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.
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.
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.
Exactly, some “anarchists” are just liberals who like to have an edgy/faux-radical flag and symbol (you), while others are communists with ideological differences who are still willing to work with us toward a similar goal.
Sorry, but I got the impression you were, as you repeatedly said you agreed with parts of anarchism and think anarchism can mean many things. If you consider being called “liberal” an ad hominem then what are you?
idk, I guess some flavor of socialist? DemSoc? I’ve never really sought out the perfect label, I prefer to just be pro/anti specific concepts or ideas.
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.
I don’t really use the label “anarchist,” as I said I like some laws and I think states are inevitable, the thing about hierarchies is how some (alleged?) anarchists described the principles to me
In a “dismantle unjust hierarchies” sense, sure, but I think states are inevitable when people make a society.
is this Vaush’s account?
I never claimed to be an anarchist
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.
That’s unnecessarily aggressive, and not what I said at all.
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”.
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.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 most coherent anarchist theory
Thank you
Exactly, some “anarchists” are just liberals who like to have an edgy/faux-radical flag and symbol (you), while others are communists with ideological differences who are still willing to work with us toward a similar goal.
cool ad hominem but I never claimed to be an anarchist
Sorry, but I got the impression you were, as you repeatedly said you agreed with parts of anarchism and think anarchism can mean many things. If you consider being called “liberal” an ad hominem then what are you?
idk, I guess some flavor of socialist? DemSoc? I’ve never really sought out the perfect label, I prefer to just be pro/anti specific concepts or ideas.
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.
I don’t really use the label “anarchist,” as I said I like some laws and I think states are inevitable, the thing about hierarchies is how some (alleged?) anarchists described the principles to me