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

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      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
        1
        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
          5
          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
            4
            ·
            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.lgbt
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      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
        7
        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
          2
          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.