Talk:No True Scotsman

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Fundamentalism applications[edit]

okay I suppose its bad form to pose a question in the talk section but here goes. regarding fundamentalism eg in religion. the article mentions when moderates or fundamentalists toward religions tend to assume a "no true scotsman" position on the beliefs or activities of the others' category of believers. My question is does this fallacy still tend to be applied even if and when the beliefs or conduct of those persons or sects is indeed divergent by way of verified scripture or established dogmas of the teachings or rituals of the religious context and not simply a result of anecdotal knowledge or minute interpretive ambiguity? eg One group's belief system is established to be based on the precise tenant of believing in the deity of a specific volcano..some generations later a splinter group characterizes itself as members of the the same cult but they redefine their version of the cult by doing away with core belief of the deified nature of the volcano. Now lets say: mainly because of cultural ignorance or similarities between the groups that may or may not actually be due to the volcano worship religion..(eg they eat the same kinds of meals)to the outside world who are not members of either versions of the cult and perhaps only a few if any outsiders actually have studied the culture to any extent, the second group is accepted as a sect of the same religion. While on the island a deep schism occurs wherein one or both cults declares the other apostates and therefore not within the same cult. Arguing that their arguments are weakened because of the "no true scotsman" fallacy would then itself likely produce a "fallacy fallacy" would it not? While I suppose it might be counter productive to indicate there could be a distinction where the use of the fallacy is not appropriate. I considered this question because I did find the article rather vague on this point in its definition implying perhaps that it makes no distinction when applied to the group dynamics of schism. TO pose it more simply, what I'm hoping to get clarified here is whether or not the "no true scotsman "fallacy is still identified when the arguments for distinctions determining affiliation with group dynamics are actually valid? Or does it not matter..attempts to disassociate members of social groups because of characteristics inherent to the subject of membership are by default considered examples of the "no true scotsman" whether the arguments are valid or not. IF so that conclusion itself would seem like examplary of a myriad of logical fallacies including: "appeal to authority","bandwagon",and "personal incredulity" eg because we are unclear if the distinctions outlined by one side of the argument are ACTUALLY determinate of affiliation we should consider it an example of "no true scotsman". eg religious membership or rhetoric is subject to the most popular opinion and not actual affiliation,practice,or adoption of distinct belief systems. Now I did note that earlier in the article under a different topic heading it was implied that the distinctions between the fallacy applied when the scotsman was making arbitrary or anecdotal criteria that did not at all exist in the definition of the group association.(the implication that a scotsman cannot be a sexual criminal of the kinds mentioned in the example. However it wasn't really made clear to me if this(that the distinguishing criteria must be false or subjective) is a prerequisite for the proper recognition of the a usage of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. The point is that some religious and other affiliation groups have a specific set of doctrines and ideals to the extent that merely claiming oneself or actions to be affiliated with their collective cannot always be logically taken at face value if their actions contradict those dogmas or doctrines. I would argue that this would be a fallacy of one who adopts or promotes the validity of the claim not of the person who disassociates the claims from the doctrine. My question might seem of the loaded question variety but I am truly wondering if there is a distinction in the criteria, and for whatever reason I'm thinking this talk section is an appropriate place to learn if that is the case or I suppose this topic could be interpreted as a loaded question that is actually a suggestion to further clarify this characteristic in the article if it is indeed known to be a determining factor in identifying the fallacy. (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

When you tell to communists that the "no true Scotsman" argument is a logical error while using it too[edit]

When musulmans are killing everyone "but they aren't the true musulmans, it's just terrorists" When feminists are hating men "no it's not real feminists! Real would want gender equality" When Stalin killed people "yes its because of communism " When you tell us that the "no true Scotsman" argument is a logical error while using it too — Unsigned, by: / talk

07:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC) I don't understand your point on Stalin, I get the one about muslims but who's making it? It's true that NTS can be somewhat abused, because any movement can have extremists which twists their main teachings. MLK could point out a black supremacist which hates white people for being white and correctly say that's not a true antiracist. Also a Scotsman is true as long as it's one born in Scotland or acquiring citizenship through other legal means cause citizenship is not an ideal, ideology or persuasion you choose to adhere to which adherence depends in theory on your positions and behaviour, scotsman doesn't entail any particular behaviour, except it's maybe a hyperbolic way to emphasize adherence to costumes, sometimes comedic or stereotypical, as a supposed full rite of allegiancy to the community, a way to measure trust through tribalistic means, possibly make sure that person is not an intruder, spy, saboteur inconsciously, on this base, especially a newly insigned forester. -- (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Autism[edit]


Autism is a developmental disability, not a mental health condition

You're right, of course. But I generalized the header of that section so that, if someone wants to add other mental health topics (which autism, although not a mental health condition, is part of), they can just add it. Sorry for the confusion. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 08:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I added this to the article, aside from renaming it back to how I worded it:
{{hatnote|Note: [[Autism]] is not a mental health condition but a developmental disorder covered as a medical topic under the umbrella of mental health.<ref></ref>}}
Let me know if you have issues with that. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 08:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Should TERFs be mentioned?[edit]

