Work Reform

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 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.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 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.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 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.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 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

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 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."