If I say I’m being persecuted as a Scotsman and someone points out I have never been to Scotland and have no Scottish heritage, that’s not a “no true Scotsman” fallacy because I don’t meet the definition of Scotsman no matter how much I claim to be one.
How did you somehow misunderstand my comment so badly? Okay, I edited it for clarity.
You are the one who, in this instance, is trying to insist orange juice is in fact coke. You are the one claiming no true scotsman.
Even in your attempt to twist it, you still include an explanation of why “no true scotsman” just doesn’t apply here. What you are calling communism does not meet any definition of communism, just as no orange juice meets the definition of coke.
Let’s ignore the political opponent massacres of the Great Purge and ideology fueled agricultural disasters of the Great Chinese Famine, and focus on the Holodomor in Ukraine, the Cambodian genocide, the Uyghur genocide in China.
Happened under communist dictatorships that are generally considered to be at the left.
Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on “ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism” while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on “notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism”.
I’m not sure what your comment means, but I’m actually saying the opposite of dictatorship being of a specific political side. I’m highlighting the fact that political extremists will end up killing in the name of their ideology, which ever it is, left, right or whatever other cult.
My comment means a Dictatorship, by definition, isn’t left wing.
I’m highlighting the fact that political extremists will end up killing in the name of their ideology
How do you define extremist? It used to be an extremist view to say women should have the right to vote, or people shouldn’t own slaves. Hell, Democracy used to be an “extremist” view.
So someone willing to kill in the name of an ideology is an extremist, but that’s the easy extreme case. In general in modern democracies, no politician would admit to that, so the definition is rather relative to how far the political positions of a party are from the average of the last governing parties for a specific country.
So someone willing to kill in the name of an ideology is an extremist
So you’re highlighting the fact that extremists will kill people in the name of their ideology, and you define extremists as people who will to kill for their ideology. Sounds pretty tautological no?
You’re confusing tautology with just writing the same definition in two different orders.
A square has four sides of equal length. Four sides of equal length length make a square. That’s not a tautology.
Agree with your last sentence but it is the path all the Marxist revolutions have taken. A reason being that proletariat dictatorship is a step to communism in Marx’s ideology. But from history, it seems it just stops at the dictatorship.
So maybe the conclusion is that Marx methodology doesn’t actually lead to a progressive/left country.
deleted by creator
That’s not a US definition, that’s how the seats where distributed in the french parliament after the revolution
deleted by creator
Yes and I’m telling you that the same definition is used around the world.
Btw back then the frech conservatives were monarchists that opposed the new democracy itself and wanted to dismantle it
deleted by creator
Holodomor, the current Uyghur issue.
Cambodia was more of an omnicide, but it counts
Ah yes, the well known leftist government on 1930s Soviet Russia…
Someday we’ll find a true Scotsman
If I say I’m being persecuted as a Scotsman and someone points out I have never been to Scotland and have no Scottish heritage, that’s not a “no true Scotsman” fallacy because I don’t meet the definition of Scotsman no matter how much I claim to be one.
You: “Hey dude, could you pass me that can of Coke?”
Sane person: “Huh? There’s no coke here. No cans of anything.”
You: “What do you mean? That right there-” points to bottle of orange juice
Sane person: “Wtf? This isn’t a can of coke!”
You: “Pfft, so it doesn’t meet your fake standards. No True Scotsman!!”
Edited to add names for clarity.
More like
“Here’s your coke”
“This is orange juice”
“What are you, an idiot? This is clearly orange juice, why would you think it’s coke? Here’s a coke”
“Still orange juice”
“Well you see, coke is made from sugar and artificial flavors, and orange juice is made from orange. That’s why orange juice isn’t coke.”
Nah you’re right, this isn’t No True Scotsman, just regular gaslighting
How did you somehow misunderstand my comment so badly? Okay, I edited it for clarity.
You are the one who, in this instance, is trying to insist orange juice is in fact coke. You are the one claiming no true scotsman.
Even in your attempt to twist it, you still include an explanation of why “no true scotsman” just doesn’t apply here. What you are calling communism does not meet any definition of communism, just as no orange juice meets the definition of coke.
deleted by creator
Let’s ignore the political opponent massacres of the Great Purge and ideology fueled agricultural disasters of the Great Chinese Famine, and focus on the Holodomor in Ukraine, the Cambodian genocide, the Uyghur genocide in China.
Happened under communist dictatorships that are generally considered to be at the left.
This guy: This dictatorship is on the left.
I’m not sure what your comment means, but I’m actually saying the opposite of dictatorship being of a specific political side. I’m highlighting the fact that political extremists will end up killing in the name of their ideology, which ever it is, left, right or whatever other cult.
My comment means a Dictatorship, by definition, isn’t left wing.
How do you define extremist? It used to be an extremist view to say women should have the right to vote, or people shouldn’t own slaves. Hell, Democracy used to be an “extremist” view.
So someone willing to kill in the name of an ideology is an extremist, but that’s the easy extreme case. In general in modern democracies, no politician would admit to that, so the definition is rather relative to how far the political positions of a party are from the average of the last governing parties for a specific country.
So you’re highlighting the fact that extremists will kill people in the name of their ideology, and you define extremists as people who will to kill for their ideology. Sounds pretty tautological no?
You’re confusing tautology with just writing the same definition in two different orders.
A square has four sides of equal length. Four sides of equal length length make a square. That’s not a tautology.
Okay, so you’re highlighting the fact that a square has four sides of equal length. Seems rather pointless, no?
deleted by creator
Agree with your last sentence but it is the path all the Marxist revolutions have taken. A reason being that proletariat dictatorship is a step to communism in Marx’s ideology. But from history, it seems it just stops at the dictatorship.
So maybe the conclusion is that Marx methodology doesn’t actually lead to a progressive/left country.
deleted by creator
The Uyghur genocide would be the most recent.
I wouldn’t call that leftist, but more authoritarian.
That said, do a subset of leftists have the weirdest obsession for defending it because they somehow view China as leftist? Yes.
They’re not mutually exclusive. To give another example, Cuba is unquestionably leftist but it’s also a dictatorship.
deleted by creator