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.
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.
This post is in Lemmygrad. What rule is it breaking here?
It was posted on Hexbear first and removed after I reported it so now they're big mad at me
It was posted on Hexbear first and removed after I reported it so now they're big mad at me.
So you agree that this post, that you're commenting on, that you said was rule breaking, does not actually break rules here?
Nah, fuck you (*edited).
This isn't Hexbear, and a Hexbear user can't act like users here need to work by those rules.
I'm not a fucking debate pervert because they don't understand federation.
Slam dunks only work when you make the basket.
/* Edited out the word "dawg" as the person I'm responding to views it as a gendered term.
I apologize, I didn't realize you were this sensitive.
You're still a cowardly asshole looking for an easy dunk.
I'm human, I can have emotions when you call me a fucking pervert.
You are not a "pervert". That's clearly not what I meant??
Is there something I've misunderstood here?
Show
Were you replying to me? Jerboa acts weird for me sometimes.
I'm starting to suspect I might be an idiot here.
I wanted to post the "debate pervert" emoji but it didnt work. so i just wrote it instead
Ok, you meant that for me, then?
I see that as pretty hurtful, especially for what's meant as an internal conversation for here.
Like, a "debate pervert" is someone who's getting some kind of sexual satisfaction from running in rhetorical circles with no other reason.
I'm not doing that here, so I feel pretty insulted.
We use those for dunking on libs that wander in here.
*/I still don't know how to use the emojis. I just have the picture saved. You're welcome to download this and use it if you want to, I do not mean it to refer to you:
Show
I apologize, I didn't realize you were this sensitive.
That's not a fucking apology. You're a coward who wanted an easy snipe without having to defend it.
*/ you edited in the comment about "dawg". I do not agree that it is a gendered term. I'm happy to re-approach that stance if you can provide any substantiation. I'll address you with your preferred gendered terms moving forward.
I don't agree with your source. Dawg developed from the word "dog", which is a gender neutral term. There are no gender-specific suffixes in the word.
However, I don't want to pollute my point with this as an argument. I'll edit it out of my original comment.
Yes, "you're" is short for "you were," in this case, not "you are," sorry for the confusion.
“You’re” is short for “you were,” in this case, not “you are,” sorry for the confusion.
"You're" is not a contraction for "You were". It is a contraction for "You are".
That doesn't really change much, either. You're chastising a non-hexbear user, on a non-hexbear instance, for breaking "site rules" at some point? If you mean site rules for hexbear, why are you mentioning it here?
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.
It can be used either way.
Hard disagree.
I guess that's fair you got tagged. I just didn't read it the way you meant it, sorry for the confusion!
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.
