but the one person (you claim is an anarchist) that hangs out with goat all the time, is gone. Figures.
“I didn’t say it, I implied it.”
So THAT’S what a weasel sounds like! I always wondered.
Then I checked and adjusted my statements.
By ‘adjusted’ you mean ‘rejected them as irrelevant’
But according to you, that’s not ‘discarded’, because you lack a basic understanding of the English language or any of the words you use. That, presumably, is why you think anarchism means supporting genocide and fasicsm.
This doesn’t argue the way you think it argues.
Oh, how ironic.
No True Scotsman is about refining a claim ex post facto after its been disproven. From “No Scotsman” to “No TRUE Scotsman”
Or here, “No anarchist” to “No EXPERIENCED anarchist”. Not that that’s true either, but it shows where your mindset is.
Sorry that your understanding of logical fallacies is as meagre as your understanding of history, politics, and the English language itself.
That’s your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.
By ‘adjusted’ you mean ‘rejected them as irrelevant’
Also not what I did or said. But do feel free to uncharitably read what you want out of my sentences, nothing I say seems to stop you from that practice.
Or here, “No anarchist” to “No EXPERIENCED anarchist”
No mate, I didn’t reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.
That’s your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.
Sorry that you find a basic reading of what you wrote to be ‘uncharitable’, I understand it’s tied up with your own struggles with basic English.
Also not what I did or said.
This you, fascist?
but the one person (you claim is an anarchist) that hangs out with goat all the time, is gone. Figures.
No mate, I didn’t reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.
You asked me to name a single anarchist I talked to. I did so. You then rejected them as irrelevant, and then denied that rejecting them as irrelevant was ‘discarding’ them in context. Sorry that you didn’t understand your own request? Like, holy fuck. Do you work at being this bad at basic communication, or does it just come naturally once you start simping for fascists and playing apologist for genocide?
Why? Because you think that you shouldn’t be called out for supporting Holodomor denial, making not just bad faith arguments, but shitty and easily disproven bad faith arguments (I note that you didn’t actually understand the refutation of your claim about No True Scotsman, instead trying to link it to identity instead of the refinement of a disproven argument’s claim), and simping for fascist coup attempts as some bizarre form of anarchism against revisionist neolibs like Rosa Luxemburg?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Rules
Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.
The usual instance-wide rules also apply.
Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)
Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.
Includes lore like how a instance got it’s name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc
(New) This sub’s intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don’t get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama
“I didn’t say it, I implied it.”
So THAT’S what a weasel sounds like! I always wondered.
By ‘adjusted’ you mean ‘rejected them as irrelevant’
But according to you, that’s not ‘discarded’, because you lack a basic understanding of the English language or any of the words you use. That, presumably, is why you think anarchism means supporting genocide and fasicsm.
Oh, how ironic.
No True Scotsman is about refining a claim ex post facto after its been disproven. From “No Scotsman” to “No TRUE Scotsman”
Or here, “No anarchist” to “No EXPERIENCED anarchist”. Not that that’s true either, but it shows where your mindset is.
Sorry that your understanding of logical fallacies is as meagre as your understanding of history, politics, and the English language itself.
That’s your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.
Also not what I did or said. But do feel free to uncharitably read what you want out of my sentences, nothing I say seems to stop you from that practice.
No mate, I didn’t reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.
Sorry that you find a basic reading of what you wrote to be ‘uncharitable’, I understand it’s tied up with your own struggles with basic English.
This you, fascist?
You asked me to name a single anarchist I talked to. I did so. You then rejected them as irrelevant, and then denied that rejecting them as irrelevant was ‘discarding’ them in context. Sorry that you didn’t understand your own request? Like, holy fuck. Do you work at being this bad at basic communication, or does it just come naturally once you start simping for fascists and playing apologist for genocide?
disengage
Why? Because you think that you shouldn’t be called out for supporting Holodomor denial, making not just bad faith arguments, but shitty and easily disproven bad faith arguments (I note that you didn’t actually understand the refutation of your claim about No True Scotsman, instead trying to link it to identity instead of the refinement of a disproven argument’s claim), and simping for fascist coup attempts as some bizarre form of anarchism against revisionist neolibs like Rosa Luxemburg?