How do I counter someone claiming that I'm using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

I know, which is why I was making a statement and not an argument.

if you´re talking about soviet union or china or whatever then say that they called themselves communist to give their authority legitmacy over the people there who had a positive view of it. just becasue someone says they´re something that doesn´t mean they are ex. north korea aka the democratic peoples republic of korea. does he believe north korea is a democracy just because they say they are?

tell them that calling out logical fallacies is for retards and this isn't a high school debate club

How do you explain why communism failed to be "real communism" everytime it tried?

Because no-one has ever built a stateless, classless society. Very simple.

Naming the fallacy is a lot easier and more effective than laboriously explaining the fallacy without naming it.

You explain that capitalism failed during feudalism, just as socialism fails during capitalism until it succeeds.

pic related

Basically use the point bought up in this picture

so it's like what the SNP says

You realize these are retarded, right? I mean, the point being made is obviously and glaringly against conventional logic and thought that it doesn't really require explanation, right? You're not that retarded?

I have severe autism and need explanations, pls senpai ;_;

World revolution never took off.

Ignore him, those pictures are simplified but pretty much correct

It's easier to just make the argument that states like the USSR did some good and bad things, but always in the context of their material conditions at the time. It doesn't matter if it's "not real Communism," because it's "more communist" than the current status quo, so your opponent will want you to defend it, or at least the parts of the USSR that are similar to your own pet ideology.

If he is not a Scotsman he is not a Scotsman. Period.

Are you serious

Communism CANNOT be "tried". This makes no fucking sense.

Lemme try to break down how this argument usually goes

You don't, because nuanced understanding of history takes effort and believing in childish, hamfisted slogans is simply easier.

(OP)
Why do people say "true Communism"? The right always distorts this into NTSm - but the point is that the Soviet Union, Maoist China, GDR weren't any kind of Communism at all! I can't remember how many times I had to just point out the obvious the the USSR stands for " Union of SOCIALIST Republics" (although even that was debatable in it's later history).
And please stop saying "tried", you're just buying into the ideological framework of capitalism, within capitalism is the norm, and everything else is a risty and forced deviant of regular societ and economy.

...

enjoy your glorious chinese malware

I think it's crucial that we move away from the sort of appeal to our own definitions in arguments because it's pretty trash and doesn't get at what the liberals are addressing. Prescriptivism is trash and there are a lot of definitions for both socialism and communism so saying "well your definition is just wrong" is pretty terrible. Further, the liberals are right that there have been genuine communists of greater and lesser ability and knowledge as well as proletarian uprisings with varying degrees of success. That is, there have been genuine movements toward communism in the past and they've ended in various sorts of failures.

Now to address the liberal argument:
what they are asserting is
1: the communist states that have existed in the past were bad
2: what you are advocating for leads to this badness
3: therefore your politics are bad

You may agree with 1 and then say "I am not advocating for a society that looks like Stalinist Russia and my special snowflake beliefs will not repeat what I see as objectionable in Stalinist Russia because I support …."

You may disagree with point 1 as well and say whatever well-practiced tankie shit you've got with you too. The point is that just saying "that wasn't socialism" is not enough because it doesn't answer the question they're asking which is "how can we be sure what you support doesn't lead to that?"

Communism mustn't be seen as this precise state of affairs in the long run, but as a movement that, in order to call itself successful, must achieve several things: struggle against the bourgeois state, seizing local power, a period of class dictatorship that overthrows all present material conditions that constitute the capitalist mode of production, a lower communist phase and a higher communist phase. What we've had until now is a few genuine examples that came close to this lower phase: primitive communism, Paris Commune and post-'17 war communism. If your defense of communism; the reason why you're in the discussion in the first place, is to defend communism proper from anything other tahn this definition, you may as well go full ML and defend post-NEP Russia, pre-Dengist PRC and Cuba as socialism and not bother with denying the existence to make a point at all.

Does it fit the definition?

Than the no true Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply.

Half the problem with the internet is people have just enough knowledge to mentally block themselves from learning new things.

First off, it's not a no true scotsman fallacy because none of the 20th century experiments were stateless, classless, or moneyless.
Second, ask them why they insist on either a calling a frog a fish or a tadpole a frog (depending on whether or not you view the 20th century experiments as socialism).

Just bully them out of the conversation by switching IP

This is by far the best answer. The other answer given in this thread of saying past experiments don't meet the definition of communism is stupid.
When normies say "communism" they are talking about the process of communist parties which tried to build socialism. Telling them them that definition is incorrect will get you nowhere and it doesn't get to the root of their objection. Many think building communism by definition requires a dictatorship or inevitably ends up as one explain why this doesn't need to happen.

That argument assumes though, that someone is genuinely ignorant about alternative forms of communism and just wants reassurance that things aren't going to be Stalin's sex dungeon. In the case of a person like that I would agree it's dumb to pivot back to your definition without further elaboration or explanation as to why yours would be better.

In my experience someone who knows enough to say direct names of fallacies generally knows the true definitions of common political ideologies and is just using this to deliberately stymie the discussion. In that case insistence on definition is more important than you think. A lot of convincing in a debate is getting the person to have the conversation you want them to have. If they wont agree to your definitions that is kind of hard to do.

You don't have to believe in pure foundational definitions to defend "your" own definition. The key word being "your." The inherent subjectivity of which implies a lack of purity or foundational quality.

OP he is trolling you.
If you talk to the same person over and over again about the same topic and he is giving you the same wrong nonsense answer again and again and it makes you rage every fucking time what does that tell us?

If you are trying to claim that you talk to different people and they all say this is a "no true scotsman" fallacy then FIGURE THE FUCK OUT WHO IS CONTROLLING THEM YOU FUCKING MORON AND TALK HIM OUT OF HIS GOVERNMENT SHILL JOB.
But i guess you just talked to the same person all the time.

But precisely : no Communist party ever tried such a nonsense. Even the Bolsheviks merely tried to spread their revolution and keep power in Russia until they do.

Even the USSR didn't claim to be communist. They just claimed to be striving to achieve communism.

Most people who list off fallacies in conversations are autistic pseuds honestly. it's a crutch for libertarians who can't think through where an argument falls apart so they memorize a list of templates for arguments that don't work. There is no set definition for socialism or any of these terms really, so for more ambiguous terms it's best to avoid appealing to their definitions entirely. Generally if your argument relies on the definition of a word being one thing and not another thing, you haven't thought through what you're saying. This is why it's autistic to say that Marx was wrong about the LVT because "value is subjective." Marx could have used any set of letters other than "value" to describe the phenomena he was describing and the work would still hold. He simply chose the word "value" in order to describe the phenomena he was describing.

As long as you're consistent with how you use your terms and you're clear about what they mean, the objection that "those aren't my definitions for those terms" does not work.

All of you are dumbfucks. You're confusing communism and socialism again. The USSR was (allegedly) socialist. Just because it was run by a Communist party does not mean they ever claimed communism ever actually existed in their country. Same goes for all other similar states.