Wait… are the liberals actually surprised? Or being sarcastic? And why would liberals be either one of those?
Sometimes surprised, sometimes mad, either way anti-communists that try to pull out the Black Book of Communism are generally making the point that socialism is more lethal than capitalism, when historically it’s the opposite both in total and by ratio.
They don’t care.
Also they will claim that the death of communism is some widely agreed upon number that is corroborated by numerous organizations and sources.
In reality it is literally like the one single ‘study’ that proved the autism/vaccine connection. It came entirely from the Black Book of Communism in 1999, and all but the main author disavowed it, and despite the obsession with wanting to reach 100 million. The absolute max it could find was 94 million with a ‘most likely’ number of 64 million.
So when they give a death toll of ‘conservatively 100 million’ they are literally pulling it out of nowhere.
Liberals crying about the death toll from communism, when said made up number includes Nazis killed in the Easter theatre.
Liberals mourning nazis out of sheer ignorance seems telling
The people killed by US soldiers in vietnam war also included too. It’s messed up.
As they said, it includes Nazis
What communist country would you like to live in?
China, Cuba, Vietnam. The first two have a higher life expectancy than the US, the richest country in world history.
China in the 21st century is getting farther and farther from communism. Hell, they protected TESLA from concerned citizens. Not just a corporation, but a foreign corporation.
China is not moving away from communism. I don’t know what you’re referring to with tesla, but tesla has almost no sales in the PRC, and is considered a laughing stock. They stopped presenting at electric car shows in the PRC years ago because they’re too far behind.
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
- How the State runs business in China.
The PRC is developing further and further along in socialism. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economy, and they are regularly improving. They aren’t just capitulatory to Tesla, more often than not they control and block foreign capital from doing as it pleases.
Right now? China and Vietnam are doing pretty well.
That’s not what I asked
“What communist country would you like to live in?”
question is answered
“That’s not what I asked”
Hahahahaha!!
It was, though. What are you getting at?
You would prefer to live in one of those countries?
Kinda? I have my family here, so I’d rather my country become socialist like they are.
And we aren’t even talking about imperialism, capitalism’s highest stage.
Recent years have seen a resurgence in nostalgia for the British empire. High-profile books such as Niall Ferguson’s Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, and Bruce Gilley’s The Last Imperialist, have claimed that British colonialism brought prosperity and development to India and other colonies. Two years ago, a YouGov poll found that 32 percent of people in Britain are actively proud of the nation’s colonial history.
This rosy picture of colonialism conflicts dramatically with the historical record. According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, extreme poverty in India increased under British rule, from 23 percent in 1810 to more than 50 percent in the mid-20th century. Real wages declined during the British colonial period, reaching a nadir in the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly. Far from benefitting the Indian people, colonialism was a human tragedy with few parallels in recorded history.
Experts agree that the period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. Comprehensive population censuses carried out by the colonial regime beginning in the 1880s reveal that the death rate increased considerably during this period, from 37.2 deaths per 1,000 people in the 1880s to 44.2 in the 1910s. Life expectancy declined from 26.7 years to 21.9 years.
In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades. Robust data on mortality rates in India only exists from the 1880s. If we use this as the baseline for “normal” mortality, we find that some 50 million excess deaths occurred under the aegis of British colonialism during the period from 1891 to 1920.
Fifty million deaths is a staggering figure, and yet this is a conservative estimate. Data on real wages indicates that by 1880, living standards in colonial India had already declined dramatically from their previous levels. Allen and other scholars argue that prior to colonialism, Indian living standards may have been “on a par with the developing parts of Western Europe.” We do not know for sure what India’s pre-colonial mortality rate was, but if we assume it was similar to that of England in the 16th and 17th centuries (27.18 deaths per 1,000 people), we find that 165 million excess deaths occurred in India during the period from 1881 to 1920.
While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia.
