this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
657 points (70.5% liked)

Memes

45877 readers
1220 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
657
Defediverse (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by w00t@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 103 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For the third time: this isn’t what I said.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then it's your problem that you can't formulate your positions correctly.

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 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 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

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