Signifying chains may appear contradictory, but they are not. There is no commitment to any previous meaning, it can simply be resignified.

You clearly don’t understand what I’m even talking about in the context you quoted. If you did you’d realize you’re just repeating what I said. You aren’t even disagreeing with me. I was literally explaining how they appear as contradictions to the current narrative of the right wing at the moment. Which results in a shift of the narrative to align it closer to their true ideology (something they usually hide the totality of). I wasn’t saying it was a contradiction to right wing ideology at it’s core.

I think you’re so ready to disagree with me you didn’t even understand what I wrote. It’s clear you’re not actually looking to have a conversation. You decided you disagree with me when you read the words “historical materialism” and didn’t even bother trying to understand what was written. Do better.

Also, you sound like a 12 year old debate lord listing off logical fallacies they learned last week without actually doing any of the work logically to conclude them. You might think it sounds smart. But it really just makes you sound childish. Especially when you didn’t actually do any logical analysis to conclude to them in the first place. Logical fallacies aren’t a shopping list mate. You wrote so much and said so little.