• Maiq@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    If someone telling you to read more to properly inform yourself is a personal attack id say your pretty fragile along with your argument.

    • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      No, you are saying that if someone disagrees with you, it is because they are misinformed. This is a kind of narcissism: you believe that your opinions are so correct and unshakably true that you cannot conceive of a world in which someone with equal access to information legitimately disagrees with you. You assume that if someone else disagrees with you, then they obviously haven’t read up on the matter; that they are ignorant, stupid, or malicious. It IS a personal attack, because you’re not attacking my words, you’re attacking the speaker of the word because you’ve spent so long in an internet echo chamber that you are no longer capable of imagining a reality in which you might be wrong.

      Conversely I could say that if your first recourse to someone disagreeing with you is to copy paste a Wikipedia article as proof that a term merely exists, I would wager you probably haven’t read much about the topic other than mean internet comments. I would further wager that probably most of what you read is mean internet comments

      • Maiq@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You can disagree with me all you want, you cant simply redefine a words meaning because it doesn’t fit your standard of a definition or hurts your feelers. That’s what the right does till words have no definitions or meaning.

        I have to assume your here to sow descent in discourse.

        • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If the term conflates the policies of a man who threw communists out of helicopters and banned labored unions with the policies of the US democratic party, which is the strongest supporter of labor union in the US, then it is a useless term which, again, was defined by philosophy departments at ivy league schools. It is already meaningless. It’s a useful way for people like you to conflate moderates with jackbooted thugs from 3rd world banana republics. It is an intellectually dishonest way to convey your political opinions: just label everyone who disagrees with you as a “neoliberal”

          I have to assume your here to sow descent in discourse.

          There’s the trademark extremist schizoid disorder. Take your meds