• ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • GrandmasterFrank@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • GrandmasterFrank@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing#:~:text=Ignoring the truth or falsity,angry while still being rational.

              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.

              • DeHuq2@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • DeHuq2@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

              • GrandmasterFrank@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Burden of proof? I never claimed anything except “different people have different interpretations,” do you need a source for that? You are extremely desperate for conflict, and I’m not interested.

                • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If you’re willing to engage beyond fallacies, then how do you justify supporting western governments engaged in constant imperialist war and extraction for their capitalist constituents against “authoritarian” countries like Cuba who have actual democracy and put all their resources into helping their people through a brutal embargo (by the us) by providing free and quality education and medicine? [if that is indeed your position, correct me if I’m wrong.]

                  An important part of ML that we agree upon in theory is that states will inevitably arise as long as the conditions are there for such. Through scientific study we have come to the conclusion that the existence of classes, exploiters and exploited, is the basis of states. A state is a mechanism for the rule of one class over others. If you are an anarchist as you claim, your ultimate goal should be eliminate the state. That is our goal as communists, and our method is a state of the working class used to provide for the needs of the former needs of the exploited while suppressing the exploiters (landlords, capitalists, kulaks, monarchists, fascists), this is what liberals call “authoritarianism.”

                  • GrandmasterFrank@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t justify all the actions of western governments, and I don’t identify as an anarchist, what I meant was that I agree with some principles of anarchism

            • Red Wizard 🪄@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              He doesn’t need to do that, actual anarchists have done so already, and if you took the time to read any foundational anarchist theory you would know what the definition is.

              The only way anarchism has “different definitions to different people” is if they too were not interested in the theory and instead just the label, which is what this meme is about…

              If you actually believed in dismantling unjust hierarchies you would understand that all hierarchies are unjust. Like the political hierarchy of the United States.