I guess it’s slightly better that they’re mostly honest deniers instead of “they had it coming” types.
I think. I personally find it refreshing in small doses to deal with people that actually know what the fuck they’re talking about in terms of political theory, some of the shit .world users will say is…
My experience with hexbear has been pretty fucking far from them knowing political theory, outside of one very specific niche they can kind of articulate as long as you don’t ask them to reduce any of it to fundamentals or first principles.
As far as I can tell, their one trick is quoting books they haven’t actually read, assuming nobody else has read them either. I’ve literally had this same interaction three or four times at this point, over books which don’t say the things they think they say. Like multiple people arguing that some Chomsky work supports their orthodox ML theory.
You can literally get them to argue against the works they are trying cite by quoting them. It’s amusing for a bit, but then it’s just sad.
Hexbear and Lemmygrad are different instances, but tbh at this point I’m just happy with people that can at least vaguely define liberalism and socialism, and I don’t have to see the great minds upvote “communism is right wing, AKSHUALLY, because right wing means authoritarian.”
Edit: ah wait, your comment was under one about both, I conflated it with the other chain about Lemmygrad specifically.
I guess it’s slightly better that they’re mostly honest deniers instead of “they had it coming” types.
I think. I personally find it refreshing in small doses to deal with people that actually know what the fuck they’re talking about in terms of political theory, some of the shit .world users will say is…
Upsetting, intellectually.
Of course, so is talking to a genuine Stalinist.
My experience with hexbear has been pretty fucking far from them knowing political theory, outside of one very specific niche they can kind of articulate as long as you don’t ask them to reduce any of it to fundamentals or first principles.
As far as I can tell, their one trick is quoting books they haven’t actually read, assuming nobody else has read them either. I’ve literally had this same interaction three or four times at this point, over books which don’t say the things they think they say. Like multiple people arguing that some Chomsky work supports their orthodox ML theory.
You can literally get them to argue against the works they are trying cite by quoting them. It’s amusing for a bit, but then it’s just sad.
Hexbear and Lemmygrad are different instances, but tbh at this point I’m just happy with people that can at least vaguely define liberalism and socialism, and I don’t have to see the great minds upvote “communism is right wing, AKSHUALLY, because right wing means authoritarian.”
Edit: ah wait, your comment was under one about both, I conflated it with the other chain about Lemmygrad specifically.