76
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
76 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
845 readers
554 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you were debating a flat earther would you try to find the coherence of their arguments? There's nothing worth trying to understand here, it's just drivel about a cherry picked list. Call the author a genocidal pedophile and move on.
That's what I used to think about Marx. It's tons of fun to poke holes in them and make them argue against themselves. You start with their premises and prove them wrong, with their premises. "Know thy enemy." -- Sun Tzu
You did not think Marx was incoherent due to reading the Marxist arguments, but the vibes of the liberal zeitgeist. This is a different situation, since we're analyzing the actual arguments and finding no substance.
Pretend they have substance. Use your theory of mind.
Put yourself in another person's shoes and argue their points. Do it better than them.
Attorneys do it all the time.
Once again asking how you would approach debating a flat earther then
yeah and some people enjoy getting pooped on or whatever but it ain't for me
You don't get it: you start with heir premises, then prove how they're wrong, using their premises. It's incredible! You get them arguing against themselves then prove what they just did. They get angry, then you make memes about them getting angry.