Murdered by Words

2549 readers

62 users here now

Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.

The following things are not grounds for murder:

Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
Posts with little-to-no context
Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
"Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")

Rules:

Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
No bigotry of any kind.
Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk

SomeoneElse@lemmy.world

SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca

1220

socialism lesson (lemmy.ca)

submitted 5 days ago by slothrop@lemmy.ca to c/murderedbywords@feddit.uk

125 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bunchberry@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Quotation marks are not exclusively for repeating what the person you reply to wrote verbatim.

So quotation marks are used to blatantly lie and claim someone said what they did not?

You mean, systems except socialism. In socialism’s case, if the result turn out bad “that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves”

Funny how you again, say, "when the results turn out bad," which is objectively something I never said, implied, of gave the air of an impression of. I gave a definition of a physical system in the real world, not a moral analysis, but you are so obsessed with moralism that you keep trying to inject moralism into everything.

You are professionally dishonest, obsessed with lying and misrepresenting everything stated, because you know a single ounce of honesty would reveal how laughable your position is. It is equivalent to arguing that if a republican movement fails to get rid of its monarch, then is proof republicanism is just a form of monarchy, and anyone who disagrees is a moralist saying "when bad things happen" or whatever.

I am sorry, but you are just obviously a troll baiting at this point.

I did not call you “evil”. I said that defining an ideology by a bad outcome is akin to making “being evil” its definition.

No one said anything about "good" or "bad" but you. You are just professionally dishonest.

Did you even read what I wrote? Specifically the part about how concentration of power is an inevitable outcome of all this freedom?

Concentration of power is indeed inevitable from limitless individual freedom. I did not refute that because I don't disagree with it, and it is why capitalist societies always collapse into oligarchies, but socialist societies do not.