3 ms·
>You decide what the correct beliefs are and the fact that other people don't have those beliefs is evidence of their coercion. No, the subjects of the article
by revolvingocelot 5y ago
>You decide what the correct beliefs are and the fact that other people don't have those beliefs is evidence of their coercion.
No, the subjects of the article decide that. I'm just some asshole commenting on it.
Relatedly, it's weird that you're directly asserting that I'm doing something that I'm not doing -- you've decided it, thus it is so. You'd think that you could quote the bit where I'm deciding what the correct beliefs are. I suspect you're inferring it from my suggestion that an increasingly-consolidated mass media decides what's normal and presents it to us. If so, I have a short educational video [0] on the topic.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
- slibhb 5y agoI don't care whether the argument is yours or the article's, I'm addressing the argument.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago> I don't care whether the argument is yours or the article's, I'm addressing the argument Sure, by baselessly asserting that I, or Gramsci, >>decide what the correct beliefs are and the fact that other people don't have those beliefs is evidence of their coercion. Have I missed something? You wrote that "[i]t's very tricky to tell people that their desires, beliefs, culture, and religion are merely ruses to further domination", which suggests that I, or Gramsci, make that argument. I don't think I did; he doesn't seem to be. Should I infer that the three Fs outlined again and again in the article are in fact the desires, beliefs, culture, and religion of the people being oppressed?
- slibhb 5y agoYou're missing something all right
- revolvingocelot 5y agoI imagine you're still addressing the argument?