How did British rule cause this tremendous loss of life? There were several mechanisms. For one, Britain effectively destroyed India’s manufacturing sector. Prior to colonisation, India was one of the largest industrial producers in the world, exporting high-quality textiles to all corners of the globe. The tawdry cloth produced in England simply could not compete. This began to change, however, when the British East India Company assumed control of Bengal in 1757.
According to the historian Madhusree Mukerjee, the colonial regime practically eliminated Indian tariffs, allowing British goods to flood the domestic market, but created a system of exorbitant taxes and internal duties that prevented Indians from selling cloth within their own country, let alone exporting it.
This unequal trade regime crushed Indian manufacturers and effectively de-industrialised the country. As the chairman of East India and China Association boasted to the English parliament in 1840: “This company has succeeded in converting India from a manufacturing country into a country exporting raw produce.” English manufacturers gained a tremendous advantage, while India was reduced to poverty and its people were made vulnerable to hunger and disease.
To make matters worse, British colonisers established a system of legal plunder, known to contemporaries as the “drain of wealth.” Britain taxed the Indian population and then used the revenues to buy Indian products – indigo, grain, cotton, and opium – thus obtaining these goods for free. These goods were then either consumed within Britain or re-exported abroad, with the revenues pocketed by the British state and used to finance the industrial development of Britain and its settler colonies – the United States, Canada and Australia.
This system drained India of goods worth trillions of dollars in today’s money. The British were merciless in imposing the drain, forcing India to export food even when drought or floods threatened local food security. Historians have established that tens of millions of Indians died of starvation during several considerable policy-induced famines in the late 19th century, as their resources were syphoned off to Britain and its settler colonies.
Get instant alerts and updates based on your interests. Be the first to know when big stories happen. Yes, keep me updated Colonial administrators were fully aware of the consequences of their policies. They watched as millions starved and yet they did not change course. They continued to knowingly deprive people of resources necessary for survival. The extraordinary mortality crisis of the late Victorian period was no accident. The historian Mike Davis argues that Britain’s imperial policies “were often the exact moral equivalents of bombs dropped from 18,000 feet.”
Our research finds that Britain’s exploitative policies were associated with approximately 100 million excess deaths during the 1881-1920 period. This is a straightforward case for reparations, with strong precedent in international law. Following World War II, Germany signed reparations agreements to compensate the victims of the Holocaust and more recently agreed to pay reparations to Namibia for colonial crimes perpetrated there in the early 1900s. In the wake of apartheid, South Africa paid reparations to people who had been terrorised by the white-minority government.
History cannot be changed, and the crimes of the British empire cannot be erased. But reparations can help address the legacy of deprivation and inequity that colonialism produced. It is a critical step towards justice and healing.
By Dylan Sullivan and Jason Hickel.
About two years ago, I had an argument with a random dude who was vehemently denying the fact that it was effectively Churchill and the decisions of the British government that caused the Bengal famine - there was a lot of back and forth, a lot of citing.
Ultimately he came to the conclusion that the famine happened not because of the British, no Churchill was a saint - it was because of lack of biological “food storage” within Bengalis or some bullshit.
It’s kinda shocking how the tactics of colonialism end up mirroring itself throughout history. The occupation and destruction of Gaza and the occupation and destruction of the Indian Mughal empire are devastatingly similar.
The beginning of the end for the Mughal happened during the Indian rebellion in 1857 when troops of the Mughal empire rebelled against the British East India company. It started as a popular uprising against the military of the company, but after an incident akin to Oct 7th around 200 British women and children were taken hostage and eventually killed by a small group of rebels.
In response the British went on a retribution campaign that would end up killing upwards to 800k Indians, most of which were civilians. During the retribution campaign there were motifs we can recognize today being implemented in modern colonialism.
Particularly the use of false allegations in media to justify retributive violence and sexual assault against women.
“British soldiers also committed sexual violence against Indian women as a form of retaliation against the rebellion.[163][164] As towns and cities were captured from the sepoys, the British soldiers took their revenge on Indian civilians by committing atrocities and rapes against Indian women.”
