First of all, I already answered that question many times and second of all, you calling it a “nonsense” definition shows that you’re just arguing in bad faith because you’re not ready to accept that you just didn’t know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.
But I’m glad we are the point of the pigeon shitting all over the board and flying away, if that is how you insist on acting.
you’re just arguing in bad faith because you’re not ready to accept that you just didn’t know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.
Do you think anyone born in the US doesn’t know the most common definition? The rejection of it is because it is a bad definition that serves to obscure how politics actually functions. I also literally reference this, but you insist that I dont know that words can have multiple meanings. Who is arguing in bad faith?
How do you talk about liberal hegemony (marxist definition) while using the nonsense definition in a non-bulky way?
First of all, I already answered that question many times and second of all, you calling it a “nonsense” definition shows that you’re just arguing in bad faith because you’re not ready to accept that you just didn’t know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.
Good night.
No, no you haven’t, you’ve just been smug.
But I’m glad we are the point of the pigeon shitting all over the board and flying away, if that is how you insist on acting.
Do you think anyone born in the US doesn’t know the most common definition? The rejection of it is because it is a bad definition that serves to obscure how politics actually functions. I also literally reference this, but you insist that I dont know that words can have multiple meanings. Who is arguing in bad faith?