• 1 Post
  • 283 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 13th, 2024

help-circle


  • What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.

    Buddy, you need to look up ad hominem fallacy because there’s nothing to debate there. You’re just making a fool of yourself.

    So you are trying to ague they went to another country

    England is another country from England?

    active government building

    Filming permits?

    how detail oriented film makers are

    Do you need explained that different people aren’t the same person?

    the connection between the characters and their location

    A pre-existing building whose floor they used unmodified. Did they search every building in existence until they found one with a star on the floor? Implausible. Unless you have credible evidence, your claim is unsubstantiated speculation that you only accept due to motivated reasoning & confirmation bias.

    Furthermore, no link or references to shit to substantiate anything you wrote: ipse dixit fallacy. You were rightly criticized for lacking a valid argument and this is no different. Respect logic & argue better.





  • fuckwit. You are either incredibly stupid

    Again with the ad hominem fallacy: try logic.

    I don’t expect you to acknowledge when you are wrong.

    No, that’s definitely you. Your video has nothing to do with your particular claim that the star on the floor is a Star of David: digression fallacy.

    We aren’t talking about antisemitism, we’re talking about your insistence on that claim despite failure to substantiate it, disclosure that the design belongs to an actual building unrelated to Judaism, the implausibility that its appearance in the film is due to an author who didn’t direct the film & whose book likely didn’t specify that detail. It’s classic motivated reasoning & confirmation bias drawing hasty conclusions lacking adequate support.

    We aren’t disputing your other claims. We’re disputing this one & criticizing your poor reasoning & lack of integrity to admit it’s unsupported. Like the typical discourse at lemmy.




  • The more I read about state capitalism, the vaguer it seems.

    an economic system where the government plays a central role by managing key industries and manipulating market outcomes

    is the most coherent definition I can find. Examples

    • the centrally planned, command economy of the USSR with wage labor
    • the liberalized market economy of the PRC with some large state industries, a strong private sector, foreign investment, market-based trade
    • the Norwegian economy with state ownership of the oil industry & some companies and ownership stake in large, publicly traded companies
    • United States with its publicly funded bailouts & recent state ownership stake in some publicly traded companies.

    Some economists argued it’s merely state socialism & planned economy relabeled.

    Whatever it is, communist states like USSR & China have long claimed they’re transitional.

    Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.

    No, that’s a communist society, a purely unsubstantiated, speculative, moneyless, post-scarcity utopia that has never once been realized & probably never will. Belongs in the realm of mythology.

    Communism is the ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society. Much like Christianity with the 2nd coming of Christ, adherents insist it’ll happen someday inevitably. No possible way their great prophet Marx was wrong.

    A communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state) is a government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society. Unfortunately, while belief systems like Judaism had the sense to warn adherents against trying to force their dream utopia prematurely, Marx lacked such sense to urge the crazies against it.

    Regardless, the overzealous failures here are some strain of communist: they follow the ideology.


  • They’re rarely here because they get quickly defederated.

    I think it has more to do with their not wanting to be here & online communities voluntarily segregating themselves into their respective ideologies[1].

    Defederation is not an effective control against the individuals you want to contain. As we can see with tankies, their annoying conduct rarely rises to the level to result in bans from the unblocked instances they join.

    As for spreading their poison, I don’t think people are mindless automatons who must become awful when exposed to offensive rhetoric all day. If mere exposure is all it takes, then they probably lacked decent principles. Sheltering a fragile position that disintegrates at the slightest challenge due to ignorance is a weak strategy that doesn’t build a firm, reliable foundation.

    A better solution is to develop a sturdier position on principles everyone is keenly familiar with to effectively defend. They acquire that familiarity through observed & practiced success to defeat challenges. The best answer to speech we dislike is better speech that condemns & challenges it. People need robust principles to do that & acquire them by doing so.


    1. a problem for civil engagement & deradicalization ↩︎