HikingVet@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Good lord, and any criticism of an authoritarian communist government and they expose just how much they love the taste of boots.
I would tolerate them a little more if it weren’t for the constant brigading.
Wanna analyze Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory, self-crit, and all that good stuff? Fine by me, I like discussion of varying viewpoints. But often it’s not about that but are bad faith arguments and whataboutisms about how the decadent West is ruled by the US and how Putin/Kim did nothing wrong.
It’s exhausting. I don’t go into their subs and rattle on about liberal market economics.
You couldn’t be more right. Take a look around, and you’ll see they’re here in the comments.
“authoritarian communist” is an oxymoron to begin with. how can you build a society where everyone is equal by enforcing authority
Well, every so called communist government has been one, so there are examples…
I mean don’t you prove his point, by pointing out that all governments that call themselves communist are “so called communist governments”? So they aren’t doing communism right, else they could call themselves rightfully communist.
I do share the notion that communism is an ideology or economic system that is supposed to liberate people from class war. So it should be a liberating force. Suppressing dissent, free media, and casually engaging in imperialism and ethnic cleansing is not what I’d imagine a liberating government would do.
Obviously democracies with “free markets” also have these pitfalls. Not to say that both are equally wrong, but both are surely not the implementation of its self proclaimed ideals.
Every communist state had commited genocide. Btw did trudeau found those native girls yet?
Every government that called itself communist, yes
finley@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Once, I was called a “debate pervert” and then banned from a community with “debate pervert” given as the reason.
Why?
I dared to point out that a user’s comment was full of logical fallacies.
They hate that, because there’s no way to argue back against it.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Okay, but debate pervert is really funny, though.
finley@lemm.ee 1 day ago
I laughed when I first read it. I still have no idea what it means.
Rhoeri@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’ve seen people banned with “liberal” being the reason.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 hours ago
I mean, at the limit, if they were clear in their rules thay only radical leftists are allowed (which you would assume given it’s called ML - marxist leninism, it might be acceptable).
The genocide denial and masquarading as a neutral all purpose instance isn’t though.
fuck_the_admins_lol@lemmings.world 11 hours ago
Yeah why would a communist instance ban right-wingers?
Do you have any idea how anything work at all?
theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Nice set of logical fallacies in this comment, and I don’t see any citations supporting your anecdote.
HikingVet@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I don’t see you actually countering his statement, just throwing random sentences out.
theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I just did what he did little buddy. There’s nothing to “counter” lil Shapiro, the world doesn’t work like that.
finley@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Got lots of that, too. It’s like speaking to a 4 year-old
theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
If you think the world works like high School debate clubs, you need to head back to Ben Shapiro’s butt hit basement emporium and get back to circle jerking over pointless pedantry that never affects the meaning of a message or argument.
I was just making fun of you, since, you know, you’re just a generic right-winger using the same tactics and excuses.
Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Fallacy fallacy: only because it contains a fallacy (or a bunch) the argument isn’t necessarily void.
Still stacking fallacies isn’t usually a sign of a good and or valid argument.
finley@lemm.ee 1 day ago
It wasn’t a fallacy fallacy. Their entire argument, nay, their entire identity, was based on a foundation of logical fallacies.
And no, their argument was definitely not valid in any way.
Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.
I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).