Literally the first definition listed agrees with what I said, because that’s how it has historically happened. That’s the connotation. This is just silly, that’s like saying calling someone a top in a relationship is totally platonic and doesn’t at all have sexual connotations.
So the “first” definition is the only one or what? What’s it with you and your refusal to accept that there are more than one way to interpret things, sometimes?
I’m sure Marx’ sugar daddy was very important for him.
Connotations exist. Why else would you phrase it this way? Why not just say sponsor, like I did? You said it’s a joke, so that means there must be humor to it, right, and not just a literal older person (who was younger, actually) giving money?
Are jokes not communist enough for you or something? It was funny and you’ve spent WAY too much time not just laughing at the funny joke. Maybe friends are a bit much for someone terminally online but you’ve never picked up a tab or bought something for someone and had them joke that you’re their sugar daddy?
Engels was very much Marx’s sugar daddy as everyone would use the phase when joking about someone else paying someones way.
The implication was that Engels was a piece of shit and that he contributed nothing but money to Marx, in exchange for sexual favors. There’s a wide gulf between a joke between friends, and someone using the term in a pejorative manner towards someone they don’t like.
It also implies that he gave sexual favors for them too, based on popular connotation. There are other ways to get across your same joke without using the loaded term “sugar daddy.”
Literally the first definition listed agrees with what I said, because that’s how it has historically happened. That’s the connotation. This is just silly, that’s like saying calling someone a top in a relationship is totally platonic and doesn’t at all have sexual connotations.
So the “first” definition is the only one or what? What’s it with you and your refusal to accept that there are more than one way to interpret things, sometimes?
Connotations exist. Why else would you phrase it this way? Why not just say sponsor, like I did? You said it’s a joke, so that means there must be humor to it, right, and not just a literal older person (who was younger, actually) giving money?
Because Marx was financially dependent on Engels. As people with sugar daddies often are.
But where’s the humor? Sponsors are also depended upon.
Are jokes not communist enough for you or something? It was funny and you’ve spent WAY too much time not just laughing at the funny joke. Maybe friends are a bit much for someone terminally online but you’ve never picked up a tab or bought something for someone and had them joke that you’re their sugar daddy?
Engels was very much Marx’s sugar daddy as everyone would use the phase when joking about someone else paying someones way.
The implication was that Engels was a piece of shit and that he contributed nothing but money to Marx, in exchange for sexual favors. There’s a wide gulf between a joke between friends, and someone using the term in a pejorative manner towards someone they don’t like.
The power dynamic is funnier that way. It implies an infantilisation of Marx and that he was only friends with Engels because of the money.
There, you’ve made me explain my own joke. I hope you’re happy. /s
It also implies that he gave sexual favors for them too, based on popular connotation. There are other ways to get across your same joke without using the loaded term “sugar daddy.”
I literally told you why I wrote what I wrote and you still act as if you’re the arbiter of meaning on every uord I utter.
And again: Why. Should. Anyone. Care. If. Marx. And. Engels. Fucked?
I already explained, I just personally dislike it when people make jokes about two people fucking in a pejorative manner.
It’s not funny and you didn’t intend it to be funny, you clearly intended it to be derogatory
Funny and derogatory are famously mutually exclusive. /s
Bold of you to assume intentions of strangers on the internet.
I’m right