662
Defediverse (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
573 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 103 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Lol right? And if you even try to engage it’s constant sealioning, memeing, and dunking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 51 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    Sealioning? No, you just won't read my 10,000 word post that is copied from someone else's pHD.

    Edit: No joke, after posting this I got this message from a Hexbear user:

    I’ve read all three volumes of [Das Kapital] around a month ago because I had an autistic urge to do it

    tell me with full seriousness that you’ve even glanced at it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Have you even read Gramsci? You really can't disagree with anything I say until you've read Gramsci. Sorry, I don't make the rules!

    This is why my instance is defederated with them though. It's just bad faith nonsense all the way down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, it's not a huge problem to read Marx or Gramsci before arguing about Marx or Gramsci. You don't have to read all they wrote, of course. To form an opinion on Gadamer I don't have to read everything he wrote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That’s different than what I said though, which is that you can’t disagree with me without reading Gramsci. And is also typically how these authors’ names are invoked in arguments which are not about the authors themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    While discussing Gramsci - then they'd be obviously correct that you should be familiar with the subject to disagree or agree or anyhing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    For the third time: this isn’t what I said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Then it's your problem that you can't formulate your positions correctly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You misread what I wrote three times and it's my problem? You are a complete idiot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    You are a complete idiot.

    I was condescending to a person insufficiently intelligent or humble, that is, you.

    Natural languages are ambiguous, so when somebody better than you misreads what you wrote three times, it's your fault and if you also behave in such a way, then it's you who is a complete idiot.

    Other than that, I don't know in which stable you've been bred.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    It's not even a good come back. It's like saying that they're right because they have the power of Shrek on their side

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •