Wait, admiring is deifying? Someone needs to update the rules. Sounds a lot more like you’re attempting to weaponize the rules to create a thought police regime so you don’t have to deal with your own cognitive dissonance.
Analyzing the successes and failures of the Soviet project is not deifying. Admiring specific leaders for specific accomplishments is not deifying.
Sounds a lot more like you’re attempting to weaponize the rules to create a thought police regime so you don’t have to deal with your own cognitive dissonance.
I’m sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about?
Rule 6 says “idealizing/glorifying”. A poster in this thread. Dogbert said the word “deifying” in this thread. Maybe you don’t think those are interchangeable. I could be convinced either way.
As for what I am talking about, the fact that Dogbert praises Stalin is apparently a problem for you. It is possible to praise people for the positive things they have done. Some people argue against that praise because they think the negative things the person has done are more important. Some people go so far as to believe it’s not possible a person has done anything praise worthy ever because of the bad things they have done and that therefore anyone praising them is clearly morally derelict and that their opinions no longer matter.
The fact that you are trying to paint Dogbert’s praising of Stalin as something he should “admit” is a way of drawing a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs, a form of thought policing, and also a way to create an echo chamber where you can’t be confronted with positions that challenge your own position and threaten some of the beliefs that you hold tied into your identity.
So what I am talking about is you, choosing to interpret Rule 6 as applying to a positive analysis of Stalin’s actions in office because you can’t really handle discourse that runs counter to an orthodoxy that you adhere to.
As for what I am talking about, the fact that Dogbert praises Stalin is apparently a problem for you.
They’re denying that they praise Stalin. That’s the problem.
It is possible to praise people for the positive things they […]
That wall of text is a propos of… what exactly?
The fact that you are trying to paint Dogbert’s praising of Stalin is something he should “admit” is a way of drawing a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs
No. I said that they should “admit” it, because they claim that they don’t idealize Stalin, which is ridiculous if you read their comments.
a form of thought policing, and also a way to create an echo chamber where you can’t be confronted with positions that challenge your own position and threaten some of the beliefs that you hold tied into your identity.
Projection much?
So what I am talking about is you, choosing to interpret Rule 6
Never applied to no rule. You’re fighting strawmen.
I’m calling your bluff
You heard it folks. Saying that Stalin was a communist is now “praise”. Great work fella 🤣
Totally not praise. /s
Acknowledging the success of the USSR is now praising Stalin. It keeps getting dumber and dumber 🤣
You can just admit it, comrade. You’re not fooling anyone that you don’t admire Stalin.
Wait, admiring is deifying? Someone needs to update the rules. Sounds a lot more like you’re attempting to weaponize the rules to create a thought police regime so you don’t have to deal with your own cognitive dissonance.
Analyzing the successes and failures of the Soviet project is not deifying. Admiring specific leaders for specific accomplishments is not deifying.
Who said “deifying”?
I’m sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about?
Rule 6 says “idealizing/glorifying”. A poster in this thread. Dogbert said the word “deifying” in this thread. Maybe you don’t think those are interchangeable. I could be convinced either way.
As for what I am talking about, the fact that Dogbert praises Stalin is apparently a problem for you. It is possible to praise people for the positive things they have done. Some people argue against that praise because they think the negative things the person has done are more important. Some people go so far as to believe it’s not possible a person has done anything praise worthy ever because of the bad things they have done and that therefore anyone praising them is clearly morally derelict and that their opinions no longer matter.
The fact that you are trying to paint Dogbert’s praising of Stalin as something he should “admit” is a way of drawing a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs, a form of thought policing, and also a way to create an echo chamber where you can’t be confronted with positions that challenge your own position and threaten some of the beliefs that you hold tied into your identity.
So what I am talking about is you, choosing to interpret Rule 6 as applying to a positive analysis of Stalin’s actions in office because you can’t really handle discourse that runs counter to an orthodoxy that you adhere to.
That’s true. Those terms are not interchangeable.
They’re denying that they praise Stalin. That’s the problem.
That wall of text is a propos of… what exactly?
No. I said that they should “admit” it, because they claim that they don’t idealize Stalin, which is ridiculous if you read their comments.
Projection much?
Never applied to no rule. You’re fighting strawmen.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod