[CLOSED] FediLore &#43; Fedidrama

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

Is a literal and direct quote. Holy fuck. Are you this detached from reality?

Did I deny they're an anarchist? I said you claimed it, because I didn't know this person. Then I checked and adjusted my statements. Any more uncharitable shit you have to throw?

You literally discarded the example of an anarchist I gave to you when asked because they didn't fit your preconception of what an anarchist is

EDIT:

"No TRUE Scotsman"

This doesn't argue the way you think it argues. But it is very funny.

"Every principled anarchist with years of experience in the movement is a tankie and a fascist, but this baby anarchist right here that happens to agree with me, is the true anarchist!"

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Did I deny they’re an anarchist?

but the one person (you claim is an anarchist) that hangs out with goat all the time, is gone. Figures.

"I didn't say it, I implied it."

So THAT'S what a weasel sounds like! I always wondered.

Then I checked and adjusted my statements.

By 'adjusted' you mean 'rejected them as irrelevant'

But according to you, that's not 'discarded', because you lack a basic understanding of the English language or any of the words you use. That, presumably, is why you think anarchism means supporting genocide and fasicsm.

This doesn’t argue the way you think it argues.

Oh, how ironic.

No True Scotsman is about refining a claim ex post facto after its been disproven. From "No Scotsman" to "No TRUE Scotsman"

Or here, "No anarchist" to "No EXPERIENCED anarchist". Not that that's true either, but it shows where your mindset is.

Sorry that your understanding of logical fallacies is as meagre as your understanding of history, politics, and the English language itself.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

"I didn't say it, I implied it."

That's your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.

By 'adjusted' you mean 'rejected them as irrelevant'

Also not what I did or said. But do feel free to uncharitably read what you want out of my sentences, nothing I say seems to stop you from that practice.

Or here, "No anarchist" to "No EXPERIENCED anarchist"

No mate, I didn't reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[+] PugJesus@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

That’s your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.

Sorry that you find a basic reading of what you wrote to be 'uncharitable', I understand it's tied up with your own struggles with basic English.

Also not what I did or said.

This you, fascist?

but the one person (you claim is an anarchist) that hangs out with goat all the time, is gone. Figures.

No mate, I didn’t reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.

You asked me to name a single anarchist I talked to. I did so. You then rejected them as irrelevant, and then denied that rejecting them as irrelevant was 'discarding' them in context. Sorry that you didn't understand your own request? Like, holy fuck. Do you work at being this bad at basic communication, or does it just come naturally once you start simping for fascists and playing apologist for genocide?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

disengage

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] PugJesus@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago*

Why? Because you think that you shouldn't be called out for supporting Holodomor denial, making not just bad faith arguments, but shitty and easily disproven bad faith arguments (I note that you didn't actually understand the refutation of your claim about No True Scotsman, instead trying to link it to identity instead of the refinement of a disproven argument's claim), and simping for fascist coup attempts as some bizarre form of anarchism against revisionist neolibs like Rosa Luxemburg?