889
Debating the right to exist
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
889 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
53454 readers
585 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I understand, I just disagree with you.
No, you refuse to understand what anarchists understand as authority (just like Engels did).
It's been explained enough to you already that I can rule out anything but refusal to understand.
No, I have heard and understand your explanations, I just disagree with them. I used to be an anarchist myself, you aren't explaining anything foreign to me.
You've clearly not understood the definitions. If you don't engage with the definitions, you can't seriously engage with the arguments.
Obviously, not one with a clear grasp on anarchism, if you think that the only anarchist objection to hierarchy is "moral" in nature.
I do understand the definitions, again, I disagree with your arguments. Simple as that. As for being a former anarchist, I know that anarchists don't only object to hierarchy on moral grounds, but the way you framed it made it seem as such.
Again: I disagree with your assumption that you do. If you really do, then you refuse to engage with them on purpose, which is worse.
I don't see any pointein carrying on this conversation. I've stated my point. I expect you to write your final "nuh-uh!" without any signs of will that you actually want to engage in any discussion, but I will not further engage, because I see talking to you pointless.
I tried to have a conversation, and all you did was refuse to respond while insulting me. I doubt I could have done anything to convince you I was willing to have a conversation beyond just lying and saying I agreed with you, so I do agree that us speaking seems to be pointless.
Disengage.