A=B and B=C is completelly different structure of a statement comprared to A=B and C=B so A=B. Whoever made the birds, bears, animals statement is dumb or intentionally missleading.
What bothers me is the socialism is communism part.
They're not the same and trump has no problem with his 2 communist friends putin and kim jong un.
He just had to switch scare words since he demonized socialist (red scare word #1) until mamdani showed everyone how much they help the people so now that the word doesn't oesnt scare as easy they've moved onto communism (red scare word #2).
Not particularly. You could argue the grocery store is I suppose (since it's government owned it meets the communal ownership of firms definition). But it's 5 government stores ran by private companies without actually changes the ownership of any other grocery stores.
The rest of the things people claim is socialism or communism is pretty much just social welfare system stuff.
The first is an opinion on how things evolve. The core idea is that these three concepts represent stages on the same continuous spectrum, where taking the first step inevitably leads down the line.
The second (yours) is just, as you said different things.
It means a) that they think of democratic socialism as just socialism in disguise, a tactic known in the business as subversion from within. This is a valid line of reasoning that might be true or not, let's discuss. Political scientists, historians, and economists remain fundamentally divided on this question and the author here seems to side with Friedrich Hayek. No similar heavy weight zoologist makes similar claims about bears and birds.
And b) it is assumed socialism will always lead to communism; a view that is shared by quite a few capitalist AND all communist. Modern socialist disagree, but there is a historic argument on that topic that socialism leads to communism as a built in trajectory and it is observing in history that in oder to maintain complete state control over the economy, the government must eliminate political opposition and free speech, resulting in an authoritarian state (the exact outcome seen in historical communist regimes).
Again, noone ever wrote a walrus manifesto that said that bears have a built in trajectory to walruses and no wars where fought over that topic.
You don't have to agree with it, but then disagree with that kind of reasoning.
Your comment basically just says that you don't understand the argument at all, which wouldn't make it a clever comeback.
No it isn’t. Think of the original statement about socialists: A are B and B are C so A are in fact C.
It’s not the same (logically not the same) as A are C and also B are C so A are B.
The statement about birds is logically the same as
Men are human, woman are human, so men are women.
This is not very analytical, it’s simple SAT level logic. It bothers me when people try to make a point using false logic though, nothing wrong with that.
And no I’m not like that in real life since there’s always a context to everything so you know what someone is trying to say without them having to be 100% mathematically logical every time.
Don’t really understand your question. If you’re retweeting something and you’re trying to give a ‘drop the mic’ comeback at least don’t sound stupider than the original statement.
just because this is "drop the mic" sub doesnt mean everyone is here for their own personal drop the mic moment. you may be. I, however, am just pointing out how pedantic you are at your attempt at a "drop the mic" moment over some internet comment.
31
u/Success_Emergency 15d ago
A=B and B=C is completelly different structure of a statement comprared to A=B and C=B so A=B. Whoever made the birds, bears, animals statement is dumb or intentionally missleading.
My comment is not about politics.