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

  • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    565·
    1 year ago

    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

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbtEnglish
      276·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        26·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbtEnglish
          91·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            15·
            1 year ago

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

                • Veraticus@lib.lgbtEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year ago

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

                  • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                    12·
                    1 year 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.

    • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
      112·
      1 year ago

      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

      • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        131·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
          51·
          1 year ago

          Shrek seems pretty anti-authoritarian, so he’s automatically a lib and an enemy as far as they’re concerned.