Archy means hierarchy.

AnArchy means no-archy/nohierarchy.

It is shameful that I didn't clue-in that anarchist-sects each have their-own unquestionable-definition for "anarchy".

The ones who hold that anarchy means they have the right to butcher others, the ones who hold that anarchy means no-hierarchy-socialist-consensus-archy, the ones who mean libertarian-independence-and-no-coherent-action, etc.

It's sickening.

YOU hold-to A definition of anarchy.

YOU hold that nobody is allowed to have contradictory-definition of anarchy.

YOU are boss of that-meaning, then..

Good for you.

The "anarchy means there is no boss, no bossed" sect ignores that the parent-child relationship is that.

Good for them.

I'm fed-up-with being gaslit by ideologues, both left & right.

As vertebrates prove, hierarchy allows complex-organism to be more effective than non-hierarchical-organism ( sea-sponges have 2 types of cells: interior & surface, so they're the least-complex multicellular organisms I know-of ).

As complex-civilizations also prove, hierarchy is prerequisite to effectiveness.

That doesn't mean class-based-validity, it does mean that decomposition-of-problems/obstacles/work into smaller problems, done by smaller-teams, etc, is intrinsically required for civilization-effectveiness.

Having more-experience be in charge of less-experience is anti-anarchy, isn't it?

Having greater-responsibility in charge of less-responsible-ones is anti-anarchy, isn't it?

Having the most-domain-competent people in charge of things is anti-anarchy, isn't it?

It's making hierarchy arbitrary in the eyes of all who reject that domain-experience means anything, isn't it?

IF common-goals cannot be found, THEN congruent-action cannot be/result.

IF common-values cannot be found, THEN harmonious-operations aren't going to result.

Etc.

Nick Yee discovered that there is a category of people who enjoy breaking social-worth, because that is the buzz/pleasure they're wired for.

I expect "griefers" are in that category.

& rigging society so that nobody would have any authority to stop such abuse, unless perhaps some event-consensus were to happen..

but then you've got a "consensus-group" ruling over the griefer, arbitrarily, haven't you?

What happens when the majority are the abusers, & the minority the abused?

I've read that in a traditional American Indian community-justice-circle, if the majority decide with the abuser..

the only choice left is to leave the resrvation: there's no appeal-system, once it's decided: you've lost.

< shrug >

Whatever..

Just downvote everything I say, anywhere: I'm not going to begin pretending that YOUR magical-definition of anarchy is identical with the other magical-definitions of anarchy that people put in my face..

& therefore, I ought not be allowed, by ANY anarchy, to be affecting, or harming, your-ideology's world.

Make your-world happen.

_ /\ _