“Incidents of rape allegedly committed by Indian rebels against British women and girls appalled the British public. These atrocities were often used to justify the British reaction to the rebellion. British newspapers printed various eyewitness accounts of the rape of English women and girls. One such account was published by The Times, regarding an incident where 48 English girls as young as 10 had been raped by Indian rebels in Delhi. Karl Marx criticized this story as false propaganda, and pointed out that the story was written by a clergyman in Bangalore, far from the events of the rebellion, with no evidence to support his allegation.”
“During the aftermath of the rebellion, a series of exhaustive investigations were carried out by British police and intelligence officials into reports that British women prisoners had been “dishonoured” at the Bibighar and elsewhere. One such detailed enquiry was at the direction of Lord Canning. The consensus was that there was no convincing evidence of such crimes having been committed, although numbers of British women and children had been killed outright.[181]”
Yep according to them every hunger related death under a communist government is communists fault but the many famines under capitalism don’t count against their favorite system.
Or like the Memorial to Victims of Communism in Canada that was mostly Nazis and collaborators on it.
Failures in communist countries are systemic issues, failures in capitalist countries are individual failures.
Also failure of public works, like a train crash that kills 20 people, means that trains are bad. Clearly this program isn’t working and should be privatized. But 20 people killed daily on the highways, well those people are just idiots. Never mind the structural issues.
This message brought to you by the people who stand to benefit and also, by coincidence, own the newspapers.
Or plane crashes due to cheaping out on parts or maintenance or training to save a few pennies for the investors
There is no such thing as society!
Ain’t that right!
I wonder if it would be fairer to count all of them from both sides or have some more selective metric, though that cab be pretty hard to create
You might be getting closer with that, but this still doesn’t account for the deaths caused by the fallout of decisions under feudal or capitalist systems before switching to communism that took years to repair or deaths caused by imperialist meddling (sanctions, wars, coups).
When you ignore established agricultural science because it’s too capitalist, and your crops fail, starving a significant portion of your country, yeah that’s kinda the governments fault.
When bourgeois kulaks burn crops to resist collectivization, it’s the the communists government that’s ignoring science. The more you know
Sitting alone in the highest tower of your mind palace, curtains drawn, coming up with things that happened in the outside world through pure wisdom and common sense
“What exactly am I talking about?” you say, “Well isn’t it obvious?! Everybody knows!”
“communists hate science after all!” you add after a moment’s pause.
The Soviet response to the famine is actually a really interesting topic. I’ve fascinated people with examples of famine relief, and Pavel Luk’ianenko is an especially interesting historical figure. The class war involving the rural petite‐bourgeoisie sounds like it was pretty intense, too. It’s a shame that teaching this history is so stigmatized in the West.
Don’t be silly, I ask the nice robed dudes outside to tell me what’s going on in the world in the form of a cool shadow puppet theater.
Also comparing the millions of dead from a single country to the millions dead in a global system is a bit disingenuous
The difference is that for the people dying under capitalism, the system is working as intended, and for the people dying under communism, it is not. In both cases, the leaders don’t really care, because it works for them.
When you lift out millions out of poverty and increase life expectancy significantly it’s the communist leaders not caring. The more you know
Yes, because it is never comes at their own expense through self-sacrifice. True leaders eat last, not first.
Please read book. You’re an idealist that has no clue about the subject at hand
How many people died in Soviet Russia again? I forgot
6·23 hours agoEdit: wait your saying Soviet Russia which means only the RSFSR
People* who talk about the death toll of communism when you bring up 10-20 million dying to poverty caused by capitalism every year.
It’s pretty much a liberal thing.
Monarchists, far right people etc. would probably react the same. Maybe discounting people on the right who are anti-capitalist but I’m not sure how large of a group that is
I’ve said it elsewhere, but In my opinion, beyond simply being for progressing onto the next mode of production (at this time socialism) vs remaining on our current or going backward (capitalism, monarchism, etc), I don’t think comparing ideologies by how far they are on this “spectrum” actually makes much sense.
