• AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    If we’re doing condescending book recommendations, here’s one that’s actually relevant to the topic:

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25666062-listen-liberal

    prefigurative traditionalism

    If being perceived as intelligent is so important to you, how about you take a step back and perceive the conversation you’re inserting yourself into? The argument you’re addressing is that democrats are too similar to republicans. You’re replying to someone arguing that democrats are complicit in your list of ‘republicans bad’ with the idiosyncrasies of republican ideological superstructure. It’s a complete red herring. If you’re going to respond, respond on topic. And if you’re going to act stupid don’t be condescending.

    • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I wasn’t being condescending, just recommending a book about the history behind the modern Republican party. Tracing the history behind how a modern Christian right movement was created should be more than enough evidence about why the two parties being equivalent is false.

      idiosyncrasies of republican ideological superstructure.

      That’s the entire point of recommending the book, and the term “prefigurative traditionalism” is taken directly from the book I recommended, not my attempt to “sound smart.”