https://lemmy.ml/comment/2321386
This is so pathetic that I can't help feeling a small amount of sympathy for what appears to be a very sad, lonely, angry person.
SIR, you have done a fallacy Sir, that means I win!
Flawless victory!
Aykshully that's a fallacy fallacy so actually you have lost and I have won
Worst exampe of a circular reasoning ever. I know a good one : western polls show that people in China are more likely to think they live in a democracy than the people in the West, so they say that it's probably because of brainwashing and fear of condemning the govt. In short, China appears to be democratic, so they say in fact it's not, and the argument is that it's because it isn't democratic.
Perennial Parenti quote ahead:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence.
If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves.
How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
The quote
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
-- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
Holy shit, running a whole pack of alts on this tiny little corner of the internet is some fucked up behavior lmao
Yeah, I feel kind of sorry for this guy. This is the sort of person the slogan "touch grass" was made for.
Urgh, brooklynman and his horde of alts.
Insists on misgendering people after being called out on it, then doubles down by calling them a 'snowflake'.
Ooh, I was wondering why there were like 3 different people in that thread posting logical fallacies with the exact same tone and writing style.
I just figured they all talked like that.
Hmm I detect a similar theme:
Show
Show
Show
Show
Show
Found #4 wonder if we can collect all 5!
We did it folks, collected all 5 plus a bonus 6th account!
Good catch, Brooklyn man also constantly spammed threads (maybe is still doing this) with the fallacy nonsense.
Man, I feel like an idiot because I don’t understand how your comment was an example of the “circular reasoning” fallacy.
you find the "lolcow shit" here "legit disgusting"? I think you feel strange seeing how easy it is for most people to identify a swarm of alt accounts with similar lingo like you have all over hexbear
You're gleefully calling someone "psychologically disturbed" while breaking site rules about brigading and targeted harassment. I'm not going to apologize for finding that disgusting or comparing it to lolcows.
It was posted on Hexbear first and removed after I reported it so now they're big mad at me
I wanted to post the "debate pervert" emoji but it didnt work. so i just wrote it instead
Yes, "you're" is short for "you were," in this case, not "you are," sorry for the confusion.
It can be used either way. (Edit: Guess I'm wrong on that)
Bruh, they called me here to start shit over the Hexbear post, take it up with them for bringing it here.
Yes, the chapo dot chat rules against brigading. Are you missing my point? 🤣
Oh jeez I guess you felt kinda attacked by the way we were going after this guy who uses the same rhetorical strategy as you whenever you're stumped.
Let me clarify.
Chapotraphouse was banned from reddit for brigading. Don't you think you've come full circle now?
Chapo was banned for saying we should kill slave owners, and brigading is not a viable long term strategy on the fediverse.
I've been on this instance for three years. You don't get to direct our strategies going forward as an outsider lol.
I'm making fun of you for being ineffectual cowards, the ceremony is unwarranted. But, thank you for rejecting my application for hexbear minister of defense I did not actually apply. Enjoy yourself
I'm making fun of uwu fow being ineffectuaw cowawds, the cewemony iws unwawwanted. But, thank uwu fow wejecting my appwication fow hexbeaw ministew of defense i did nowt actuawwy appwy. Enjoy youwsewf
Do you think he just has a random number generator that picks his logical fallacy image macro for him, or is it based on his mood at the time?
It certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.