For example, I don’t think comparing Marxists and anarchists by how “left” we are is a useful metric. Both of them are on the left, but trying to do a comparison outside of the differing propositions and analysis leads into contradictions and absurdities when trying to make it fit onto a clean spectrum. The same goes for the right.
All that is to say that personally, I use left and right by our present moment, and don’t put too much effort into analyzing how far left or right something may be considered. Liberalism was left during the French Revolution, against the monarchy, but we are several hundred yeard beyond that now and capitalism is dominant, not monarchism. The present divide is socialism vs capitalism, and the few monarchists that exist don’t really have much of an impact on that.
Make sense? This was kind of a ramble.
I just meant that “liberal” doesn’t cover all the people who would hold the sentiment pictured in the meme. A lot of ardent anti-communists are also against liberalism and can’t be really described as liberal imo.
I think the group that holds those views, ie monarchists, etc, is very, very small and not really relevant. That’s more my point.
There’s all kinds of authoritarian ideologies that are incompatible with liberalism. Not unfortunately that uncommon, especially nowadays that that shit has had a resurgence
Liberalism itself, in that it upholds capitalism, is “authoritarian.” Not sure what you’re getting at, ideologies all vary in quantity of holders and historic importance, I see no reason to pretend monarchists are equally as relevant to the right as liberals.
And a Republican thing. Did you forget about the even larger group of people who believe in capitalism even more? I agree that the hand-winging “oh, maybe we’ll vote in a better president in a few years, let’s wait things out” crowd is a pain, but the sentiment that “capitalism is the best we’ve got” is championed primarily by people even further to the right than them.
I have heard that phrase more from the mouth of a “Vote Blue, no matter who” democrat than I have from a conservative. The conservatives on the other hand wanna return to monarchy and feudalism. A bunch of regressionists.
Republicans are liberals too, for what it’s worth. When leftists refer to liberals, we don’t exclusively mean those that support the DNC. Either way, though, if liberals ultimately wrap around to supporting capitalism even if they don’t have as strong an attachment to it, they still end up supporting capitalism and desiring its persistence.
Anyone know where this image is from? I keep trying to find it but have never been able to.
The guy is “Michael Does Life”
Holy shit, thanks. Always thought it was pyrocynical XD
Theres like 3 different tags in the image.
Too bad they’re all laid over each other so you can’t read them.
Not that it would lead to the source, anyways
Levels of whataboutism that would make conservatives proud. Truly quality Lemmy content.
Comparing numbers is not whataboutism. That’s literally why numbers exist in the first place, to compare and count.
Average “whataboutism” fan vs average “comparative analysis” enjoyed
Explain?
Those are libertarians, the"I got mine and fark everybody else" crowd, not liberals.
Communists are liberals, it’s funny seeing how many liberals in the fediverse use it as a slur. Even the anarchists look down on the anti-government people.
And yeah Libertarians are liberal as well, the problem is including everyone else that isn’t authoritarian.
In what manner are communists “liberals?” Why are communists capitalists in your eyes?
Liberalism isn’t a capitalist ideology
Yes it is. It centers private property and invidividualism.
See you don’t know what the term liberal means.
It has nothing to do with capitalism.
Communism doesn’t have a government, that makes them liberals.
Liberalism is an ideology supporting private property and individualism. Communism doesn’t have a state, but it does have administration, which some consider government, and communism lacks private property.
Private property in the sense the government can’t seize your home or car or rollerskates without due process. It is not the main caveat of liberalism, which is pro liberty, aka pro human rights. It is an ideology independent of economic system
No, this is entirely wrong and is completely unsupported by historical context.
If you have an administration then you create a class struggle that will lead to oppression.
You have private property because the state (public) doesn’t own it, the people do. (That’s private since you seem confused)
No, administration isn’t class, and ownership is collectivized rather than individual. This is very basic.
