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/Xi did nothing wrong.
It’s exhausting. I don’t go into their subs and rattle on about liberal market economics.
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).
Also, pointing out that someone bases their entire identity around something isn’t an ad hominem. Even if it were, by your own logic, it wouldn’t make me wrong.
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.
Holy projection, Batman. If you projected any harder, you‘d need an IMAX theater.
Of course, the childish insults were totally expected. And, of course, you couldn’t be more wrong about me. That’s what you get when you make the foolish mistake of assuming you know strangers on the Internet.
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.
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/Xi 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.
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.
I’ve seen people banned with “liberal” being the reason.
Okay, but debate pervert is really funny, though.
I laughed when I first read it. I still have no idea what it means.
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.
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.
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).
Wow, nice straw man you got there, lol
Also, pointing out that someone bases their entire identity around something isn’t an ad hominem. Even if it were, by your own logic, it wouldn’t make me wrong.
Nice try though
Would you be so kind as to point out the straw man in that?
And no I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, I think you apply your standards selectively.
Now you’re just sealioning. It’s like you can’t even control yourself.
Nice set of logical fallacies in this comment, and I don’t see any citations supporting your anecdote.
I don’t see you actually countering his statement, just throwing random sentences out.
I just did what he did little buddy. There’s nothing to “counter” lil Shapiro, the world doesn’t work like that.
So, still just throwing out random sentences thinking you are making a point.
Got lots of that, too. It’s like speaking to a 4 year-old
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.
Holy projection, Batman. If you projected any harder, you‘d need an IMAX theater.
Of course, the childish insults were totally expected. And, of course, you couldn’t be more wrong about me. That’s what you get when you make the foolish mistake of assuming you know strangers on the Internet.
Child you literally complained about being called a debate pervert while being a debate pervert.
In ten years when you come back from Ben Shapiro’s sweaty ballsac, let me know
Your entire comment history reads like a cautionary tale of what happens when you deny a child the attention they crave.
This is the funniest thing I’ve ever read, lol
Stay mad, and keep fantasizing about Ben Shapiro’s sweaty ball sack
“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…
Thanks for making my point.
Every government that called itself communist, yes
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.
Another one crawling out the woodwork.
What?
All they know how to do is to insult people who disagree with them.