It's a variation of the same tired argument that's proffered up when communist praxis is criticised: That communist regimes they don't represent real communism unlike the all the other hippy versions.

▲

vidarh 2 days ago | parent [-]

And yet you're the one here bringing that up, not me.

It is irrelevant if it is "real communism" or not - it remains an objective fact that all of these regimes have derived their ideology from one very specific branch. In fact, all of them make a big fuzz over exactly that, and all of them had a history of brutally persecuting supporters of other communist ideologies.

You don't need to support any of them to recognise this. I did not make an argument about the desirability of any of them at all, very intentionally.

▲

unmole 2 days ago | parent [-]

You argument is just No true Scotsman with extra steps.

	▲	vidarh 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It seems you know what I'm thinking better than me. I have categorically not argued it's invalid for you to consider these regimes communist. How, exactly, is it you imagine this is a "No true Scotsman"? What I have argued is, if anything, that there are lots of Scotsmen, and trying to reduce them all to one is meaninglessly reductive. In other words, I've indirectly explicitly argued against No true Scotsman.