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 ;)
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.
You misread what I wrote three times and it’s my problem? 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.