Yes, and all are equal, but some more equal. Particularly, anyone that was part of the administration of the soviet union was more equal than anyone not close to the administration.
Administration needs to be humanless.
Can the administration control what the commune does? Laws? Policing?
If so then given time the people who seek it will elevate that position.
Public ownership under communism doesn’t mean the government (or administration to use your term without a difference) owns it. It means the population has control over whether it is helping (keep) or hurting (remove) society. And the workers are at the forefront of that not politicians or owners.
You’re aware that liberalism views landowners as a scourge of society because they make money without adding anything to the world but you cannot view said viewpoint from a communist perspective.
I’ll give you another crazy idea; political parties/governments are corporations. They will put their own survival above that of the people they represent.
Liberal is when no government…
Yes but it’s a range. The more liberal, the less power government has until it doesn’t exist.
At least in the political sense of the word.
You’re in .ml my guy it’s not possible to argue with these guys they are marx magas
Why do you feel confident to speak on a subject you have clearly spent zero time informing yourself?
Taking political science courses in university and having many books is why I can call out people using liberal incorrectly.
You might want a refund on that degree.
You are indeed incorrectly calling people out.
Maybe you can wipe your ass with those books for all the good they did you.
I took political science classes in college too. They taught the political compass. They lamented ‘polarization.’
If you were too stupid as a child to see that you were being fed slop you can be forgiven. It’s time to use your adult brain to reexamine those things.
Taking political science courses in university
Ah, that explains it
that isn’t authoritarian.
Made up western anti-communist propaganda term
Sounds like some shit Stalin would argue in college
Communists aren’t authoritarian and the concept predates communism. (Communism is a reaction against oppression so arguing criticism against oppression is anti-communist doesn’t make sense)
Ngl I don’t blame anarchists. Public schools explicitly said “communism is when government doess stuff.”
Both are shit
brilliant political analysis
Dumb
Removed by mod
No you didn’t quit lying
Removed by mod
Are you talking about the Shining Path of Peru? The Gonzaloite terrorists? I don’t think anyone on Lemmy actually supports them, at least not that I’ve seen, and they never actually implemented anything but instead just slaughtered peasants and performed terrorist attacks.
So you grew up in a country where the US staged a coup? Like I said quit lying
Could it be that the imperialist puppet sending death squads has something to do with things being bad?
No, it’s the communists who are bad
Lol as if we can’t hate both.
why? And why count hunger deaths under communism as marks against but don’t apply this to capitalism much more deaths?
A lot of assumptions being made off of my shitty one line joke, starting to feel like you have an agenda you’re trying to push and are attempting to start a fight you’ve already had in your head.
I maybe a dumbass, but I’m not idiot.
Oh now that you got pushback, it’s suddenly a joke😂
Push back? Ohhhh you mean the downvotes and shit, nah it was always a joke, I make shitty jokes, sometimes they land, sometimes it pisses off a bunch of random people online and today it pissed off a bunch of people online.
Lol as if we can’t hate both.
please explain what a joke is and how this can be understood as one
Nah I’m all good, I’ll leave the interpretation up to y’all.
I wasn’t expecting you to. I’m saying you’re full of shit.
Oh no, a random stranger on the internet is angry with me, what ever will I do…
I have received negative feedback, must be doing something right!
Chickenshit response
Hahah, yeah.
You’re deffo both, my guy.
Nice!
Living up to your username
Both are true, this is a dumb argument and common bad faith fallacy.
“Both are true.”
Motherfucker, did you even see the source of that claim against communism? It comes from a book that counted people who died under British and other European colonialism, the Third Reich soldiers who died in ww2, UN and NATO bombings ordered by the USA, and every war casualty in 20th century wars.
Why are you people so allergic to reading books?
The death toll from communism comes from the black book of communism which was written by a staunch anti-communist who seeked out to prove communism killed 100 million people which is why it includes nazi deaths and people who weren’t even born as victims of communism.
Yeah, buddy. I agree with you.
