After all, that’s how all labels work (and perhaps even words in general?). They try to capture meaning, at best failing to do so (endlessly “approaching” it, always a step behind the evolution of language), and at worst ensaring peoples’ thoughts and ideas.
It’s a catch-22 - try to be more unique, in an effort not to lose your humanity, but in doing so keep feeding the machine which subsists on creativity. A human-AI ouroboros.
Does this apply to the google play version?
ohhhhhhh 🤦
Wait… what about gay couples where one of the guys is the biological father?
Uhm… sorry to ask, but does that make your dad your “ejaculating progenitor”?
The smile/wrinkles look kinda weird? Could be a generated image of Altman, plus photoshop
iirc China doesn’t allow dual citizenship
Didn’t Grok also claim he’s fitter than LeBron and smarter than da Vinci? Perhaps being an olympic piss drinker has been the key to his success.
Probably not even mint-specific since it happens on pop os too
Or maybe they’re overworked and burnt out
I’ve articulated why. Are you just here to argue in bad faith?
Lol what? Are you a troll? Or a bot?
Fallacy is just faulty reasoning, I don’t need to know all the ins and outs of how philosophers/logicians categorise them to know how to point out faulty reasoning. Knowing how to reason about things is far more important than throwing around buzzwords.
You accuse me of not being studious, yet you refuse to actually engage with what I say - you know what kind of fallacy that is? An ad hominem. Even a supposed ignoramus like me knows that. I wonder what that makes you?
I guess it’s easy to convince yourself of that when you haven’t really engaged with what I said, lol
Hey, idk all the names people have made up to categorise fallacies, but I do know you misapplied the no true scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, or at least a misunderstanding.
Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself. I’m not talking about a “truer” or “purer” form of communism which marxist leninists failed to realise, because the definition I’m working with - of communism as a classless, stateless, moneyless society (and the ideas and ideologies branching from that definition) - encompasses far more than that specific ideology. This isn’t even a defence of communism - if anything, I’m pointing out there are other facets of communism that would make for a more interesting discussion than rehashing how bad the soviets were for the millionth time.
While they share the common problem of dogmatism, I think that interpreting this as an issue of ideological “extremes” misses the point that moderatism is also an “extreme” - it dogmatically seeks stability of the status quo over conflict resolution, it “regulates” with an iron fist. Anything that becomes “ideological”, that holds something sacred, valued above oneself, can be hijacked by other people pursuing their own interests (or other ideological interests), and/or lead to contradictions between values and needs and desires.
Technofeudalism, more specifically
OP asked about communism, not marxism-leninism specifically
Could be phrased better but it makes sense to me