you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 191 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And liberals

    (Just trying to be inclusive)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Once again the anarchists are the only correct group

    it's like the curse of Nostradamus

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    More like the curse of nostradumbass

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    lemmy user DESTROYS the philosophical tendency of anarchism with FACTS and LOGIC and EXTREMELY mediocre WORDPLAY

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Are anarchists actually practicing anarchism if they form groups?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Anarchism is when there's one guy alone in the forest." -Mikhail Bakunin

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Did Mikhail Bakunin think that women could not be anarchists?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Of course not, if there were women in the forest they would be clearly accompanied by the Internet Argument Bear and therefore it wouldn't be anarchism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I thought the woman might be busy having three kids with one of Bakunin's disciples while still married to Bakunin.

    Dude lived an interesting life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Iffs in the wild make me happy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Are "Iffs" a thing? I've been missing out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    iff is the shorthand for "if and only if".

    If you said "if it is a horse it has hooves" you can infer "all horses have hooves" but not that "all hooved creatures are horses".

    Otoh if you said "iff a polygon has 3 sides, it is a triangle" you can infer that all polygons that have 3 sides are triangles and that there are no other ways to make triangles.

    edit: This was typed by sleep deprived me, I tried to fix it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Omg I have no clue how you understood anything from my previous comment.

    It was such a mess lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Well I mostly was already familiar with "if and only if" terminology from some math class many years ago. So once you said iff stands for "if and only if" I didn't really look too close at the rest of your comment because I felt like I already understood.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Interesting. I guess it’s about cultural conditioning. Growing up in Scandinavia the “both sides” and subjectivist approach was more common for leftists. Especially the “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”. In contrast rightists and liberals usually insisted on exactly this two-plus-two-is-four rhetoric. As analyzing American discourse from the outside I’m still not sure if the right wingers of my Nordic childhood was right anyway, or if American leftism has regressed horrendously

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    If we were talking about the normal version where one perspective does see 4 sides and the other 3, then I'd agree. But right wingers often completely ignore science and facts for what they feel is right - despite loudly claiming the opposite. They're simply wrong about any number of things, from economics to gender studies to climate change, but they insist on their positions because of how they feel on a fundamental level - that all the common-sense folks around them think this way, their preacher thinks this way, and they don't trust anyone they haven't personally encountered long enough to understand. Time and time again, science has disproven explicitly conservative viewpoints, from race biology to Social Darwinism to climate change and so on. But they double down because to change their perspectives risks alienating their peers, or even worse, possibly damning them to Hell.

    That's why I said what I did. Liberals are a pain in the ass and generally incapable of accomplishing much of value, but at least they typically welcome new data that may contradict a previously-held position.

  • source
  • parent