• Mindfury [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    jesus christ, the final sentence is just absolute chef’s kiss

    bro, you just spent two paragraphs not knowing the definition of fucking words and making up a load of shit that loosely parrots what you learned on reddit. you’re the one lost in the sauce, shut the fuck up

  • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are definitely issues in US institutions, but a liberal is not going to defend the shortcomings

    Lol, remember when Hillary tried to counter Trump’s “make america great again” with “america is already great”?

    And then she became the first wamen presindent because she did not defend the shortcomings, the rest is herstory

  • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It kind of sucks because you could have an interesting clash of ideas with someone who disagrees with the material basis of ideas. It’d sound like a debate about whether math is invented or discovered. If ideas are before material conditions and ideals will outlive any condition, then it would imply the existence of an objectively superior leader who is wisest regardless of the circumstances they find themselves in. We’d owe Aaron Sorkin an apology. You’d have to reread Berserk and say that Griffith did nothing wrong. You’d have a Calvanist world where some people are chosen by fate to lead. Truly, the divine right of kings would be back on the menu. The most correct monarch would be protected by God in battle and their people would be the chosen people. Then when barbarians overrun them and they think back to their former glory, they realize that a new leader has been reborn from the ashes who needs to lead them to repel the invaders and interlopers. They’d be justified in concentrating the unworthy and disposing of them. And they would have gotten away with it if communists hadn’t saved the world from fascism.

  • KFCDoubleDoink [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Really unfortunate linguistic clusterfuck here.

    I do actually think marxists should be careful when they throw out “materialist”. It will absolutely flummox libs every time. Know your audience folks.

    • YoungBelden [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree and disagree. Or maybe I agree but want to disagree. the materialist versus idealist divide is such a basic and important concept in philosophy that I feel like anyone should at least understand that the words have different meanings in that context. but getting people to understand that words are just tenuous representations of concepts is a hard sell.

      other problematic words are fetishism and reactionary

  • RNAi [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Again, this person simply doesn’t know the lexicon, but their heart is most likely in the correct place

    • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Their heart is in the exact wrong place…

      Not just incorrect, but deciding to lecture and chide despite the fact that someone just gave them a short definition they could go look up and verify. Take the 60 seconds to do that? Nah, they’ll just make stuff up, make it about their ego. God forbid they challenge their beliefs in any way.