• Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    1 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
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        47
        ·
        1 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

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          61
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          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
          arrow-up
          52
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 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.

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          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
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            37
            ·
            1 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
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 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.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People cry whataboutism when they dislike people throwing context that goes against their argument into a discussion.

    • Mudface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 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.