What form of medieval torture would best suit revisionists?

What form of medieval torture would best suit revisionists?

Living in Poland

t. Helmuth von Ahmedberg

Scaphism

Living OP´s life.

I actually live a pretty alright life, thank you very much. Let's not be too merciful.

This.

I want to fuck every revisionist in the stomach until I dig into their small intestine so I can rip it out and feed it to their families whilst having a civil debate about thr consequences of pseudo-historical anachronism

*glomps you*

Woah there beria, surely you agree that there were at least some instances where stalin whent too far

Yeah but you don't, do you? Crying yourself to sleep every night because you're doomed to die a kissless virgin is most people's idea of hell.

>we should unthinkingly follow whatever the first guy to say something about an event says, fuck evidence or facts!
Do you even know what revisionism is?

Prepare your navel

>>evidence or facts!
>implying

Dude... i'm sorry

So you really do unironically follow whatever the very first commentator says? So if I asked you, "who were the Hittites", you'd tell me "they were just a small tribe living in ancient Israel"? Or if I asked "who won the battle of Qadesh?", you'd say "it was a decisive Egyptian victory"? Dumb faggot.

That's not how history works, my retarded friend. As many historical sources are taken into account as can be found and the most possible verdict is drawn, leaving some excess and gaps in information. Most revisionists today have either a political agenda or use a fragment of information to further some abstract verdict that nobody needs, especially when there isn't decisive evidence, it's better to stick to the given.

>elaborate medieval torture devices
>reality
Pick only one.

I pick this one

>As many historical sources are taken into account as can be found and the most possible verdict is drawn, leaving some excess and gaps in information
This process you describe is called "revisionism". The alternative is literally to just believe what the first thing you read says.
>Most revisionists today
Not a single one of whom you have read.
>have either a political agenda
Literally all humans have a political agenda.
> use a fragment of information to further some abstract verdict that nobody needs
What does this even mean? They don't have access to a time machine, so they should just say nothing at all about the past? You dumb faggot.

You can't articulate for shit mate.
>X source incomplete says something about homosexuality
>every single ancient Greek was gay!

That's literally your position tho you dumb sack of shit.
>"hurr griks wuz teh gay"-some random idiot
>"this proves griks was teh gay"-you
>"nu-uh, look at all this evidence that griks was not gey!"-some actual historian
>"REEE STFU REVISIONIST!!!111"-you

Kindly fuck off

Something involving the tongue

Kek.

lol are you implying that there is Good Historical Work done outside of the lens of ideology and then Bad Revisionism carried out by conscious ideologues? hope you're not really a history student