That’s how democracy is supposed to work. You’re supposed to stand by your principles and vote for whoever thinks represents you best. Voting for the lesser of evils a divide and conquer tactic by the duopoly
Marxists are worse than fascists. Just as evil, just as retarded, just as violent, just as hateful. A failed murderous ideology has no place in modern times and it will never happen. You will never be a revolutionary and you will never, ever come to poewr… and for good reason too. All you can and ever will do is larp on the internet while swimming in a sea of willful ignorance. I, like most people, am glad that is the case.
This quote is from 2008… that’s 15 years ago. Back then calling them aboriginals was a politically correct term. This “first nation”/“first Canadian” trend is incredibly recent and it still isn’t widely accepted.
China barely produces hardware, unless someone is specifically buying a product from a Chinese company. A lot of hardware isn’t even manufactured in China anymore, let alone designed and engineered.
Seethe and cope trash
Lol it’s funny how racists are always either Fascist or Marxist. Let me guess you’re scum who’s dumb enough to follow one of these failed murderous ideologies
This is a brain dead take because it’s just guilt by association. Having diplomatic relations with countries around the world doesn’t mean that you endorse or support their government. A country that’s ruled by a shitty ideology like Fascism or Marxism is something to be weary of, but these countries do in fact exist and they do play a role in global politics and economics. For example, the UAE and Israel normalizing relations doesn’t mean that they support each other, but they recognize each other’s influence and understand that diplomacy and cooperation is more beneficial and productive than shunning each other.
I mean we tried to sanction, shun, and ignore authoritarian countries like Cuba and North Korea for decades… How has that worked out for us? My point is that we can’t cut relations with every country we don’t like. There are situations where that should be the case and there are definitely arguments for us to be more cautious when dealing with these types of regimes, but we can’t cut ourselves off from the vast majority of the world (which is authoritarian) nor can we force countries to adopt our ways (we tried with Iraq and Afghanistan, it didn’t work).
Calling something Fascist when it is very clearly and objectively not Fascist does not actually make it Fascist. The West isn’t Fascist. The point he was trying to make is that people like you have a world of view so narrow and ignorant that you don’t understand what Fascism is, hence the incorrect usage. A country like Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan are Fascist, a country like Germany or the Netherlands are not.
Hi I’m a vegan non binary athiest who uses arch… W… Wait, please don’t leave me! I haven’t told you that I crossfit 3 times a week. WAIT, don’t start running, I haven’t fully showed you how empty and insufferable my personality… Awww, and they’re gone. Oh well, I guess I’ll go tell my neighbor about my vinyl collection again
I don’t need to imagine, it’s well known where this type of propaganda is coming from:
This is the peak of your intelligence. This is as far as it goes. I don’t think you’re capable of producing anything of value. This certainly explains why you’re a brain dead Marxist, but it also shows that you’re a waste of time.
The only people who feel threatned by others calling out fallacies are the ones who know they’re disingenuous but still act in bad faith anyway.
Marxism is so easy to destroy, but the reality is that modern day Marxism literally cannot exist without fallacies and propaganda. The ideology is so shallow that it can’t stand on its own merits.
You clearly don’t understand what the fallacy is if you’re actually dumb enough to post an article to try and justify it. Here’s a quick run down for your own benefit. Whataboutism is the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse (This is the Merriam Webster definition). There are three reasons why this is fallacious:
The “what about” part is irrelevant to the original statement or argument. By dismissing the original point and entirely focusing entirely on the “what about” part, the person gets to use the “what about” as misdirection to avoid directly addressing what was already said. If you know your fallacies well, you would know that this sounds eerily familiar to the red herring fallacy. Not exactly the same, but very close.
It implies that because entity B did something just as bad or worse, that justifies entity A doing the same thing… when that’s not the case. If I stole a bike three years 3 years ago, that doesn’t justify you stealing a bike now. You criticizing me for stealing the bike 3 years ago doesn’t make your criticism wrong even if you stole a bike this morning, but it also doesn’t justify you stealing the bike. The point is that both actions are wrong, each entity is responisble for it’s own actions. One doesn’t justify, excuse, or negate the other.
The whataboutism fallacy is a variant of the Tu Quouque fallacy (that’s not a bonus, that’s literally what it is) which is a subsection of the ad hominem argument. An ad hom becomes fallacious when an a character attack is used in place of an actual argument. Which is what happens with whataboutism. The person using it is replacing an actual argument with a charged accusation of hypocrisy and nothing more, which is basically just a character attack.
In this case, the OP of this comment thread made a hypothetical scenario poking fun at the authoritarianism, poor working conditions, and the corruption that is so often found in socialist states. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but if you want to make rebuttal against it, you have to actually address it. The second commenter in this thread did not address it. Instead he brought up a random point about American companies promoting lead. Not only is his comment an irrelevant non-sequitur, but it doesn’t disprove the point that OP was trying to make. That second commenter is clearly a Marxist who got offended by the point that the OP made, and so he quickly resorted to the “what about the US” fallback tactic to both avoid addressing the point that was actually made and to pull a weak “gotcha”. It’s the ol’ classic “oh yeah? but look at the US is bad therefore Marxism is good/not as bad/excused/justified in doing shitty thing”. It’s inconsistent logic.
Then again, Marxism is truly a brain dead ideology. Without propaganda about the US, the entire school of thought would collapse. What is there left to a firmly failed ideology that failed in both theory and practice? Nothing.
I like how tankies conveniently forget that Marxism is just as authoritarian, just as evil, just as violent, and just as failed (in both theory and practice) as fascism. Actually, Marxism has a greater death toll than fascism. It is the ideology of scum. Tankies and neo nazis are the same level of insufferable trash.
Economic freedom is literally what defines socialism and capitalism. Pure socialism is when you have a fully planned economy and pure capitalism is when you have a fully private economy. Obviously neither extreme works, but when you actually look at the data, you’ll notice that there’s a pretty strong correlation between freedom, prosperity, and happiness and economic freedom. The more economically free countries are the best performing ones.
Also the US is not the most capitalist country nor is it the standard of capitalism. There are plenty of other countries with that are just as, if not more capitalist. Even then, the US is still a very free, prosperous, and happy country. It is objectively very well developed and well performing, even if it isn’t the best preforming capitalist country or liberal democracy. This idea that the US is the definition of capitalism or that the US is a “soon to be collapsedTM” third world country literally stems from Soviet propaganda (which was inherited by modern Russia and China).
I propose that political officers be sent to these psychics randomly. The officers would sit down with these plebs and ask them to read their futures. If they don’t guess that they’re going to get beat up, then they’re going to get beat up for being frauds. The ones who know what’s coming to them, will still get beat up, but lightly, and they will be asked nicely to contribute something more meaningful to society… or else.
imagine being dumb enough to be a Marxist in the 21st century.