You are beyond pathetic if you think a No True Scottsman fallacy is an effective defense against common sense…
People use words how they THINK they mean, not what’s written in the dictionary. Or are you truly so fucking stupid that you think there are zero people out there that think China is actually communist, or the DPRK is actually democratic?
You are being even dumber than tankies by using a logical fallacy as an axiom. Literally no one is convinced by, “that’s not the definition of the word, tho” when talking politics. If you say, “that’s not communism, though”, they’ll just point at China, and say, “yea, well the CCP exists! Is an entire country lying about what the word means?! You’re just dumb.” Now you’re sitting there looking like a dumbass because you want to obstinantly defend the WORD “communism”.
You are beyond pathetic if you think a No True Scottsman fallacy is an effective defense against common sense
This is the “Fallacy fallacy”. Explain how my logic is fallacious, or else your unsupported accusation alone can be easily ignored.
People use words how they THINK they mean, not what’s written in the dictionary
If someone “thinks” communism means authoritarianism, then they are just wrong. Just like a flat Earther. Their ignorance is not to be taken seriously.
Or are you truly so fucking stupid that you think there are zero people out there that think China is actually communist, or the DPRK is actually democratic?
Those people? They are wrong.
You are being even dumber than tankies by using a logical fallacy as an axiom
I’m not using a fallacy as an axiom. I’m taking the fact that terms have meanings and we can’t just ignore them because people are consistently wrong. There’s already a term for what they are: Marxist-Leninist. A communist is someone who actually knows what communism is - is that such a high bar for you? Should someone be able to fly a plane without knowing they have wings? Can someone call themselves a surfer if they don’t know how to ride a surfboard?
Literally no one is convinced by, “that’s not the definition of the word, tho” when talking politics.
Maybe not by you, because you’re going about it wrong. Socailist and communist theory, especially Marxism, is deeper and more fundamental than just the definition of the word communism. Again, this is not a high bar - at the very least, a communist should know about class struggle, and the goals of communism, in order to call themselves a communist. And no one meeting this bar would consider an authoritarian state satisfactory, or a strongman leader compelling. Anyone that did does not understand the coercive power of state, and so can’t be called a communist any more, if they ever were - they are now a fascist follower.
If you say, “that’s not communism, though”, they’ll just point at China, and say, “yea, well the CCP exists! Is an entire country lying about what the word means?! You’re just dumb.”
They are wrong, and can be taught otherwise.
Now you’re sitting there looking like a dumbass because you want to obstinantly defend the WORD “communism”.
Is a bird a donkey? Why should I have to invent a new word every time some idiot wants to misuse one? It’s really not hard to say “communism aims to abolish the state, like anarchism. China instead has a strong state.” Then, 100% of the time, the discussion instead turns to what communism is, and whether it would work. This is not as insane and unlikely as you want it to be.
I’ve already explained myself. It’s not my fault you fail to understand basic logic.
It doesn’t matter what YOU think. It matters what others think when they hear a word when communicating. I’m sorry you fail to understand the basic concept communication.
What kinda stereotype am I invoking, here? You’re spouting nonsense. You started this discussion telling people not to follow authoritarians, but are now arguing “but maybe they just think that’s what communism is”.
You are beyond pathetic if you think a No True Scottsman fallacy is an effective defense against common sense…
People use words how they THINK they mean, not what’s written in the dictionary. Or are you truly so fucking stupid that you think there are zero people out there that think China is actually communist, or the DPRK is actually democratic?
You are being even dumber than tankies by using a logical fallacy as an axiom. Literally no one is convinced by, “that’s not the definition of the word, tho” when talking politics. If you say, “that’s not communism, though”, they’ll just point at China, and say, “yea, well the CCP exists! Is an entire country lying about what the word means?! You’re just dumb.” Now you’re sitting there looking like a dumbass because you want to obstinantly defend the WORD “communism”.
This is the “Fallacy fallacy”. Explain how my logic is fallacious, or else your unsupported accusation alone can be easily ignored.
If someone “thinks” communism means authoritarianism, then they are just wrong. Just like a flat Earther. Their ignorance is not to be taken seriously.
Those people? They are wrong.
I’m not using a fallacy as an axiom. I’m taking the fact that terms have meanings and we can’t just ignore them because people are consistently wrong. There’s already a term for what they are: Marxist-Leninist. A communist is someone who actually knows what communism is - is that such a high bar for you? Should someone be able to fly a plane without knowing they have wings? Can someone call themselves a surfer if they don’t know how to ride a surfboard?
Maybe not by you, because you’re going about it wrong. Socailist and communist theory, especially Marxism, is deeper and more fundamental than just the definition of the word communism. Again, this is not a high bar - at the very least, a communist should know about class struggle, and the goals of communism, in order to call themselves a communist. And no one meeting this bar would consider an authoritarian state satisfactory, or a strongman leader compelling. Anyone that did does not understand the coercive power of state, and so can’t be called a communist any more, if they ever were - they are now a fascist follower.
They are wrong, and can be taught otherwise.
Is a bird a donkey? Why should I have to invent a new word every time some idiot wants to misuse one? It’s really not hard to say “communism aims to abolish the state, like anarchism. China instead has a strong state.” Then, 100% of the time, the discussion instead turns to what communism is, and whether it would work. This is not as insane and unlikely as you want it to be.
Don’t let idiots redefine words for you.
I’ve already explained myself. It’s not my fault you fail to understand basic logic.
It doesn’t matter what YOU think. It matters what others think when they hear a word when communicating. I’m sorry you fail to understand the basic concept communication.
Sure, just give up and agree with people when they say communism is authoritarian. See where that gets you.
I started this conversation by saying you SHOULD explain the basics to people. Are you seriously this pathetic?
That’s kinda the point I’m making - you’re not being consistent. Keep up.
Sad little troll. Revert to stereotype upon defeat.
Again. Pathetic is your title.
What kinda stereotype am I invoking, here? You’re spouting nonsense. You started this discussion telling people not to follow authoritarians, but are now arguing “but maybe they just think that’s what communism is”.
Pick a fucking lane.