That’s different than what I said though, which is that you can’t disagree with me without reading Gramsci. And is also typically how these authors’ names are invoked in arguments which are not about the authors themselves.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While discussing Gramsci - then they'd be obviously correct that you should be familiar with the subject to disagree or agree or anyhing.

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For the third time: this isn’t what I said.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then it's your problem that you can't formulate your positions correctly.

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You misread what I wrote three times and it's my problem? You are a complete idiot.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

You are a complete idiot.

I was condescending to a person insufficiently intelligent or humble, that is, you.

Natural languages are ambiguous, so when somebody better than you misreads what you wrote three times, it's your fault and if you also behave in such a way, then it's you who is a complete idiot.

Other than that, I don't know in which stable you've been bred.