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.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did you have something useful to add to the conversation?

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] AlfredoBonannoFofana@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You man have more luck in talking to 'walls' or people in general if you were willing to engage in good faith discussion

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Something most hexbear users do not do.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 5 points 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