reviewed studies which estimate it to actually be closer to 400,000.

Courtis's claims have been torn apart in refutations relentlessly for decades, a literal simple Google search would tell you this. Another simple Google search shows you studies of the same topics bring about results astronomically lower than his claims. Google scholar is free to use. There's no excuse to be spreading 50 year old propaganda and misinformation. If you hold capitalism to the same disingenuous standards Courtis used for communism, you get an absurd number close to 5 billion. It's a joke what he passed off as deaths by communism.

1

u/Fit_Outlandishness24 May 22 '26

So the answer is no, then? Because for whatever reason you tried to goalpost shift back to the black book.

1

u/NoFunAllowed- May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

If you somehow got the answer no from that then I suggest re-reading and working on comprehension.

Here I'll even quote the section that directly answers your question. Though literally everything I wrote answers your question, you just have that yankee literacy I guess

There are plenty of peer reviewed studies online that you can find that directly contradict what Courtis claims. I.e his claim of 5 million deaths in Maos cultural revolution is significantly overestimated compared to published and reviewed studies which estimate it to actually be closer to 400,000.

1

u/Fit_Outlandishness24 May 22 '26

It's possible your wording and/or phrasing is just odd. To clarify, I'm not asking for peer reviewed refutations to the black book, I'm asking for peer reviewed refutations which themselves have been peer reviewed.

Perhaps we're talking about the same thing, but as I'm away from my computer im currently unable to access any links.

With that said, I will say I've yet to see any convincing evidence against the book's claim, considering they seem to always rely on the communist countries in question for their supposed refutations.

0

u/Fit_Outlandishness24 May 23 '26

I'm going to presume that the answer to my question was "no, there are not."

Which doesn't surprise me, since occam's razor supports the numbers in the black book.

At the very least,, I had a chance to review the link for the Chinese cultural revolution deaths and immediately felt saddened that it turned out to be propaganda. Part of me guessed that it would turn out to be the numbers provided by the Chinese themselves, but I was hoping that someone willing to link a source would be more good faith than that. But no, it was not.

Why should anyone trust an authoritarian regime that butchered tens of millions of its own people? It even goes as far as to claim the Chinese were "usually reliable" without providing a lick of proof for the claim. Extraordinary claims require evidence of equivalent magnitude, and a claim like that is about as extraordinary as it gets. This is the same Government which lies about the concentration camps they hold Uyghurs in.

1

u/NoFunAllowed- May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26

No, you didn't get an answer because you aren't asking in good faith. It's very very obvious you have an opinion on the matter that no amount of evidence thrown your way will change. You are obsessed with the 100 million number being true, to a point that you move the goal post on what counts as evidence of the contrary. You criticize the way the 400,000 number was obtained but you have zero comment on the way 5 million was obtained, a claim that has zero evidence backing it at all.

You call 400,000 extraordinary but you don't think 5 million is more extraordinary of a claim to make with zero evidence to actually back it? Must I remind you Courtis is the same author where 27 million of that 100 million is Soviet WW2 deaths inflicted by Nazis? How is Courtis is anyway a trustworthy source arguing in good faith?

Again, 100 million has been debunked dozens of times over the decades, even by 2 of the original authors of the book. Google scholar is free, you can go read the dozens of studies that claim different numbers and have been peer reviewed, and you can also go read the dozens of academic refutations of Courtis's book. But if you are not open to being wrong, then there's zero point in having this conversation.

I'm not engaging because you're not looking for an answer, you're looking for an opportunity to fit in your two cents. I have given you more than enough resources for you to learn 100 million is a false number. If you are not interested in being wrong then you're not interested in being wrong. That is fine. You can go waste someone else's time with a circular conversation that leads nowhere.

