this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
288 points (87.5% liked)

Memes

53801 readers
1299 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

the remaining differences are mostly about aesthetics and not about the use of violence to maintain hegemony

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 19 points 5 days ago (4 children)

I know it's not a good line of reasoning, but if you legitimately adopted this mindset you'd be correct 85-99% of the time.

[–] DeepSpace9mm@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

~~Could you clarify why it's not good reasoning?~~

  • A = u.s. abducts leader
  • B = leader is a problem for the u.s.
  • C = leader is a boon to the people
  • D = leader is (likely) legitimately elected

Argument:

  • If A then B
  • If B then C
  • If C then D
  • A
  • Therefore D

We just need "If C then D" to chain A to D since the comment up top didn't mention it . Oh, I think I see a problem here. In the us with leaders we constantly have "D and not C," and even worse than the not C's are the nazis. Ok, I'll stop.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

B doesn't inherently mean C is correct, there's just very strong correlation. It's useful for quickly guessing, not for actual in-depth analysis. Though, the US did really love the Nazis for a good while, still does.

[–] DeepSpace9mm@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes that makes sense. The premises are too shaky for the argument to be sound despite the valid structure (which the commenter did not use and I pulled out of my ass).

I was mainly writing it out as an exercise to myself but left it because it kinda worked as a joke lol

I do very much appreciate an earnest answer.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago