1035
The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... (lemmy.today)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/workreform@lemmy.world
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 months ago (10 children)

In the US we’re not quite USSR/CCP-levels of these things yet (which are the countries anti-socialist people think of when they demonize socialism) (therefore the post is hyperbole/propaganda), but we’ve been making big leaps lately so I think this meme will be true soon. I think the much more coherent, accurate, and therefore effective facet of this is pointing out that it’s authoritarianism that does this, not socialism. We’ve had (very limited) socialism in the US for many years, and many prosperous and well-regarded-in-supposed-anti-socialist-people’s-eyes countries have more socialism than the US has.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)

    In the US we’re not quite USSR/CCP-levels

    We never are. The Foreigners are always worse.

    I think this meme will be true soon.

    I've been reading this since the Reagan Administration. It's also Big Government. It's always Authoritarianism. The remedy is always some flavor of Deregulation or States Rights or (Capitalist) Anarchism or A Return to The Constitutional Principles.

    it’s authoritarianism that does this

    Real Literal Reaganism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (8 children)

    We never are. The Foreigners are always worse.

    ??? No.

    I’ve been reading this since the Reagan Administration. It’s also Big Government. It’s always Authoritarianism. The remedy is always some flavor of Deregulation or States Rights or (Capitalist) Anarchism or A Return to The Constitutional Principles.

    I can't tell if you're asserting we're past this point or we'll never get to this point.

    Real Literal Reaganism

    I can't tell if you're asserting I'm siding with Reagan or the post is siding with Reagan, but both are hilariously off-base.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    ??? No.

    Yeah. Evil Foreigners Are Always Worse. From the Coolidge Era to the modern day, the Exotic Asian and the Angry German and the Primitive African are always and forever doing something more scary and vile than the good hearted, well-bred, noble, chivalrious, handsome (white) American.

    Any argument to the contrary is Whataboutism and can be automatically dismissed.

    I can’t tell if you’re asserting I’m siding with Reagan

    You're echoing his talking points, practically word for word.

    Reagan issued long winded diatribes about the existential threat of authoritarian government and the fundamental virtues of individualism, liberalism, and laisse-faire capitalism.

    He was surrounded by economists and pundits saying the same.

    Always and forever, we were the City on the Hill. The Beacon of Liberty and Justice for All.

    Even when we were bombing Grenada or funding nun rape in Nicaragua and the Philippines. Perhaps, especially then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    I do hope you're trolling, because it's really funny that you make a reference to Whataboutism fallacies and then immediately invoke a kind of Slippery Slope Strawman yourself.

    No, saying despotic tyrannies are bad does not mean that one must embrace laisse-faire capitalist individualism, and it's weird that you felt the need to say otherwise.

    "We must embrace the boot on our necks lest people do naughty individualist things with their liberties. Send me to the gulag next so that I may not sin."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    you make a reference to Whataboutism fallacies and then immediately invoke a kind of Slippery Slope Strawman

    You always know a guy who is fresh out of Reddit when they sound like an LLM listing off Logical Fallacies.

    No, saying despotic tyrannies are bad does not mean that one must embrace laisse-faire capitalist individualism

    Exactly! And which countries are run by despotic tyrants? Always and forever the ones we don't like.

    Send me to the gulag next

    American Gulags First!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    You always know a guy who is fresh out of Reddit when they sound like an LLM listing off Logical Fallacies.

    You're the one who brought them up first, buddy. You're the pot calling the kettle black here.

    Exactly! And which countries are run by despotic tyrants? Always and forever the ones we don’t like.

    So there's no such thing as a despotic tyrant in your mind? Those words only exist to malign benevolent heads of state?

    Pinning down what you're about is exhausting given you love to play insincere. Have some intestinal fortitude and stop retreating behind sarcasm.

    That or I can just block you. That'd probably be best for both of us, given your bad faith tactics. I personally love to have conversations with people I disagree with in order to learn, but you're obviously not so inclined, so I don't really gain much if I allow you to continue to interact with me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    So there’s no such thing as a despotic tyrant in your mind?

    Of course not. It's a very effective pejorative. Really good at polarizing people into camps. Because, if you still say you like the guy, then you're enabling tyranny. And that justifies hating the defenders of the government just as much as hating the government itself. If you start off saying you agree, then its straight on to "Well then you must be glad we flattened that guy's house and killed as many of his friends and family as possible."

    Once you tar someone with the label, you've justified their execution.

    Pinning down what you’re about is exhausting given you love to play insincere.

    I'm just tired of hearing people regurgitate ultra-nationalist propaganda. The reflexive need to point to Bad Country and dogmatically recite the prayer "At least we're not in Bad Country". Then to justify any horror inflicted abroad, by mouthing the apologia "At least we killed the Bad People. Now we'll be greeted as liberators."

    Literally nobody the US can kill that some fascist fucks on here can't massage their brains into justifying.

    That or I can just block you.

    I know you are here to block me. Block, coward, you are only going to block a man.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Of course not. It’s a very effective pejorative. Really good at polarizing people into camps. Because, if you still say you like the guy, then you’re enabling tyranny. And that justifies hating the defenders of the government just as much as hating the government itself. If you start off saying you agree, then its straight on to “Well then you must be glad we flattened that guy’s house and killed as many of his friends and family as possible.”

    So what would you call a head of state who happily and repeatedly conducts crimes against humanity and oppresses people?

    I’m just tired of hearing people regurgitate ultra-nationalist propaganda.

    Which what I said very obviously isn't.

    The reflexive need to point to Bad Country and dogmatically recite the prayer “At least we’re not in Bad Country”. Then to justify any horror inflicted abroad, by mouthing the apologia “At least we killed the Bad People. Now we’ll be greeted as liberators.”

    Which I didn't do.

    I know you are here to block me. Block, coward, you are only going to block a man.

    Blocking people who argue in bad faith is cathartic and productive in the sense that I can divert my time towards reading things written by people discussing things in good faith instead; it's an opportunity cost thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    So what would you call a head of state who happily and repeatedly conducts crimes against humanity and oppresses people?

    Really depends on who is defining "crimes against humanity".

    Which I didn’t do.

    No backing away from it now

    Blocking people who argue in bad faith is cathartic

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    Really depends on who is defining “crimes against humanity”.

    Define it however you want and answer the question. I'm sure you can come up with a definition that you find suitable, unless of course you're arguing in bad faith and refuse to take a stance on anything, which has been my suspicion for a while now that you continue to prove.

    No backing away from it now

    Yeah so you're leaning into something called a "straw man fallacy."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent