Pretending that there isn't a spectrum, of governments restricting liberty or expression, isn't helping anyone.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Be sure to read the rule before you leave
1099 readers
1 users here now
Rule 3: If you visit MoreTankie196, you are contractually obliged to post before you leave
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What part of "laws are just threats of violence made by the predominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation and the cops are basically an occupying army" do we not understand?
I like some laws.
are you anarchist?
In a "dismantle unjust hierarchies" sense, sure, but I think states are inevitable when people make a society.
that is confusing. that sense can very well be communist. would i be wrong to presume you dont really know what are either of them?
Well "anarchist" can mean a lot of different things depending on the person so I find it more useful to just say what I agree or disagree with.
bro, you are commenting in a community called "moretankie196", of a marxist-leninist instance whose name is inspired in a soviet city. we do care about concepts and definitions.
you are very welcome to learn, with us, though :D
Okay well that's why I defined how I would identify as an anarchist
Except that’s not what anarchism is, and you can’t just say “Anarchism is whatever my heart says it is”, by saying that it has a lot of different definitions to people. That’s not how definitions works, especially for a political ideology.
you can’t just say “Anarchism is whatever my heart says it is”,
That's unnecessarily aggressive, and not what I said at all.
That’s not how definitions works, especially for a political ideology.
Were it so easy.
Ad hominem deflection via tone policing is one of the weakest counter arguments there are. You can really do better, at least try to engage the main point next time, though that’s a bit difficult with no actual argument besides, “The definition is whatever I want it to be”.
If that’s not what you said, then what does this mean?
“Well “anarchist” can mean a lot of different things depending on the person“
And yes, it is that easy. That’s the entire point of political theory. Whether it be Marxist-Leninist, Liberal, Neo-liberal, fascist, and yes, anarchist, they all have established definitions.
It's not an ad hominem, and it wasn't a counter argument, you were being unnecessarily rude when you could have just said "that's not anarchism". My counter argument was "that's not what I said at all".
You can really do better
Ironic.
If you'd like to define anarchism instead of playing debate club, I could let you know if that's a label I agree with.
It is ad hominem. It is the definition itself, avoiding the argument to focus on an unrelated aspect of the other person or delivery.
Also HAHAHAHA. The burden of prof does not lie on me to provide your majesty with a definition that you will deny no matter what I say.
Coming from Reddit is a hard transition mate, but this isn’t Reddit. We don’t do this here, have fun arguing with a brick wall. No one needs snarky one liners and debatebro logic.
Hey, there's no need of being overly aggressive towards someone who is willing to engage. Yes, they are an internet anarchist with no theory attached, but they are way more respectful than other lost stragglers. You dont have mock or belittle them.
They are not "willing to engage", I've seen the same thing dozens of times, and it always ends the same way. I don't want internet anarkiddies here.
Its okay not to want to repeat same interactions over and over again. But your response was disproportionate to the actual offence, it is not a good look to be an aggressive party in that could have been a calm, although probably unfulfilling conversation. Now they can just screencap the conversation and post it somewhere lamenting the unreasonable tankies.
A calm, unfulfilling conversation that goes nowhere is in other words a waste of time.
I am not concerned about optics, they already do screencap and whine at every single thing that ML's do. I am not here to put on a front, and I will not play along with someone who is obviously completely uninterested in the conversation at hand and obviously not here in good faith. Those types of people are not welcome here, and I will not coddle and tolerate that.
Anarchists are perfectly fine to me, especially if they are interested in ML or anarchist theory and its nuance. In fact, many are very amicable and come away from the conversation having both learned and taught something.
Internet Anarkiddies on the other hand are an utter waste of time.
I know tone is difficult to convey across text, and I do not mean to come across as vindictive and hostile for no reason. I just will not tolerate a reddit debatebro anarachist, and do not want them here.
In that case you're holding a belief that goes completely against the ideas implied by the label you use. Yes, there's always variety of thought in all political fields but this one is an outright contradiction.
Also, nice Trevor Moore pic.