ranting: noun
a long, angry, and impassioned speech. “at times, his rantings would become incoherent”
adjective
speaking at length in an angry and impassioned way.
I’m more familiar with the definition that includes the length of the speech. If you were using a definition that only refers to the energy, then I wouldn’t call it hyperbole.
Calling it ranting is hyperbole, but but he did randomly start talking about immigrants murdering women when answering the question about abortion.
Well you see, when a capitalist and a politician love eachother money very much, they engage in an act of love collusion. This gets both of them very much money. So much in fact, that they couldn’t possibly hold on to all of it. And the money that falls out of their pocket trickles down to every one! Thus, products are improved, and everyone gets their needs met!
This is the free market in action, and anyone who disagrees is a dirty Commie!
Not if you want to apply the “we are not the same meme” format. That… Like a sith… Only deals in absolutes.
1 vegetarian baby or?
I see no evidence that Biden has anything to gain from appeasing the left.
I would argue that failing to realize how large of a voting bloc the left is was a large part of what got us Trump in the first place. Moderates weren’t enough to push Hillary through in 2016, and Dems made sure to send a strong “we don’t need or care about you” message to the left.
If you want people to agree with you then you need to convince them that sharing your point of view benefits them.
I fully agree with this, but here is the thing. The Dems aren’t arguing that their point of view benefits the Left. They are arguing Republicans will be worse. Which is true, but saying I have to pay you $20 so your asshole friend doesn’t beat me up and take my wallet isn’t a benefit to me. It’s extortion.
I will be voting for Biden, being extorted is a less terrible option in the short run after all. But I won’t be surprised if the Dems “We are less awful” strategy doesn’t woo enough voters. And the Dems will have only themselves to blame. Because just like you said, if you want people to agree with you, you have to show them the benefit.
I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance
Smfh, so then you didn’t read what they said, since they specifically said:
I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem.
And given that Whataboutism is a tactic to discredit the severity of an accusation by pointing to similar or worse behaviors by others, this not only isn’t “textbook Whataboutism”, it’s not Whataboutism at all. Their point was that the scope of the issue exceeds TikTok, and as such, attempts to solve the issue by focusing on TikTok are either misguided or of suspect intent.
In no way did they try to make the point that what TikTok does is okay, nor did they claim that TikTok wasn’t censoring content. I’d accuse you of trying to strawman their argument, but you just flat made up a different argument and pretended that was theirs instead.
They are saying the forest is on fire, and you are accusing them of Whataboutism because they aren’t focusing on your favorite tree.
Fuck dude… Really??? Did you even read what they said?
Yeah, always make assumptions. They make conversations faster.
It is interesting that in this economy which is intentionally managed to create a shortage of jobs and to lower wages, that employees are expected to betray the public trust and even engage in illegal activity at the behest of their employers just to stay employed, and that some of us might find this as an acceptable state of affairs. And yes, when business goes sour for the company, those employees will be discarded with no additional acknowledgment for their loyalty.
I fully agree with the point you are making here. It’s a fucked up system with a whole mess of badly designed incentives that cause people to be shitty to each other.
My only disagreement is with your willingness to condemn innocent people who lost their jobs over the actions of a few. I worked for GeekSquad, data privacy violations were not only a fireable offense but also something those I worked with prided themselves on protecting. All of my coworkers were privacy advocates and enthusiasts who did not go digging through anyone’s personal data. Rather, oftentimes they would try to help clients be more informed, even risking their own job stability when doing so lost sales.
There are good folks who didn’t deserve to lose their jobs, were not guilty of the actions you are upset over, and don’t deserve people callously implying they deserved it.
Yes, a handful of BestBuy employees accepted payments from the FBI to report on CP found on a customers device. So let’s all feel good about underpaid workers losing their jobs in this economy.
While the specific context and criteria may differ between the “No True Scotsman” and “No True Christian” fallacies, the underlying logical error remains the same: attempting to maintain a generalization or stereotype by selectively redefining the category to exclude inconvenient counterexamples. There is no meaningful difference. (In a somewhat ironic twist, you’ve essentially applied the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the concept itself.)
I didn’t argue that China isn’t Communist because of trivial reasons like using sugar in their coffee; rather, my point was centered on their significant presence of a private sector. Just as you emphasize that democracy necessitates “free and democratic elections,” I similarly emphasize that Communism entails certain defining characteristics. The absence of private industry serves as a clear benchmark, not a moving target or an impossible standard, but a fixed criterion. Despite whatever label the controlling party in China holds, they fall short of meeting this criterion.
In essence, you’re basing your argument on a false premise. Your definition of Communism holds as much weight as North Korea’s definition of Democracy. While you allow Democracy to define itself based on its ideology, you insist on defining Communism based on the actions of its deceitful actors.
Not at all. My statement simply pointed out a common mistake many people make when misusing the “No True Scotsman” or “appeal to purity” fallacy, as you did. This fallacy occurs when there is no clear, objective definition available, or when someone dismisses a valid counterexample.
That’s why, since you have a clear definition in mind of what a Democratic Republic is, you immediately recognized the misuse of the term in North Korea’s case, and thus wouldn’t argue that stating it isn’t truly a Democratic Republic constitutes a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The same reasoning applies to China and Communism.
Communism is a political, social, and economic ideology advocating for the replacement of private ownership and profit-based economies with a classless system of communal ownership. However, China has actively promoted private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, fostering the growth of a private sector. Therefore, China cannot be considered Communist.
The definition of Communism can be tested and evaluated. China’s policies diverge from this definable concept, thus it doesn’t fall under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Edit: I just read further down, and realized you actually believe the only criteria for being part of a group is calling yourself as such.
“If you call yourself a communist, you must be a communist”
In a way yes… accept it as communism despite the failures of actually living up to the ideals.
So… yeah, you honestly just don’t understand the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. But you do have a fun definition, by which the claim that North Korea is a Democratic Republic is affirmed. After all, if you call yourself a Democratic Republic, “in a way yes” you are.
I hear ya man. It really gets my goat when people say the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea isn’t a Democratic Republic. Like, it’s right there in the name.
That’s weird, I blame the people committing and/or supporting the Genocide. But I guess making a strawman out of Progressives behavior is another option.
lol, holy shit… I can’t believe I didn’t notice that.
So I apparently have too much free time and wanted to check. So I asked ChatGPT how long the border was exactly, and it could only get an approximate guess, and it had to search using Bing to confirm.
Nobody drives in the city, there’s too much traffic.
Shit, I’ll jump on the band wagon.
Why do the Control Panel, Device Manager, and Properties windows stay bright white when I turn on Dark Mode?
oh… you weren’t suggesting we actually do that… my bad. I’ll see myself out.
edit: tough crowd
Fun fact, Trump ran for the Reform Party nomination, which eventually went to Pat Buchanan, back in 2000.