I think you don't understand this fallacy. Here's an example.
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge." Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
In this case, Angus actually is a Scotsman, but the person making the claim suggests he is not by using an altered definition based on their argument instead of the commonly accepted definition. The logic is circular.
This situation is akin to the following:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Andrew is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge." Person A: "Your uncle Andrew is a third generation US citizen, descended from one Scottish immigrant grandfather, who makes this ancestry a substantial part of his identity despite having little knowledge of Scottish culture beyond 'bagpipes, kilts, and haggis' and what he has seen in movies."
It this case, despite identifying as a Scotsman and utilizing some elements of Scottish culture, by the commonly accepted definition he is not a Scotsman, even in part. Therefore, any observations of Scotsmen based on Andrew are likely incorrect.
For your situation, given there have never been true socialist countries, only mixed systems, it strains credulity to believe that your experience with a mixed system is representative of a true socialist state, just as my experience with labradoodles is unlikely to be representative of Golden Retrievers or poodles.
Fucking corporate America. I was fired for having a disability, specifically and intentionally by my boss and her manager. Neither has any direct accountability - both were terminated as a result of the findings of a federal and state investigation, but the company will pay for the damages. They both failed upward, getting higher positions at other companies, while I've struggled to find employment, something already difficult due to the stigma of my age, disability, and gender, but now with word of my termination having spread through the quite small pool of people who work in my field.
Word. I had a job that promised no more than 40 and my manager offered unofficial comp time for any overage. Then the economy slowed and they wanted to downsize, so fired me for working less than 40 hours one week a few months before.
My gen Z kid was pretty excited because it seemed like AI had so much promise. Promise to do his homework for him. He since learned how he spends more time getting the right answers out of it than just doing the work himself.
Fuck. All of these comments helped, but yours nailed it. It's exactly right. I cried a little.
I'm tired of the mood swings, the walking on egg shells, being told what was said to be okay one day is now bad the next so he's now angry with me.
This just happened too! I was running late for an appointment on Friday and let him know. I didn't ask him to, but he did some chores for me. I thanked him and got a "we're partners and we support each other". Come Sunday, he's angry I was late and he "had to do those chores for me". He didn't. I CANNOT wait to divorce this bastard.
I am in individual therapy, which is what led me to move out. For so long there was this hope against hope that he'd get his act together, and he did a bit, just little bits here and there, but never enough to be a good or safe spouse. After this, I'm done.
This isn't the first time this has happened, just the first in years because I refused to let him drive with me in the car. This is also the last time this is happening. We're absolutely divorcing.
Funny, because that was the deal after his aggressive driving almost caused a serious accident. I refused to let him drive if I was in the car for years. He promised to do better in therapy so I was giving him a chance. This was our third car ride together.
I think you don't understand this fallacy. Here's an example.
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
In this case, Angus actually is a Scotsman, but the person making the claim suggests he is not by using an altered definition based on their argument instead of the commonly accepted definition. The logic is circular.
This situation is akin to the following:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Andrew is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Your uncle Andrew is a third generation US citizen, descended from one Scottish immigrant grandfather, who makes this ancestry a substantial part of his identity despite having little knowledge of Scottish culture beyond 'bagpipes, kilts, and haggis' and what he has seen in movies."
It this case, despite identifying as a Scotsman and utilizing some elements of Scottish culture, by the commonly accepted definition he is not a Scotsman, even in part. Therefore, any observations of Scotsmen based on Andrew are likely incorrect.
For your situation, given there have never been true socialist countries, only mixed systems, it strains credulity to believe that your experience with a mixed system is representative of a true socialist state, just as my experience with labradoodles is unlikely to be representative of Golden Retrievers or poodles.
Fucking corporate America. I was fired for having a disability, specifically and intentionally by my boss and her manager. Neither has any direct accountability - both were terminated as a result of the findings of a federal and state investigation, but the company will pay for the damages. They both failed upward, getting higher positions at other companies, while I've struggled to find employment, something already difficult due to the stigma of my age, disability, and gender, but now with word of my termination having spread through the quite small pool of people who work in my field.
Same, though I keep a defanged AtlasOS version on dual boot for the rare things that absolutely require that garbage.
One can make it a sport, even a team sport!
Word. I had a job that promised no more than 40 and my manager offered unofficial comp time for any overage. Then the economy slowed and they wanted to downsize, so fired me for working less than 40 hours one week a few months before.
Same, but they get pretty pissed off when they wake up and find me in their house.
I cannot wait for my boss to try to replace me with one of these.
/s
Then you must not read your own comments.
You're not wrong. It actually would make America great again.
I'm in. Let's do this.
Pretty sure they're a pretty competent troll. They're doing a great job skirting the line between being the right level of unsufferable and too much.
Case in point: you.
My gen Z kid was pretty excited because it seemed like AI had so much promise. Promise to do his homework for him. He since learned how he spends more time getting the right answers out of it than just doing the work himself.
Eat it and your shit will be Smurf blue for days.
Fuck. All of these comments helped, but yours nailed it. It's exactly right. I cried a little.
I'm tired of the mood swings, the walking on egg shells, being told what was said to be okay one day is now bad the next so he's now angry with me.
This just happened too! I was running late for an appointment on Friday and let him know. I didn't ask him to, but he did some chores for me. I thanked him and got a "we're partners and we support each other". Come Sunday, he's angry I was late and he "had to do those chores for me". He didn't. I CANNOT wait to divorce this bastard.
I am in individual therapy, which is what led me to move out. For so long there was this hope against hope that he'd get his act together, and he did a bit, just little bits here and there, but never enough to be a good or safe spouse. After this, I'm done.
This isn't the first time this has happened, just the first in years because I refused to let him drive with me in the car. This is also the last time this is happening. We're absolutely divorcing.
We're absolutely divorcing. I think a restraining order is a good idea too, thank you.
Funny, because that was the deal after his aggressive driving almost caused a serious accident. I refused to let him drive if I was in the car for years. He promised to do better in therapy so I was giving him a chance. This was our third car ride together.
Done.