One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another.
A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn’t believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations.
The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone’s broader political beliefs.
That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one’s worldview.
AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture.
You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn’t tell you whether it’s a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist.
Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they’re describing.
Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer.
Nice try, but you’re trying to flip the script. I pointed out that YOU conflated Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy while trying to say that Democratic Socialists aren’t really Socialists.
I pointed that out to you, and now you’re trying to say “Oh haha, you’re saying there aren’t nuances, hahhaha.”
No, your whole spiel was a red herring designed to deflect from the original fact that you were wrong and I pointed it out, and now you’re trying to put words in my mouth as if I made the incorrect argument that in fact it was you who made?
I never said AOC wasn’t a Democratic Socialist. I said that her being a Democratic Socialist does not mean that she isn’t still a Socialist. And no amount of word play and twisted argumentation style will deflect from that.
At this point I don’t even think you know what the hell you’re talking about you just like socialism for reasons you can’t even state.
We haven’t even discussed the merits of Socialism, so it’s laughable that you would claim I “can’t even state” why I like it. And I’m not about to sit here and try to justify socialism to you, because that’s not what this conversation is about, and that’s another attempt by you to insert a red herring to deflect the conversation away from why you were wrong to begin with. And I’m not taking the bait.
AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture.
I clearly said that she is a socialist. I also said that she is a Democrat.
How can I be wrong when I explicitly said that she is a socialist?
And stop using logical fallacies. You’re unable to identify them or use them properly. You hardly even read what I said, formed the conclusion that best suited what you wanted to believe, and then ran with it with a level of overconfidence that a flat-earther would be jealous of.
So let me clarify: AOC is a socialist. Full stop. Understand? Do I have to spell it out even further?
AOC IS A SOCIALIST.
She is specifically a Democratic Socialist. Are you catching that, or are you going to tell me I’m wrong about that too? Maybe you’d like to find another logical fallacy to throw around. A Motte-and-Bailey? No True Scotsman?
Dude. You keep trying to deflect to save face from the fact that I called you out for incorrectly equating Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. That makes everything else you’re saying a red herring. I’m not using logical fallacies incorrectly. It’s a red herring, and you keep deflecting.
It’s not a good look. It would be more honorable to just say “You know what, you’re right, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are different things. I was wrong to try equating them.” But no, you don’t seem capable of admitting that.
So you go on multiple tirades where you spit out correct information that’s irrelevant to the discussion, as if you can then flip it around and act like I’m arguing against that instead of pointing out why you were wrong originally. And I keep telling you “Stop deflecting, that’s not what this argument is about.” And you keep doing it.
It’s like you said “ACDFGE” and I said “No, it’s ABCDEFG.” So then you respond with “But HIJKLMNO!” And I said “We’re not talking about HIJKLMNO, we’re talking about ABCDEFG.”
So you go “I SAID ‘HIJKLMNO’. Jay-zuss, you do not know what you’re talking about. I can’t believe you think HIJKLMNO is wrong.”
And I keep bringing it back by saying “This conversation is not about HIJKLMNO, and I never said HIJKLMNO is not correct. I said stop deflecting, because you said ‘ACDFGE’ and I called you out on it and said that’s wrong and you’ve been deflecting ever since.”
So what you’re doing is in fact also a motte-and-bailey. Nice job calling yourself out like that.
Oh my God! You have to be stupid, right? You have to be. The whole point of the disclaimer and infographic I showed you was to demonstrate that social democracy and democratic socialism are different things.
That is exactly what I’m saying. And a red herring isn’t a fish, you clearly have no idea what the term means. I have neither demonstrated nor used a red herring. Stop accusing me of using logical fallacies when you don’t even understand what they mean.
Moreover, I have explicitly admitted that AOC is a democratic socialist, and that she can also accurately be described separately as a Democrat and as a socialist. Are you actually disagreeing with that, or are you going to call this a logical fallacy as well?
And oh my god dude, you don’t know what a Motte and Bailey is.
A red herring is a logical fallacy where someone introduces an irrelevant topic or argument to distract from the original issue rather than addressing it directly.
Example:
Person A: “You didn’t answer my question about why you lied.”
Person B: “Well, you lied to me last year!”
