• Compadre de Ogum@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

      • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            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
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              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
                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
                  1
                  ·
                  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
                    1
                    ·
                    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.

                • GrandmasterFrank@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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
                    1
                    ·
                    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.”

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

                • GrandmasterFrank@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah that’s true, I haven’t done any anarchist reading, but I’ve had numerous alleged anarchists explain things differently, so I just said which aspects I agree with.

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

                    You might want to consider how much they’ve read too, or what they’ve read. Find yourself an audio book, I know that’s helped me.