TERFs are Feminists, although they are also Transphobic. Some of them were hailed as Feminists for years until they were revealed to uphold Transphobic beliefs, in which they were instead labeled TERFs (Rightfully so I should add), but now the Feminist movement pretends they were never Feminists in the first place. Although we can all agree that JK Rowling is a TERF, her past work as a Feminist is dismissed nowadays, because of her outspoken Transphobia. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, why not. The main argument against TERFs being feminists is that “they don’t fight for all women”, which would exclude the suffragettes as they only fought for certain women’s right to vote. Seems like a definite case of no true scotsman.
A lot of people that get labelled TERFs just because they’re transphobic aren’t feminists, I’ve seen people call Mike Pence a TERF. Christopher (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
"We can all agree that JK Rowling is a TERF" - Really? Where is the evidence that JKR is a "radical feminist"? Her most famous book series has a male lead character and she obscured her gender with her pen name. Feminist in a vague sense, "radfem", no. Just because a cis-woman doesn't like the trans movement doesn't automatically make her a "radfem"... In fact that is the perfect example of the "inverse Scotsman" mentioned at the end of this article and shows how stupid the TERF acronym is.-Albannach (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to break it to you, she's a TERF. That "doesn't agree with the trans movement" is sugar coated language to veil bigotry. This identity is not a "movement, and just imagine substituting words: "just because a hetero man doesn't like the gay movement doesn't automatically make him a reactionary". I mean transphobic feminists are in the minority and build their bed on biological essentialism which goes against most feminist beliefs as well as cozying up with far right religious fundamentalists, hence the rad part. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
You've missed my point entirely. She may be "T.E.", but she certainly isn't an "R.F." (radical feminist). So no, we can't all agree. JK Rowling is not a radical feminist, so therefore not a TERF, no matter how much she opposes the trans movement. That acronym is four letters. The rest of your comment is not relevant to what I said.-Albannach (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

About the Soviet Union[edit]

"For instance, a common meme among radical leftists is that the Soviet Union wasn't "a real attempt to achieve socialism", even though it was clearly the objective of the state to own the means of production, just as is dictated by Marx. You can decry the crimes of the Soviet Union (like the Holodomor) without resorting to fallacies to deny that it was actually a socialist regime."

But the state was controlled by the Party - or, more specifically by the Party's bureaucracy (the so-called Nomenklatura), while socialism means that the means of production are controlled by the workers (how possible this in real life is another topic). --MTA (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest it would depend on the context. If someone makes the claim "No Communist state has ever been run like a dictatorship" and when given the example of the USSR they then respond with "Ah! but that wasn't a true Communist state", then you might have a point.
But if, when simply talking about the USSR, someone points out that it wasn't a particularly good implementation of socialism, then I guess it's just an opinion at that point. It's also good to remember that NTS is an informal fallacy so it's going to be open to some interpretation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Soviet Union didn't claim to be communist, it claimed to be socialist (it's called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), communism is a hypothetic stateless society which the communists claimed to achieve sometome in the future (not that they actually believed - it was simply a propaganda tool to justify countless human rights violations), the term 'communist' was only applied by Western sources to distunguish them from Western democratic socialists.
Speaking of socialism, I think Mikhail Voslensky's book "Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class" is a good analysis of what The Soviet Union (and other 'communist' states) actually was.
Long story short: the Bolsheviks (more accurately the party's core, Lenin's vanguard) may have believed in supporting the working class and building a communist society, but primarily they wanted power and used leftist rhetoric in order to ally with the working class (which was much less numerous in then's Russia than peasants, but was more disciplined and had a strong sense of solidarity) to overthrow the Tsarist government.
But once they seized power and the civil war was over, they realized that they are too few to have power alone and there were many people who wanted to join the party solely for power, not having even delusions of actually helping the working class. Stalin (at the time, his office, General Secretary of the Communist Party, was thought to be merely functional) let them join in what is called Lenin Enrolment (which actually has nothing to do with Lenin), giving them various party's offices which de facto controlled the whole Soviet society in exchange for power for himself - and they later became known as Nomenklatura (literally 'Nomenclature' in Russian). The Nomenklatura later crushed most of the Lenin's vanguard in what is known as Great Purge, leaving only those who abandoned actual political beliefs and accepted Stalin's superiority.
The Nomenklatura was hidden from the outsider's eye, giving impression that the USSR was egalitarian, but in fact, they had much better standard of living than the general population. Their salaries weren't very high, but they had many priviledges like access to special facilities like shops (while in regular shops goods were of poor quality and most were in constant short supply) and hospitals of much better quality than regular ones. Nepotism was also very common in USSR, so while party offices themselves were not inheritable, the Nomenklatura's priviledges de facto were. But primarily privilidge of the Nomenklatura was the power. The nature of the planned economy of the Soviet Union was strictly hierarchical, completely controlled by the Nomenklatura (the workers in the USSR didn't have much rights by any standars, they had no right to demand higher wages, with all trade unions merely a puppet of the Party, and were for much time forbidden to change jobs) so Voslensky described it as 'feudalism with industry', which makes it more primitive than capitalism even from an orthodox Marxist point of view.
He also argues that both the communists and the fascists are neither left nor right, because they are categories of pluralistic society and both communists and fascists are totalitarian parties who simply want power - complete power, not limited by any democratic instututions.
Well, the USSR was socialist in their own words, but it's like calling DPRK 'democratic' simply because it calls itself so (or like the Nazis, who called themselves National Socialists).--MTA (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, it was too long, I guess. In short, the communists didn't represent the actual working class in any way (I can't find a reason to think they did except if you consider "they said so") and were in fact among the most brutal suppressors of workers' rights (and those countries which are still ruled by them are to this day, although most of them have adopted a capitalist economy). There was no freedom of association, with all trade unions being merely a puppet of the party (at least, in the Soviet Union - Poland did have independent trade unions - and one of them (Solidarity) has literally overthrown the communist rule), no right to strike etc.
As for Holodomor in particular - why do you think it did happen? Not reasons behind organizing it (I don't want to discuss it right here), but the immediate reasons behind it happening. Formally, kolkhozes (collective farms) were cooperatives co-owned by the farmers, but in practice were controlled by local authorities (Party committees) which have forced to export grain at rates much larger than that could feed the population. If the farmers were in control of their supposed (collective) property, that obviously wouldn't happen - so yes, if USSR was actually socialist, the Holodomor wouldn't happen. --MTA (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)