Person B’s response is a red herring because whether Person A lied previously doesn’t answer the question of whether Person B lied now.
I’m the one who’s stupid? I just broke it down for you plain as day and you’re still doing the exact same thing I called you out on.
The whole point of the disclaimer and infographic I showed you was to demonstrate that social democracy and democratic socialism are different things.
That was after I originally called you out on conflating them, which you only posted in response to being corrected, yet without admitting that you had been wrong in the first place. And by the way, the infographic itself was flawed, which I pointed out, and you refused to address.
And a red herring isn’t a fish, you clearly have no idea what the term means.
Actually it is a fish. It refers to a bloody herring that hunters used to use to train their hounds to ignore irrelevant scents that might distract them from their game trail.
And I explained to you exactly how and why what you’re doing is a red herring. Accusing me of not knowing what it means as logical fallacy isn’t going to help you.
I have neither demonstrated nor used a red herring.
Yes you have.
Stop accusing me of using logical fallacies when you don’t even understand what they mean.
Clearly I understand them better than you do. And no, I won’t stop calling you out on them as long as you keep using them. You’re not very good at formulating rational arguments if your only response is “stop calling out my fallacies!”
Moreover, I have explicitly admitted that AOC is a democratic socialist, and that she can also accurately be described separately as a Democrat and as a socialist. Are you actually disagreeing with that, or are you going to call this a logical fallacy as well?
“HIJKLMNO!”
No, I never disagreed with that. So now you’re also making a strawman argument by accusing me of disagreeing with this correct yet irrelevant fact that you inserted into the conversation to try to deflect from your original error. So yes, it is a logical fallacy. It seems most of your arguments are.
Your whole point from the beginning was smugly condescending people for referring to democratic socialists as socialists, and claiming they don’t know what they’re talking about. And to support your argument, you conflated democratic socialism with social democracy.
In other words, YOU WERE WRONG FROM THE START, and attempting to change the topic of the argument is no way to save face.
And oh my god dude, you don’t know what a Motte and Bailey is.
Yes I do, and it’s what you’re doing by attempting to change the topic of the discussion. You claimed democratic socialism and social democracy are the same things. Multiple people told you you’re wrong. So then suddenly your argument changed to “AOC is a democratic socialist.” And you started acting like anyone arguing with you must be disagreeing with that. That is a textbook motte-and-bailey.
A red herring is a logical fallacy where someone introduces an irrelevant topic or argument to distract from the original issue rather than addressing it directly.
One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another.
A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn’t believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations.
The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone’s broader political beliefs.
That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one’s worldview.
AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture.
You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn’t tell you whether it’s a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist.
Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they’re describing.
Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer.
Nice diatribe. You’re still wrong though. Attempting to distract from being wrong isn’t going to work.
Wrong about what?
That AOC is a Democratic socialist or that there are nuances and differences between Democrats, socialism and social Democrats and socialism?
At this point I don’t even think you know what the hell you’re talking about you just like socialism for reasons you can’t even state.
Nice try, but you’re trying to flip the script. I pointed out that YOU conflated Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy while trying to say that Democratic Socialists aren’t really Socialists.
I pointed that out to you, and now you’re trying to say “Oh haha, you’re saying there aren’t nuances, hahhaha.”
No, your whole spiel was a red herring designed to deflect from the original fact that you were wrong and I pointed it out, and now you’re trying to put words in my mouth as if I made the incorrect argument that in fact it was you who made?
I never said AOC wasn’t a Democratic Socialist. I said that her being a Democratic Socialist does not mean that she isn’t still a Socialist. And no amount of word play and twisted argumentation style will deflect from that.
We haven’t even discussed the merits of Socialism, so it’s laughable that you would claim I “can’t even state” why I like it. And I’m not about to sit here and try to justify socialism to you, because that’s not what this conversation is about, and that’s another attempt by you to insert a red herring to deflect the conversation away from why you were wrong to begin with. And I’m not taking the bait.
I clearly said that she is a socialist. I also said that she is a Democrat.
How can I be wrong when I explicitly said that she is a socialist?
