3 ms·

> But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence. yeah, but the studies have all been tampered with. so they

> But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence. yeah, but the studies have all been tampered with. so they don't tell you what you might want to know, which is the merits of communism. what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is, in the same way that failed slave rebellions don't tell you much about the merit of the rebelling slaves, they show the strength of the slave owners.

stale2002 4y ago
> what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is This is a cope unfalsifiable argument and is exactly what I am criticizing. No matter what evidence someone shows, the defense is to ignore it and say it is fake. You are engaging in exactly the problematic behavior that I was attacking, because literally no matter what evidence someone shows you, you can just ignore it. It is an invincible, unfalsifiable defense that allows someone to believe literally almost anything, because any counter evidence can just be ignored because of excuses like what you bought up. Unfalsifiable beliefs, like yours, are, almost by definition, impossible to refute and bad faith almost by definition.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  i think the problem you really have is that counterfactual conditionals are tautologies. all i've said is that the cold war did in fact happen, and it had an effect on every communist state. maybe if there was no cold war (a counterfactual), things would've been different. it's unfalsifiable like every counterfactual because you can't change history. big deal, everyone knows that and they give counterfactuals their appropriate weight. but what's the alternative? pretend the cold war didn't happen? it's also counterfactual reasoning to critique the communist countries without acknowledging that war was being waged against them. but, the cold war did happen. that's just a fact.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > but what's the alternative? The alternative is not to dismiss literally every piece of evidence, from the real world, that gets shown to you.
    - pasquinelli 4y ago
      i didn't.

stale2002 4y ago

> what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is This is a cope unfalsifiable argument and is exactly what I am criticizing. No matter what evidence someone shows, the defense is to ignore it and say it is fake. You are engaging in exactly the problematic behavior that I was attacking, because literally no matter what evidence someone shows you, you can just ignore it. It is an invincible, unfalsifiable defense that allows someone to believe literally almost anything, because any counter evidence can just be ignored because of excuses like what you bought up. Unfalsifiable beliefs, like yours, are, almost by definition, impossible to refute and bad faith almost by definition.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pasquinelli 4y ago
i think the problem you really have is that counterfactual conditionals are tautologies. all i've said is that the cold war did in fact happen, and it had an effect on every communist state. maybe if there was no cold war (a counterfactual), things would've been different. it's unfalsifiable like every counterfactual because you can't change history. big deal, everyone knows that and they give counterfactuals their appropriate weight. but what's the alternative? pretend the cold war didn't happen? it's also counterfactual reasoning to critique the communist countries without acknowledging that war was being waged against them. but, the cold war did happen. that's just a fact.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > but what's the alternative? The alternative is not to dismiss literally every piece of evidence, from the real world, that gets shown to you.
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    i didn't.