Meta has a vested interest in making money. This has caused them to force polarizing content onto users pages, even when the information presented is false. They have worsened the political divides in America, and caused a significant number of people to believe lies about their fellow citizens.

The fact is Meta has damaged democracy for it’s own profit.

While the specific context and criteria may differ between the “No True Scotsman” and “No True Christian” fallacies, the underlying logical error remains the same: attempting to maintain a generalization or stereotype by selectively redefining the category to exclude inconvenient counterexamples. There is no meaningful difference. (In a somewhat ironic twist, you’ve essentially applied the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the concept itself.)

I didn’t argue that China isn’t Communist because of trivial reasons like using sugar in their coffee; rather, my point was centered on their significant presence of a private sector. Just as you emphasize that democracy necessitates “free and democratic elections,” I similarly emphasize that Communism entails certain defining characteristics. The absence of private industry serves as a clear benchmark, not a moving target or an impossible standard, but a fixed criterion. Despite whatever label the controlling party in China holds, they fall short of meeting this criterion.

In essence, you’re basing your argument on a false premise. Your definition of Communism holds as much weight as North Korea’s definition of Democracy. While you allow Democracy to define itself based on its ideology, you insist on defining Communism based on the actions of its deceitful actors.

Not at all. My statement simply pointed out a common mistake many people make when misusing the “No True Scotsman” or “appeal to purity” fallacy, as you did. This fallacy occurs when there is no clear, objective definition available, or when someone dismisses a valid counterexample.

That’s why, since you have a clear definition in mind of what a Democratic Republic is, you immediately recognized the misuse of the term in North Korea’s case, and thus wouldn’t argue that stating it isn’t truly a Democratic Republic constitutes a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The same reasoning applies to China and Communism.

Communism is a political, social, and economic ideology advocating for the replacement of private ownership and profit-based economies with a classless system of communal ownership. However, China has actively promoted private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, fostering the growth of a private sector. Therefore, China cannot be considered Communist.

The definition of Communism can be tested and evaluated. China’s policies diverge from this definable concept, thus it doesn’t fall under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Edit: I just read further down, and realized you actually believe the only criteria for being part of a group is calling yourself as such.

“If you call yourself a communist, you must be a communist”

In a way yes… accept it as communism despite the failures of actually living up to the ideals.

So… yeah, you honestly just don’t understand the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. But you do have a fun definition, by which the claim that North Korea is a Democratic Republic is affirmed. After all, if you call yourself a Democratic Republic, “in a way yes” you are.

I hear ya man. It really gets my goat when people say the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea isn’t a Democratic Republic. Like, it’s right there in the name.