And stop using logical fallacies. You’re unable to identify them or use them properly. You hardly even read what I said, formed the conclusion that best suited what you wanted to believe, and then ran with it with a level of overconfidence that a flat-earther would be jealous of.
So let me clarify: AOC is a socialist. Full stop. Understand? Do I have to spell it out even further?
AOC IS A SOCIALIST.
She is specifically a Democratic Socialist. Are you catching that, or are you going to tell me I’m wrong about that too? Maybe you’d like to find another logical fallacy to throw around. A Motte-and-Bailey? No True Scotsman?
Jesus.
Dude. You keep trying to deflect to save face from the fact that I called you out for incorrectly equating Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. That makes everything else you’re saying a red herring. I’m not using logical fallacies incorrectly. It’s a red herring, and you keep deflecting.
It’s not a good look. It would be more honorable to just say “You know what, you’re right, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are different things. I was wrong to try equating them.” But no, you don’t seem capable of admitting that.
So you go on multiple tirades where you spit out correct information that’s irrelevant to the discussion, as if you can then flip it around and act like I’m arguing against that instead of pointing out why you were wrong originally. And I keep telling you “Stop deflecting, that’s not what this argument is about.” And you keep doing it.
It’s like you said “ACDFGE” and I said “No, it’s ABCDEFG.” So then you respond with “But HIJKLMNO!” And I said “We’re not talking about HIJKLMNO, we’re talking about ABCDEFG.”
So you go “I SAID ‘HIJKLMNO’. Jay-zuss, you do not know what you’re talking about. I can’t believe you think HIJKLMNO is wrong.”
And I keep bringing it back by saying “This conversation is not about HIJKLMNO, and I never said HIJKLMNO is not correct. I said stop deflecting, because you said ‘ACDFGE’ and I called you out on it and said that’s wrong and you’ve been deflecting ever since.”
So what you’re doing is in fact also a motte-and-bailey. Nice job calling yourself out like that.
Oh my God! You have to be stupid, right? You have to be. The whole point of the disclaimer and infographic I showed you was to demonstrate that social democracy and democratic socialism are different things.
That is exactly what I’m saying. And a red herring isn’t a fish, you clearly have no idea what the term means. I have neither demonstrated nor used a red herring. Stop accusing me of using logical fallacies when you don’t even understand what they mean.
Moreover, I have explicitly admitted that AOC is a democratic socialist, and that she can also accurately be described separately as a Democrat and as a socialist. Are you actually disagreeing with that, or are you going to call this a logical fallacy as well?
And oh my god dude, you don’t know what a Motte and Bailey is.
I’m the one who’s stupid? I just broke it down for you plain as day and you’re still doing the exact same thing I called you out on.
That was after I originally called you out on conflating them, which you only posted in response to being corrected, yet without admitting that you had been wrong in the first place. And by the way, the infographic itself was flawed, which I pointed out, and you refused to address.
Actually it is a fish. It refers to a bloody herring that hunters used to use to train their hounds to ignore irrelevant scents that might distract them from their game trail.
And I explained to you exactly how and why what you’re doing is a red herring. Accusing me of not knowing what it means as logical fallacy isn’t going to help you.
Yes you have.
Clearly I understand them better than you do. And no, I won’t stop calling you out on them as long as you keep using them. You’re not very good at formulating rational arguments if your only response is “stop calling out my fallacies!”
“HIJKLMNO!”
No, I never disagreed with that. So now you’re also making a strawman argument by accusing me of disagreeing with this correct yet irrelevant fact that you inserted into the conversation to try to deflect from your original error. So yes, it is a logical fallacy. It seems most of your arguments are.
Your whole point from the beginning was smugly condescending people for referring to democratic socialists as socialists, and claiming they don’t know what they’re talking about. And to support your argument, you conflated democratic socialism with social democracy.
In other words, YOU WERE WRONG FROM THE START, and attempting to change the topic of the argument is no way to save face.
Yes I do, and it’s what you’re doing by attempting to change the topic of the discussion. You claimed democratic socialism and social democracy are the same things. Multiple people told you you’re wrong. So then suddenly your argument changed to “AOC is a democratic socialist.” And you started acting like anyone arguing with you must be disagreeing with that. That is a textbook motte-and-bailey.
That’s exactly what you’ve been doing.