6 ms·

> A lot of people want to look at Venezuela as a place that used to be a progressive country with a strong welfare state, and now it's a broke regime. But it's

> A lot of people want to look at Venezuela as a place that used to be a progressive country with a strong welfare state, and now it's a broke regime. But it's easier to understand that they never were a progressive country Don't you mean they never were a true scotsman?

ivraatiems 8y ago
It's not enough to just point out a possible fallacy. What's your contention as to why the statement "Venezuela was never actually a progressive country" is inaccurate? The parent comment asserts 1) that progressive countries must have a pluralistic division of power, 2) that Venezuela didn't, 3) therefore, Venezuela was not actually a progressive country, even if it appears to be. Which of those assertions are you challenging?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > It's not enough to just point out a possible fallacy. What's your contention as to why the statement "Venezuela was never actually a progressive country" is inaccurate? My contention is that the original argument is absurd and is just a blatant attempt to whitewash yet another humanitarian disaster caused by a socialist dictatorship. Any argument on how Chavez/Maduro's dictatorship is not a true scotsman/socialist regime is entirely irrelevant as the dictator of Venezuela, who is also the president of Venezuela's Socialist Party, is very open to any of the many socialist reforms and revolutions that he himself announces repeatedly in his struggle to advance socialism in Venezuela. And faced with all those indisputable facts, you're trying to argue whether he is a true scotsman.
  - ivraatiems 8y ago
    > Any argument on how Chavez/Maduro's dictatorship is not a true scotsman/socialist regime is entirely irrelevant as the dictator of Venezuela, who is also the president of Venezuela's Socialist Party, is very open to any of the many socialist reforms and revolutions that he himself announces repeatedly in his struggle to advance socialism in Venezuela. I'm not sure I follow this sentence at all. Yes, Chavez calls himself a socialist and has in the past advocated socialist programs (though not so much currently). That doesn't have any effect on whether Venezuela is actually a "progressive country," "progressive" and "socialist" not being synonymous terms. And, again, you ignore the grandparent's contention that in order for a country to truly be considered progressive, it has to have features Venezuela doesn't have. It does matter, because that's the core of the original post's argument as I understand it. That is, Venezuela might be somewhat socialist insofar as it has - or has had in the past - some socialist policies, but representing it as an example of a socialist country is incorrect in the same way that representing the US as a socialist country because we have Medicare is inaccurate. (I'd define "socialist" countries which are also "progressive" as being places like Canada, the UK, Norway, France, Japan etc.) > My contention is that the original argument is absurd and is just a blatant attempt to whitewash yet another humanitarian disaster caused by a socialist dictatorship. What's being whitewashed? Nobody is arguing that Venezuela is not a dictatorship, or that there is no disaster going on. What I'm arguing is that categorizing a country as something just because the leaders of that country would like us to do so doesn't make much sense. Venezuela appeared progressive, and it had many actual socialist policies (again, non-synonymous terms), but most of those policies backslid and whatever it appeared as or wants to be considered now, we can all see it for what it is. It's not "no true scotsman" to point out that something actually doesn't meet the criteria of a certain definition.

ivraatiems 8y ago

It's not enough to just point out a possible fallacy. What's your contention as to why the statement "Venezuela was never actually a progressive country" is inaccurate? The parent comment asserts 1) that progressive countries must have a pluralistic division of power, 2) that Venezuela didn't, 3) therefore, Venezuela was not actually a progressive country, even if it appears to be. Which of those assertions are you challenging?

geezerjay 8y ago
> It's not enough to just point out a possible fallacy. What's your contention as to why the statement "Venezuela was never actually a progressive country" is inaccurate? My contention is that the original argument is absurd and is just a blatant attempt to whitewash yet another humanitarian disaster caused by a socialist dictatorship. Any argument on how Chavez/Maduro's dictatorship is not a true scotsman/socialist regime is entirely irrelevant as the dictator of Venezuela, who is also the president of Venezuela's Socialist Party, is very open to any of the many socialist reforms and revolutions that he himself announces repeatedly in his struggle to advance socialism in Venezuela. And faced with all those indisputable facts, you're trying to argue whether he is a true scotsman.
- ivraatiems 8y ago
  > Any argument on how Chavez/Maduro's dictatorship is not a true scotsman/socialist regime is entirely irrelevant as the dictator of Venezuela, who is also the president of Venezuela's Socialist Party, is very open to any of the many socialist reforms and revolutions that he himself announces repeatedly in his struggle to advance socialism in Venezuela. I'm not sure I follow this sentence at all. Yes, Chavez calls himself a socialist and has in the past advocated socialist programs (though not so much currently). That doesn't have any effect on whether Venezuela is actually a "progressive country," "progressive" and "socialist" not being synonymous terms. And, again, you ignore the grandparent's contention that in order for a country to truly be considered progressive, it has to have features Venezuela doesn't have. It does matter, because that's the core of the original post's argument as I understand it. That is, Venezuela might be somewhat socialist insofar as it has - or has had in the past - some socialist policies, but representing it as an example of a socialist country is incorrect in the same way that representing the US as a socialist country because we have Medicare is inaccurate. (I'd define "socialist" countries which are also "progressive" as being places like Canada, the UK, Norway, France, Japan etc.) > My contention is that the original argument is absurd and is just a blatant attempt to whitewash yet another humanitarian disaster caused by a socialist dictatorship. What's being whitewashed? Nobody is arguing that Venezuela is not a dictatorship, or that there is no disaster going on. What I'm arguing is that categorizing a country as something just because the leaders of that country would like us to do so doesn't make much sense. Venezuela appeared progressive, and it had many actual socialist policies (again, non-synonymous terms), but most of those policies backslid and whatever it appeared as or wants to be considered now, we can all see it for what it is. It's not "no true scotsman" to point out that something actually doesn't meet the criteria of a certain definition.