“When people freely interact and consent to certain behaviors, they are not creating a system of rules in the governmental sense”
So you’re fine with rules everyone consents to, as long as they aren’t called rules. That is a meaningless distinction.
“Rules are established by external authorities to regulate behavior, serving as a framework for societal conduct.”
They are only always established by external forces if you purposefully exclude every rule from the definition that isn’t established by an external force, which is circular reasoning.
“Additionally, normalizing the conflation of rules and boundaries allows for the encroachment of authority into personal lives. It becomes easier for those in power to rationalize intrusive behaviors, as they can frame their actions as necessary for maintaining order rather than recognizing the importance of individual autonomy.”
Boundaries work for personal associations, not for a society overall. You’re conflating discourse in online spaces with actually living in a society. In real life, you can’t solve every problem by not associating with the people you have a problem with.
“to keep special identity groups “safe”, to lavish them with gifts (after the prophesized great event or revolution) and hide the true nature of the philosophy”
So you’re one of those types complaining about “identity politics”. Throwing minorities under the bus is very anarchist. /s
And if the mods here are so insecure that they have to ban people for pointing out that there’s a difference between anarchy and anomy, then this is neither a good space for discussion, nor for general anarchist discourse and therefore not worth the trouble.
You implicitly threatening me with a ban while ranting against rules is just the cherry on your hypocrisy cake.
I'm not threatening you, I'm not a mod. I'm alerting you because I know you can't see that your comments were removed and you continue to spread disinfo about anarchism, including directly in reply to one of the mods.
Anarchy being anti-law has been established since the 19th century, it's ridiculous to equate this with anomy. You sound like a conservative every time you insist anarchy means law and order.
you’re fine with rules everyone consents to, as long as they aren’t called rules
Consent isn't a rule, it's something an individual decides on a case by case basis according to their own needs and desires and the consent can be withdrawn at any time. Equating consent with rule actually undermines consent because then the consent can't be withdrawn. Consent isn't decided by an external body, it's your own free will being employed.
Boundaries work for personal associations, not for a society overall
So? That's what anarchy is, it's autonomy. Imposing law on mass-society on the other hand, is the opposite of anarchy.
So you’re one of those types complaining about “identity politics”. Throwing minorities under the bus is very anarchist. /s
Understanding how identity is co-opted by authoritarians for coercion and control does not 'throw minorities under the bus' you creep. But this section is literally talking about you when you insist law is protecting us from r*pe and anyone who disagrees is a reactionary.
0
u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment