7 ms·

My explanation is in line with the community maintained Wikipedia articles and their sources based on a long history of anarchist history and writings, and none

• gchamonlive 11d ago
  The irony of you pulling credentials to illustrate how right you are about anarchism tells how much you don't understand it even if you understand the definition of the word. Anarchy is negative self-referential, you can't really define it universally without creating a paradox. For instance, even in this case that I might be right in explaining this to you, I'm wrong if I say this is anarchism categorically.
  • lrvick 11d ago
    What credentials? I just pointed to supporting evidence I used the word in the way it is most commonly and publicly defined. Meanwhile you shared your own meaning as correct with no supporting evidence it is a definition commonly shared. You are free to make up your own special definitions of words that few if any share if you like. You can use the word cat to refer to a dog, for instance. It is not going to help you communicate with the majority of people who speak a mostly shared dialect of written english where words have well documented common knowledge meanings though, but you do you.
    • gchamonlive 11d ago
      Neither making up words nor shoving their definitions in people's faces will help neither of us communicate with anyone else. These types of conversations have to happen in good faith where you assume the other party isn't a moron and conduct a productive conversation, like this one. The fact you address little to none of my points is an indicative that while you are a very good thesaurus, you don't understand much hermeneutics.
    • gchamonlive 11d ago
      So in good faith I went to dig a bit what's the holdout in our debate here, and it's because I didn't understand two separate uses of anarchism, the one that's epistemological, anarchism as anti-foundationalism, my point, and your point that's political. In political anarchism we don't have this pressure to question every single thing, so when you said Socialist Anarchism I should have gone and read what that is had I known this distinction beforehand. TLDR, you are right and I'm not necessarily wrong, we were just talking about two different things.
      • jrflowers 11d ago
        [dead]
      • lrvick 11d ago
        > I should have gone and read what that is That is the most capacity for growth I have seen demonstrated in a while. You just gave me slightly more hope in humanity.
        • gchamonlive 11d ago
          I just wish I had a less aggressive or snarky style of writing. Maybe then I'd invite people for a discussion and not for exchanging heartbreak, but we are products of our context and certainty is what's currently rewarded, not doubt.
          • lrvick 10d ago
            > I just wish I had a less aggressive or snarky style of writing. You and me both. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard variations of "you are way less of an asshole in person" Complex asynchronous communication always has a way of forcing the temperature higher than it needs to be because we have more time to wordsmith and the cost of feeling stupid can be multiplied by the size of the perceived audience. Often the same two people would have had a much better interaction in person where each sees the other as a human being speaking with their own voice and facial expressions.
      • 11d ago
• analog8374 11d ago
  In Orwell's 1984, control of the language was central to control of society. Newspeak and such. Consider recent quibbles over pronouns.
  • alsetmusic 10d ago
    You mean quibbles over how my loved-ones live life? It's not difficult. Just be respectful to someone and that's the end of it affecting you.
  • deleted 11d ago
    [deleted]
  • byyyuppa 11d ago
    Given Orwell's strong endorsement of anarchists, it's unlikely he's lampooning anarchists in 1984...
    • uyeueuduuidt 11d ago
      [dead]
• uyeueuduuidt 11d ago
  [dead]