Not really, all of you love to be disingenuous and apply what I said to random shit and not human constructs to make it appear silly so you feel superior instead of directly engaging with what I said.
I did engage I provided examples off the top of my head of non oppressive (and some would say necessary/positive) hierarchy. You’re the one refusing to engage, smug posting instead of engaging with the fact that if non oppressive (or necessary/positive) hierarchy exists then the idea that hierarchy is inherently oppressive is silly. I also engaged by further expanding my thoughts in the reply to zeezee on top of engaging with the idea of “epistemic-authority” and how in my view that is merely a semantic retreat substitutimg changing the name for changing the thing.
Definitely not the most polite tone you’re right maybe I was being a bit mean but it was still engaging with your point more than your smug posting reply was engaging with anything at least.
It wasn’t mocking it was a genuine point delivered not as polite as could be (there is a difference). You said hierarchy is inherently oppressive I countered pointing out it seems silly to call the hierarchy between parent and child oppressive or between safety staff and other staff at dangerous industrial locations or between doctors and nurses. If these examples are not oppressive and in many cases actually positive it then brings into dispute the idea of oppression as some inherint or intrinsic aspect of hierarchy as opposed hierarchy simply being a useful social construct that can be used in many ways depending on outside factors such as class content etc.
You can smug post all you like doesn’t make this
any less silly and detached from reality.
Not really, all of you love to be disingenuous and apply what I said to random shit and not human constructs to make it appear silly so you feel superior instead of directly engaging with what I said.
They are all directly engaging with your claim and disproving via instances of human hierarchy that exist.
I did engage I provided examples off the top of my head of non oppressive (and some would say necessary/positive) hierarchy. You’re the one refusing to engage, smug posting instead of engaging with the fact that if non oppressive (or necessary/positive) hierarchy exists then the idea that hierarchy is inherently oppressive is silly. I also engaged by further expanding my thoughts in the reply to zeezee on top of engaging with the idea of “epistemic-authority” and how in my view that is merely a semantic retreat substitutimg changing the name for changing the thing.
This was not engaging it was mocking, you can fuck around all you want I see what you are doing.
Oh my God, you precious little baby
What’s up shit talker. Thats all you do. Is look for dogpiles to talk shit in.
Given how you respond to people actually trying to engage with you by throwing a little tantrum, why the fuck wouldn’t I just shit talk you
Definitely not the most polite tone you’re right maybe I was being a bit mean but it was still engaging with your point more than your smug posting reply was engaging with anything at least.
I’m not responding seriously to mocking and dont act like I should? Lol wild.
It wasn’t mocking it was a genuine point delivered not as polite as could be (there is a difference). You said hierarchy is inherently oppressive I countered pointing out it seems silly to call the hierarchy between parent and child oppressive or between safety staff and other staff at dangerous industrial locations or between doctors and nurses. If these examples are not oppressive and in many cases actually positive it then brings into dispute the idea of oppression as some inherint or intrinsic aspect of hierarchy as opposed hierarchy simply being a useful social construct that can be used in many ways depending on outside factors such as class content etc.