The comment above demonstrates that non-ml members perceive ml members as claiming anarchy among their values. If that impression exists, there must be a reason for it - which is that ml members do in fact claim to be anarchists.
Therefore, in the context of this thread, it is valid to point out the existence of self-styled anarchists claiming that other self-styled anarchists are “not real anarchists”. The existence of this thread demonstrates the truth of the statement, regardless of whether you personally like the conclusion or not.
The comment above demonstrates that non-ml members perceive ml members as claiming anarchy among their values. If that impression exists, there must be a reason for it - which is that ml members do in fact claim to be anarchists.
Please don’t try to make a logical argument when you can’t get this right. The comment above only demonstrates that at least one non-.ml user perceives .ml users as being self-proclaimed anarchists. There must be a reason for that, and that reason does not have to be that .ml users are self-proclaimed anarchists. It could be that this commenter is simply misinterpreting the views of .ml users.
Even if they did call themselves anarchists, their adoration of authoritarian regimes would warrant saying that they aren’t true anarchists. The “no true Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply when you point out something that is actually true of people who aren’t Scottish. No true Scotsman is born in, raised in, and never leaves Kentucky, USA. No true anarchist bans users from their Lemmy instance for saying “China censors people.”
Of course, because there is no true anarchist.
But they don’t even pretend to be anarchists, they’re Marxist-Leninists, hence the ml
If “they dont even pretend to be anarchists”, then why would the comment
be necessary in the first place?
If you look at the comment above that one, you might be able to figure it out
The comment above demonstrates that non-ml members perceive ml members as claiming anarchy among their values. If that impression exists, there must be a reason for it - which is that ml members do in fact claim to be anarchists.
Therefore, in the context of this thread, it is valid to point out the existence of self-styled anarchists claiming that other self-styled anarchists are “not real anarchists”. The existence of this thread demonstrates the truth of the statement, regardless of whether you personally like the conclusion or not.
Please don’t try to make a logical argument when you can’t get this right. The comment above only demonstrates that at least one non-.ml user perceives .ml users as being self-proclaimed anarchists. There must be a reason for that, and that reason does not have to be that .ml users are self-proclaimed anarchists. It could be that this commenter is simply misinterpreting the views of .ml users.
Even if they did call themselves anarchists, their adoration of authoritarian regimes would warrant saying that they aren’t true anarchists. The “no true Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply when you point out something that is actually true of people who aren’t Scottish. No true Scotsman is born in, raised in, and never leaves Kentucky, USA. No true anarchist bans users from their Lemmy instance for saying “China censors people.”
What do the call a fallacy where you find an imaginary fallacy in someone else’s argument to sound smarter?
Is it a fallacy? I frequently run into self-styled anarchists who describe other self-styled anarchists as “not real anarchists”.
.ml people don’t even describe themselves as anarchists, from what I’ve seen. And those that do, often hide behind that label in bad faith