don't make me tap the sign
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
on the other hand, your post advocates for fascism and eugenics
Says the fash who thinks that most people support eugenics.
buddy i'm not the one making posts in support of fascism
how did they know the light turned off when they closed the door if the door was clsoed
literally deploying the "i'm rubber you're glue" defense to protect your pro-fascism, pro-eugenics meme
this is what projection looks like
actual brainrot
also, people willingly vote for fascism all the time so long as it isn't called "fascism" so this post supports fascism too good job
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
wow you did the thing well done
you made a bad argument, it's okay
if your argument was good you wouldn't be working so hard to avoid defending it like you are
All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty
i feel like everything's "easy to understand" if you assume infinite time to explain it, but for the sake of argument, let's agree that these in fact "easy to understand"
in which case, the ideas behind pre-natal scanning and graduate family stimulus are also easy to understand, so we haven't really moved anywhere.
this post still doesn't make any case for marxist ideals being sound other than "people like them when they hear them without the label". which i'm arguing (via the use of the provided two examples) is also true for eugenics.
and if "people like the ideas when they hear them without the label" is justification for ideas being good, then eugenics must be good, but we know eugenics isn't good, so it's not a good justification
so the post doesn't make a good argument for marxism being good
and we already know the post is attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good, because you already acknowledged it's making the case that "people have a negative connotations about marxism", and combined with the point about nazis from earlier you enjoyed so much, that's sufficient to show that it's attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good
Ah, "the trains ran on time." We both know that's not Nazism.
what are you talking about? why are you trying to bring nazis into everything now?
(also, "trains ran on time" is mussolini, who was a fascist, not a nazi)
I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?
i didn't and i've already clarified that?
i'm not sure what more there is to say on this
What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off?
if you're referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don't think you can reasonably refer to as "easy to understand"
"philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism" also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand
also, marx didn't invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect
the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to "exorcise" the idea from the continent at the time
Yes, people generally don't agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.
nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that's news to me
i wouldn't say you're working particularly hard given that all you've done is issue a blanket "no", and cowbee seems to be coming at the problem from the angle that i'm secretly the ghost of joseph mccarthy
i've given you two examples where i think most people would agree with the concepts of eugenics before being told it's eugenics, and so far nobody's disagreed with them? what's your issue? that you don't think most people would agree with them, or that you don't think that that fact draws enough of a parallel between eugenics and the post?
logic seems pretty clear and laid out to me but you do you, pal
No, it was brought up to draw equivalence to Marxism, don't play coy.
cool ur jets buddy
it wasn't, and doesn't even really make sense when read through that lens
what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?
No, Marxism is popular, it's just sold as different names.
that's describing the same sentiment i just expressed using different words
Is there some other kind we need to worry about here that's hard to understand?
honestly the term "marxism" is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as "in-scope" is kind of non-trivial
are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx's work?
what definition are you using?
No, you pretended the average person would.
i'm fairly confused what you're trying to say here
are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don't think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?
*taps the sign*
Donald Trump, a fascist, is currently polling about equally with his opponent, who is not a fascist, because while his policies are fascist, he isn't describing them as such. People are willingly voting for them because they think they're a good idea.
If he campaigned on "I am a fascist", he would not be polling equally with his opponent.
Please explain how these two ideas put together aren't an example of what you advocate for in your post.
You'll also notice that me referencing polling figures doesn't mean that I agree with the outcome of polling. Absolutely shocking that I need to make this clarification, but there we go, I suppose.
Or, you know, continue desperately avoiding making an actual argument because of how obvious it is that you accidentally made a pro-fascism, pro-eugenics post and for some reason can't accept that fact.