• Tak@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol “anarchistic country” If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You’re like asking them to find an incel that isn’t a misogynist

            • Tak@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good point. I didn’t know the background or history of the word.

                • Tak@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lol I could if I was desperate to be right but I think I used the wrong word to describe what I intended and you can clearly see that. It’s so difficult to pin down meaning on culturally developing words just due to how fluid languages can be. I intended for it to be a clear-cut example of things that can’t exist but you’ve clearly shown it isn’t so clear cut.

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anarchists are basically our version of libertarians. There’s no internal consistency and the vast majority of ideas or arguments don’t survive even a cursory examination.

        It requires humans to behave in a fundamentally different manner than every bit of recorded human history has shown us. It’s a reality that doesn’t, and with all available evidence, can’t exist.

        • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am not an anarchist and I won’t make their case, but there is a difference between what is and what ought to be. What people have done is a statement about what is. Anarchy, like any other idealogy like it, is about what ought to be.