• Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is all just semantics and how the word ‘opposite’ can be applied in different ways. I wouldn’t spend too much time on this.

    • polonius-rex@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      if you want to use the sentiment expressed in this post as an argument for marxism being good, which seems pretty transparent in this case, then that same sentiment being used to justify eugenics isn’t a good thing for said argument

      i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Except that doesn’t follow logically, but it’s pretty clear that you’re determined to work hard not to understand that.

            • polonius-rex@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              i wouldn’t say you’re working particularly hard given that all you’ve done is issue a blanket “no”, and cowbee seems to be coming at the problem from the angle that i’m secretly the ghost of joseph mccarthy

              i’ve given you two examples where i think most people would agree with the concepts of eugenics before being told it’s eugenics, and so far nobody’s disagreed with them? what’s your issue? that you don’t think most people would agree with them, or that you don’t think that that fact draws enough of a parallel between eugenics and the post?

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                As I’ve said earlier, if you genuinely believe that most people are into eugenics, then you’re likely a fascist and there’s not point trying to have a discussion with you. Bye.

                • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u

                  wow you did the thing well done

                  you made a bad argument, it’s okay

                  if your argument was good you wouldn’t be working so hard to avoid defending it like you are

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I just love how you don’t know when to stop digging. 😂

                    if your argument was good you wouldn’t be working so hard to avoid defending it like you are

                    this is what projection looks like

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound

        The problem is that your argument relies on the idea that “most people support eugenics until you say what it actually is,” which is false in my experience while the post is correct.

        • polonius-rex@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          i’ve given two examples where i think the average person would come down on the side of “let’s do some eugenics” until being told “haha you just agreed to do some eugenics”

          the problem with the post is that if you boil it down, it becomes “things that sound good on the surface are automatically good”, which doesn’t hold

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            It doesn’t say they are automatically good, just that people have a negative connotation to the word Marxism even if the ideas are sound and good.

            • polonius-rex@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              “people have a negative connotation to the word Marxism” absolutely has baked-in implications, and an argument left unsaid, even in total isolation

              if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak

              the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good

              i don’t think this post’s subtext is as simple as the interpretation you’re providing

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak

                Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.

                the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good

                It does, actually. Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation. Eugenics and Nazism are not popular, and have bad connotations because they are bad ideas in general, not to mention Nazism being based on pure evil extermination.

                You’re not cooking here.

                • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.

                  it was brought up to explain why “it’s just saying it has negative connotations” doesn’t make something neutral

                  Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation

                  you’re kind of just imagining a different post at this point?

                  “it does, actually”? you’re going to have to clarify what you mean by “this post makes a justification as to why the concepts behind marxism are sound and good”, unless you mean that “people thinking the ideas sound good” is your justification, which you just argued a second ago wasn’t what the post was doing, and which is exactly what i’m saying is a junk justification

                  “Marxism is popular” this post very specifically makes the point that marxism isn’t popular, but its ideas are. that’s like the whole point of the post

                  also, “easily understood” what? we haven’t even defined what sort of marxism we’re talking about here

                  it says nothing about the reasons for negative connotations; you’re adding that yourself

                  Eugenics [is] not popular

                  again, i’ve given two examples where the average person would probably support eugenics-in-description-only

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    it was brought up to explain why “it’s just saying it has negative connotations” doesn’t make something neutral

                    No, it was brought up to draw equivalence to Marxism, don’t play coy.

                    you’re kind of just imagining a different post at this point?

                    this post very specifically makes the point that marxism isn’t popular, but its ideas are. that’s like the whole point of the post

                    No, Marxism is popular, it’s just sold as different names. Big difference.

                    also, “easily understood” what? we haven’t even defined what sort of marxism we’re talking about here

                    Is there some other kind we need to worry about here that’s hard to understand?

                    again, i’ve given two examples where the average person would probably support eugenics-in-description-only

                    No, you pretended the average person would.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Actually I think I get what you’re saying now and I think you have a point. I am not sure the two can be directly compared that way, though. There are different reasons for why people think each is bad once they hear the name and I don’t think the meme is actually saying that this is an argument for or against anything. Just a funny observation.