Caring about these bench marks is how you find one to last another 12 years.

Lemmy user TachyonTele SLAMS news outlets for their unwanted hyperbole!!!

I did just that… and now I spend the same amount of time browsing Lemmy on Firefox…

Though there was like 4 days where I cut down…

So if a cheater wins hard enough, it can be called “fair and square”? Not sure what specifics could get me on board with that.

Perhaps, but with all of the voter suppression and election rigging that has been done by the Republicans, can you really say he won “fair and square” at this point?

Your not wrong, though that kinda re-enforces my point. What would it take to convince a society to abandon an inherently unethical economic system?

This will be something of a unhelpful and unpopular answer, by you probably can’t.

What would convince you to stop eating meat from factory farms? What would convince you to only buy electronics from completely ethically sourced companies? What would convince you to only eat healthy nutritional food? To exercise regularly? So on and so forth?

There are many good and important, but inconvenient, things to do. But for most folks, the first step is wanting to. If he doesn’t, it will be an uphill battle.

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!

1 vegetarian baby or?

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.

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

What about my friend No-Arms Norman? All he can do is kick a Nazi in the ass!