"Just because [AES state] did [real or imagined excess] doesn't mean socialism/communism is discredited" or any variation of this. Actually, starting any rebuttal with "just because" automatically concedes whatever point one may have been trying to make and is thus a terrible rhetorical tool. As fo the former point, I don't see it around as often as I used to prior to the 00s, usually by very idealistic teenagers who didn't do the reading.
not even worth engaging with that argument imo because standing amidst the cooking ruins of our dying planet while tens of millions of children starve to death doesn't discredit capitalism, somehow
Definitely; in a vacuum, the "debate" may have had merit insofar as one believes the marketplace of ideas exists and thus everything should be debated, but in current year with apocalypse looming on the horizon, it's not worth having even in principle. Were this still the 19th/early 20th century, the debate may have merit. By now there is plenty of empirical evidence that liberalism and its derivatives have long outlived their purpose
I feel this same way when people try to compromise on imperialism against states that aren't even socialist. "Yes Saddam is evil and eats babies and hates freedom but we shouldn't invade Iraq because..." starting off your argument with all that shit means you already failed to convince someone. It doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein is literally Hitler, you shouldn't give ammo to your enemies and instead explain how trying to bring "freedom" to Bad Country always makes things worse.
"Just because [AES state] did [real or imagined excess] doesn't mean socialism/communism is discredited" or any variation of this. Actually, starting any rebuttal with "just because" automatically concedes whatever point one may have been trying to make and is thus a terrible rhetorical tool. As fo the former point, I don't see it around as often as I used to prior to the 00s, usually by very idealistic teenagers who didn't do the reading.
not even worth engaging with that argument imo because standing amidst the cooking ruins of our dying planet while tens of millions of children starve to death doesn't discredit capitalism, somehow
Definitely; in a vacuum, the "debate" may have had merit insofar as one believes the marketplace of ideas exists and thus everything should be debated, but in current year with apocalypse looming on the horizon, it's not worth having even in principle. Were this still the 19th/early 20th century, the debate may have merit. By now there is plenty of empirical evidence that liberalism and its derivatives have long outlived their purpose
I feel this same way when people try to compromise on imperialism against states that aren't even socialist. "Yes Saddam is evil and eats babies and hates freedom but we shouldn't invade Iraq because..." starting off your argument with all that shit means you already failed to convince someone. It doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein is literally Hitler, you shouldn't give ammo to your enemies and instead explain how trying to bring "freedom" to Bad Country always makes things worse.
Its a great strategy to establish oneself as ambivalent on baby eating right at the start of a debate.