• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fair enough, but again, you somehow had even less nuance and pulled the classic bit of feigning superiority.

    Edit: oof, you unironically suggest Sowell in another comment as a good resource. Looks like I’m correct, the superiority was indeed completely unfounded.

    • @HardNut
      link
      31 year ago

      Instead of berating him for not leaving a robust enough comment for your taste, why don’t you ask for more information? Calling capitalists uninformed or rent seekers is way more unfair than alluding to historical or economic evidence to the contrary. The latter clearly leaves itself more open to good faith discourse, getting nothing out of it has simply been a failure on your part

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The very first thing they said was “what history? What economics?” - so yeah, they’ve asked for information.

        • @HardNut
          link
          11 year ago

          Don’t strip away context, this is what he said:

          What history? What economics? Vague gesturing and feigning superiority without actually saying anything is peak.

          Those are clearly rhetorical questions, his comment was an accusation of feigning superiority. His comment encouraged the other guy to be defensive instead of opening up about his ideas. If he wanted information, then he’s doing it wrong.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            I’m not removing context at all. And if anything, the extended quote only further makes my point - it isn’t only an accusation of feigned superiority, is it? It’s also an accusation of vague gesturing without substance. Thus, out of 5 statements, 4 are directly about the fact they didn’t really say anything, and 2 are requests for them to elaborate.