• AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t actually think. I just know I’m right. Then whenever I’m in an argument I can just link the [word we’re arguing about] wikipedia article. Since I’m right and wikipedia has objective information the argument is over every time and I win.

      • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The conversation was you linking a Wikipedia article, I was at least hoping you’d link like a book or something. Like we could have a discussion if you were trying to argue against authoritarianiam as defined by say Bakunin or some other anarchist thinker.

        Then I could respond with On Authority which argues that authority is a natural consequence of any organization and calling something authoritarian just means you’re saying that it’s a system that is able to successfully reproduce itself.

        You could also try to link “authoritarianism” to fascism, but again that is pointless because there’s already a term for fascism, which is Fascism.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You may as well talk to a wall. It would be about as useful although probably less frustrating.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you would reread the thread you’d notice it begins with the hexbear user making a simple request, which the user could not fulfill. Any further questions in the discussion were met with derision, which is when the bad-faith behaviour was reciprocrated by the hexbear user. Please do better and hold yourself to at least half the standard you expect of others