(I am also severely historically illiterate.)
how is it bad faith?
Because it intentionally neglects the harm caused by the Great Leap Forward, or various soviet famines. The statement is designed to deflect attention and responsibility from A to B and use hyperbole to create outrage.
Its possible to argue that both China and the Soviet Union were not actually communism but rather authoritarianism but for the sake of common understanding we will refer to them as they refer(ed) to themselves.
So did millions of people die because of “communism?” the facts say yes. So do millions of people die because of Capitalism? the facts say yes.
Both are true statements, and using hyperbole and outrage to deflect or minimize one or the other is in bad faith.
This is pure projection. The meme doesn’t ‘neglect’ anything.
The statement is designed to deflect attention and responsibility from A to B and use hyperbole to create outrage.
Your objection is essentially that you want to label something as ‘bad’ but not allow the necessary discussion of ‘relative to what?’
Your system deliberately murders an order of magnitude more people but we’re not allowed to talk about it because you say so and we all give a huge shit what you have to say because you’re so well read on the subject lol
We are talking about it, and its not my system its the one I am trapped in, and I still would not want to live in either Russia or China.
I also dont want to live in the US, I want the Star Trek future now, all people have value.
China is by far the closest country on Earth to that Star Trek future. No other country is as developed and is presently socialist. It has a long way to go, but is already overtaking capitalist countries.
there is no amount of propaganda that would make this believable. The fact that there is forced labor, and decent is punished is just as unacceptable in China as it is in the US. When I can freely and safely criticize Xi Jinping I might be interested. There are lots of aspects of China that I love and want to see but the authoritarian government and regional provincial governors are NOT something i want to risk.
China has outlawed slavery and forced labor. Capitalists trying to manipulate the media is punished, correct, but that’s something widely supported by the people. China is democratic, and the people support their system, because it works:
All states are “authoritarian,” in that all are embedded within class struggle and represent the ruling class. Dissent is punished in the US and in China, the difference is that the capitalist class is oppressing workers in the US, while the working class is oppressing capitalists in China.
You owe it to yourself as someone desiring a socialist future to genuinely try to understand the Chinese system, and why it’s so widely supported by its people.
kinda don’t give a shit what you have to say in response to my criticism when you aren’t going to respond to the criticism at all
you can claim to love all good things and hate all bad things
literally zero bearing on what you said or what I said in response
I think that’s because we have a difference of perspective on degrees of bad. I think all deaths caused by capitalism are bad, and equal bad to all the deaths that are the result of authoritarian countries calling themselves communist.
So i fundamentally disagree with the “relative to what” because a life is worth the same regardless of where they live and who they are.
We are able to, and I am talking about the harm, and I am pointing out that this meme is designed to create an emotional response to the 2nd point and not to both points. Thats all, its manipulative and propagandist which makes it in bad faith, and you are welcome to defend either position, I will just disagree.
I think all deaths caused by capitalism are bad, and equal bad to all the deaths that are the result of authoritarian countries calling themselves communist.
You want to obscure the larger number because you want the smaller number to look bad. We’re not allowed to talk about the larger number. We’re not allowed to criticize your side.
So what you just said is a fucking lie, isn’t it? If they were equal you would permit both be examined. You would admit that the one with the larger death count is worse. That’s the exact opposite of what you’re pushing for. Your agenda is at odds with reality.
You don’t actually care about people dying. Your actions betray your rhetoric.
So i fundamentally disagree with the “relative to what” because a life is worth the same regardless of where they live and who they are.
And there you go doubling down. Hollow rhetoric sidestepping the actual objection. Cynical. Deliberate.
I will just disagree.
And I think we can all put together why you disagree (you’re a nazi).
You don’t know what a fallacy is
I choose you! Sophomoric invocation of a fallacy that doesn’t even apply in this situation!
Lol posting a link to a wikipedia article doesn’t actually help your case here
Even BBC doesn’t have it as one of their 7 ways to check
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-seven-ways-to-spot-a-bad-argument