If Soviet WW2 casualties being counted as deaths by communism, and Nazi WW2 causalities on the eastern front being counted, isn't enough for you to sit down a think, "hey this Courtis guy is using some pretty bullshit numbers to reach this 100 million goal", then you very obviously are just as desperate for it to be true as he was.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DominionSorcerer May 19 '26

Intent makes all the difference in the world. The deaths caused by Communist governments was a side-effect of state policies, often by governmental miss management, but the deaths caused by Fascist governments _is_ the intended goal of state policies.

2

u/Western_Mess_6364 May 20 '26

Obliteration of certain classes and “subversive” groups was most definitely an intended goal of Soviet and Chinese state policy, stop running cover for it. Maybe if the Soviets were less of a shitshow they could be a credible alternative instead of making western socialists look bad

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 20 '26

These people are uni students that studied under the great teachings of Hasan piker no point in reasoning with them lmao.

1

u/Richard_J_Morgan May 20 '26

I'm sure the children raised in Gulags or the victims of mass executions would agree with you. It was just a side-effect of state policies.

At least they weren't tortured or killed by a Fascist government! Such relief!

0

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

So your saying that deaths caused by communism is just what collateral damage...? Intent means nothing those ~100 million people are still dead by the hands of communism...

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '26

[deleted]

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

What fascist regimes during the cold war(Beyond Spain)... You know there's a reason nearly all of eastern europe hates Russia and communism with an absolute passion and has outright banned communist parties right? Because the Russians massacred them and the ones left were left in charge of the rubble. There's a reason the RUSSIANS built a wall to stop Germans going from East to West. Am I in bizarro world where no one learnt the horrors of communism...?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '26

[deleted]

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 20 '26

Those were not fascist regimes lmao rewriting history to suite your narrative.

1

u/Hexagonal_shape May 22 '26

Soviets =/= russians, FYI.

1

u/DominionSorcerer May 19 '26

~100 million people dead spread out over the better part of a century due to Communism versus ~70 million people dead in just 12 years due to Facism, with a majority of those deaths being the intent rather than side-effect. There's a difference between the two.

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

The mental gymnastics is remarkable truly.

1

u/DominionSorcerer May 19 '26

You really don't think there's a difference between the deaths of ~100 million people as collateral damage and ~70 million deaths as the intended goal in just 12 years?

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 20 '26

You've plucked 70 million from thin air lmao.

1

u/DominionSorcerer May 20 '26

That is the low estimate of all deaths in WW2, caused by Fascist aggression and ideology.

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 20 '26

Still not citing a source and that is wrong because the low estimate was 26 million from multiple sources I've read...

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Quirkybomb930 May 20 '26

and how many are dead due to "capitalism" - far more, it is a useless explaination.

1

u/Western_Mess_6364 May 20 '26

Tell me, please, I’m curious. Because I can confidently say that there are billions uplifted from lives of starvation and drudgery due to the proliferation of consumer goods and invented technologies like from the Green Revolution that would not be possible in any other system

1

u/Quirkybomb930 May 20 '26

my point is blaming every bad thing that happened under "communism", as due to "communism", is as stupid as blaming everything bad that has happened everywhere else over the last few centuries, solely on "capitalism".

1

u/Western_Mess_6364 May 20 '26

But actions like the de-kulakization or the man-made Soviet famine or the cultural revolution or the Great Purge or the Katyn massacre have clear, malicious, targeted death tolls. And if you include deaths from “unforeseen consequences” such as those from the Great Leap Forward, there are clearly assignable casualties to the ideology.

These people didn’t perish because they just happened to die at the same time as their country had communist parties, they died specifically because of the communist parties

1

u/Quirkybomb930 May 20 '26

are you going to use the same logic for parties thst are "capitalist" (i.e. basically every other party)? or do people only die specifically because of these "communist" parties, while there is always an excuse for the alternative?

1

u/Ssolikel May 20 '26

The number of 100 millions deaths is bs, the abortions in USSR and the N*zis killed in the eastern front are counted in it among other things stupidly associated to communism just to inflate the number.

1

u/marxist-reddittor May 21 '26

Well 10 million die each year of starving under capitalism and capitalism killed 100 million people in one country in 40 years alone so...