EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
Lol right? And if you even try to engage it’s constant sealioning, memeing, and dunking.
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:
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
They are used to their echo chambers and high-fiving themselves. To be fair, I wouldn’t want to mess with them if Shrek was on their side.
Shrek seems pretty anti-authoritarian, so he’s automatically a lib and an enemy as far as they’re concerned.
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.
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.
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.
While discussing Gramsci - then they’d be obviously correct that you should be familiar with the subject to disagree or agree or anyhing.
For the third time: this isn’t what I said.
Then it’s your problem that you can’t formulate your positions correctly.
And you run a far-right uberconservatives instances so you have no room to talk on nonsense