So then instead of “seeing the .worlders respond”, would you take “seeing many of the .worlders respond”? Because that’s…kind of a small change, really the only sensible reading. And it certainly doesn’t deserve the vitriol.
And even if we did assume the (false) argument that literally all .worlders are anti-anarchist…you can just sign up for an account on almost any other instance, and then by the same (false) logic you’re allowed to be an anarchist again. So even under such a reading, it’s barely gatekeeping at all.
So then instead of “seeing the .worlders respond”, would you take “seeing many of the .worlders respond”? Because that’s…kind of a small change, really the only sensible reading.
That’s a massive change. “Many” and “All” aren’t interchangeable.
“Many” Americans voted for Trump.
“All” Americans voted for Trump.
“Many” anarchists describe themselves as such because they are edgelords, not anarchists.
“All” anarchists describe themselves as such because they are edgelords, not anarchists.
Big difference.
As for vitrol, read the tone of OPs post before you judge mine.
As for vitrol, read the tone of OPs post before you judge mine.
I literally did, it’s one single sentence. You escalated the vitriol. Sanctus’s vitriol was against an instance, i.e. impersonal; yours was personal.
“Many” and “All” aren’t interchangeable.
In this context…they are. The most active and vocal users on .world, in particular the admin team, are anti-anarchist. That doesn’t mean that anarchist sympathizers and even anarchists don’t exist at all on .world, but it is generically true that if you say anarchist stuff in a .world community, in particular stuff that directly challenges the assumptions of liberal capitalist ideology, you will get downvoted and flamed for your views, primarily by .world liberals.
Said differently: the dominant perspective on lemmy.world is an openly anti-anarchist social liberalism.
However, most people aren’t annoying pedants like me and don’t like writing or reading huge bricks of text. This is an informal online forum, doubly so as a shitposting community; it is reasonable and expected for you to be able to sensibly fill in the details. And if you wanted to disagree with his point, you really could have stated your point without being mean to Sanctus. (You still can, since you can edit your post and apologize for coming on too strong. I’ve done that before.)
And really, we’re supposed to be comrades here. Not to say that we can never ever be contentious, but we really don’t need to be screaming at each other if it can be avoided.
You’re reading way too much into an off-handed comment. But since I’m an annoying pedant 😁: he said:
I mainly chose this instance cause @anarchist.nexus sounds sicc as fucc
He’s saying that he chose this instance because it sounds cool. Not his beliefs. And there’s no reason why an edgelord cannot be an anarchist. And I would argue that at least some degree of contentiousness, i.e. “edgelord behavior”, is necessary (but insufficient on its own) to be an effective anarchist, for the simple reason that capitalism has made discussion about capitalism taboo.
And I would argue that at least *some* degree of contentiousness, i.e. “edgelord behavior”, *is* necessary (but insufficient on its own) to be an effective anarchist, for the simple reason that capitalism has made discussion about capitalism taboo.
No, the image is related. I’ll leave it to you to figure out.
I have no beef with you. Or OP. But gatekeeping is gatekeeping. I called out what I saw and stand by it. OP could have corrected themselves but decided to double down. I did as well.
So then instead of “seeing the .worlders respond”, would you take “seeing many of the .worlders respond”? Because that’s…kind of a small change, really the only sensible reading. And it certainly doesn’t deserve the vitriol.
And even if we did assume the (false) argument that literally all .worlders are anti-anarchist…you can just sign up for an account on almost any other instance, and then by the same (false) logic you’re allowed to be an anarchist again. So even under such a reading, it’s barely gatekeeping at all.
That’s a massive change. “Many” and “All” aren’t interchangeable.
“Many” Americans voted for Trump.
“All” Americans voted for Trump.
“Many” anarchists describe themselves as such because they are edgelords, not anarchists.
“All” anarchists describe themselves as such because they are edgelords, not anarchists.
Big difference.
As for vitrol, read the tone of OPs post before you judge mine.
Edit: OP, a few minutes ago.
Edgelord.
I literally did, it’s one single sentence. You escalated the vitriol. Sanctus’s vitriol was against an instance, i.e. impersonal; yours was personal.
In this context…they are. The most active and vocal users on .world, in particular the admin team, are anti-anarchist. That doesn’t mean that anarchist sympathizers and even anarchists don’t exist at all on .world, but it is generically true that if you say anarchist stuff in a .world community, in particular stuff that directly challenges the assumptions of liberal capitalist ideology, you will get downvoted and flamed for your views, primarily by .world liberals.
Said differently: the dominant perspective on lemmy.world is an openly anti-anarchist social liberalism.
However, most people aren’t annoying pedants like me and don’t like writing or reading huge bricks of text. This is an informal online forum, doubly so as a shitposting community; it is reasonable and expected for you to be able to sensibly fill in the details. And if you wanted to disagree with his point, you really could have stated your point without being mean to Sanctus. (You still can, since you can edit your post and apologize for coming on too strong. I’ve done that before.)
And really, we’re supposed to be comrades here. Not to say that we can never ever be contentious, but we really don’t need to be screaming at each other if it can be avoided.
You’re reading way too much into an off-handed comment. But since I’m an annoying pedant 😁: he said:
He’s saying that he chose this instance because it sounds cool. Not his beliefs. And there’s no reason why an edgelord cannot be an anarchist. And I would argue that at least some degree of contentiousness, i.e. “edgelord behavior”, is necessary (but insufficient on its own) to be an effective anarchist, for the simple reason that capitalism has made discussion about capitalism taboo.
Took your advice. Thank you.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/27128911
bro looks like Nosferatu.
Non sequitur?
No, the image is related. I’ll leave it to you to figure out.
I have no beef with you. Or OP. But gatekeeping is gatekeeping. I called out what I saw and stand by it. OP could have corrected themselves but decided to double down. I did as well.
My username checks out as well, comrade.