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

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      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.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          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.lgbt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              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.

      • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        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.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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