• @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    751 year ago

    Comrade, we all know lead poisoning and the need for safety gear are capitalist propaganda! Now, get back in the mines! Production must increase 50% this year, and your state-appointed union representative says it can!

      • @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        -101 year ago

        You know, it took until 2003 for Russia to remove leaded gasoline from stations. The Soviets never did it LMFAO

        but nice try

        • CyclohexaneM
          link
          fedilink
          63
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          EDIT: based on another commenter, OP’s claim isn’t even factual.

          And it took the US until 1996 (after fall of USSR)? Not to mention that it was capitalism (General Motors) that spread the hoax about leaded gasoline being safe, under the guise of scientific research in 1921.

          This is not the gotcha you think it is.

        • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          59
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Did chatgpt not include this or…?

          https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gatech.edu/dist/a/1473/files/2020/09/sovenv.pdf

          Nevertheless, the Soviet Union took effective action to protect the population from lead exposure; it banned lead-based (white lead) paint and it banned the sale of leaded gasoline in some cities and regions. While leaded gasoline was introduced in the 1920s in the United States, it was not until the 1940s that leaded gasoline was introduced in the Soviet Union (5). In the 1950s, the Soviet Un- ion became the first country to restrict the sale of leaded gaso- line; in 1956, its sale was banned in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Baku, Odessa, and tourist areas in the Caucasus and Crimea, as well as in at least one of the “closed cities” of the nuclear weap- ons complex (6, 7). The motivation for the bans on leaded gaso- line is not entirely clear, but factors may have included Soviet research on the effects of low-level lead exposure (8), or sup- port from Stalin himself (5). In any event, the bans on leaded gasoline in some areas prevented what could have been signifi- cant population lead exposure. In the United States and other OECD countries, leaded gasoline has been identified as one of the largest sources of lead exposure (9, 10). Lead-based paint is another potentially significant source of population lead exposure.

          Bonus: a great example of capital at work,

          Along with a number of other coun- tries, in the 1920s the Soviet Union adopted the White Lead Convention, banning the manufacture and sale of lead-based (white lead) paint (11). In the United States, however, the National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association successfully opposed the ban, and lead-based paint was not banned in the United States until 1971 (12).

          Two generations of Americans.

      • @BigNote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -161 year ago

        And your point is?

        Please do share an example of industrialization that somehow doesn’t include unforseen negative health effects.

        Go on now, we’ll wait.

        • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          301 year ago

          My point is that capital has successfully fought to put lead into American’s blood and lungs for over 100 years.

          • @BigNote@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            -41 year ago

            So in other words you are unwilling to answer the question.

            Got it.

            This is precisely why I say that you aren’t intellectually serious people.

            • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You have one question in your previous comment on the very first line, and it was answered.

              Your statement on the 2nd line doesn’t really make sense, as I don’t think anyone blames people for unforseen negative health effects.

              What people are upset about are the forseen, proven, endemic negative health effects being purposefully spread for over a century.

              • @BigNote@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                What a crock of shit!

                Why would capital willingly poison its workforce as a deliberate policy? That makes zero sense.

                I can see capital writing it off as a necessary side-cost of doing business, but I can’t see it as a deliberate policy.

                Again, it makes no sense. Capital wants a relatively healthy workforce, not one that’s falling apart due to lead-caused neurological decrepitude.

        • CyclohexaneM
          link
          fedilink
          52
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The first commenter is talking a hypothetical scenario of socialism being bad, so the second commenter (the one you responded to) responded with actual example of that same hypothetical scenario happening, but except by a capitalist power (the US). I don’t think your response makes sense at all here.

          • @Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            -411 year ago

            No, his response is calling out the whataboutism fallacy. The US doing something bad does not in any way, shape, or form make socialism any less shitty. It’s poking fun at the delusional people who still think it’s a good ideology despite the overwhelming evidence.

            • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              161 year ago

              Calling something “Whataboutism” infers a belief in American exceptionalism. You should question that belief.

              • @Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                -121 year ago

                No, you’re just an idiot. Whataboutism is simply a fallacy. It doesn’t infer anything outside of inconsistent logic. If you feel threatened by it then it just shows that you’re disingenuous.

                  • You clearly don’t understand what the fallacy is if you’re actually dumb enough to post an article to try and justify it. Here’s a quick run down for your own benefit. Whataboutism is the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse (This is the Merriam Webster definition). There are three reasons why this is fallacious:

                    1. The “what about” part is irrelevant to the original statement or argument. By dismissing the original point and entirely focusing entirely on the “what about” part, the person gets to use the “what about” as misdirection to avoid directly addressing what was already said. If you know your fallacies well, you would know that this sounds eerily familiar to the red herring fallacy. Not exactly the same, but very close.

                    2. It implies that because entity B did something just as bad or worse, that justifies entity A doing the same thing… when that’s not the case. If I stole a bike three years 3 years ago, that doesn’t justify you stealing a bike now. You criticizing me for stealing the bike 3 years ago doesn’t make your criticism wrong even if you stole a bike this morning, but it also doesn’t justify you stealing the bike. The point is that both actions are wrong, each entity is responisble for it’s own actions. One doesn’t justify, excuse, or negate the other.

                    3. The whataboutism fallacy is a variant of the Tu Quouque fallacy (that’s not a bonus, that’s literally what it is) which is a subsection of the ad hominem argument. An ad hom becomes fallacious when an a character attack is used in place of an actual argument. Which is what happens with whataboutism. The person using it is replacing an actual argument with a charged accusation of hypocrisy and nothing more, which is basically just a character attack.

                    In this case, the OP of this comment thread made a hypothetical scenario poking fun at the authoritarianism, poor working conditions, and the corruption that is so often found in socialist states. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but if you want to make rebuttal against it, you have to actually address it. The second commenter in this thread did not address it. Instead he brought up a random point about American companies promoting lead. Not only is his comment an irrelevant non-sequitur, but it doesn’t disprove the point that OP was trying to make. That second commenter is clearly a Marxist who got offended by the point that the OP made, and so he quickly resorted to the “what about the US” fallback tactic to both avoid addressing the point that was actually made and to pull a weak “gotcha”. It’s the ol’ classic “oh yeah? but look at the US is bad therefore Marxism is good/not as bad/excused/justified in doing shitty thing”. It’s inconsistent logic.

                    Then again, Marxism is truly a brain dead ideology. Without propaganda about the US, the entire school of thought would collapse. What is there left to a firmly failed ideology that failed in both theory and practice? Nothing.

              • @GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                -41 year ago

                Calling out whataboutism is perfectly acceptable when it is being used regardless of its origins.

                It is in no way a logical fallacy and in fact the use of whataboutism is itself a logical fallacy.

                The flaw in gorilladrum’s argument is that the hypothetical example demonstrates the flaws in that specific situation and does not address problems in socialism as a whole yet they suggest it dismisses the ideology completely.

    • @Mudface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -81 year ago

      The Glorious Leader has declared that we have too much lead. You’re now reassigned to be in front of the firing squad.