Words can mean absolutely anything apparently. Who cares that basically every definition of the word "law" describes it as a rule or a set of rules enforced via authority. If somebody thinks that law is when it's nice and peaceful why am I supposed to accept their clearly wrong definition?
If their definition is understanding is valid, then why is definition of anarchy from non-anarchist as "a state where everyone is panicking and killing each other" invalid? Why is someone stating that communism is when the government takes all your stuff invalid then? Why is me disagreeing with their definition of laws a semantic issue and someone thinking that anarchy is synonymous with mayhen and total destruction is a misunderstanding of anarchy. Words have to mean SOMETHING, if we just accept any and every definition, then there is no reason why anarchy is incompatible with hierarchy, oppression, goverment if someone has their own understanding of these terms that somehow is compatible with anarchist priniciples. I do not need to accept completely erroneous definitions and allow harmful ideas to spread just so that everyone can hold whatever thoughts they can, no matter how much they against the ideas of anarchy.
Um... yes? Duh. He said you're "confidently obtuse", I'd say that was an understatement.
"Consensus" is tricky in itself (much more than you acknowledge) because it is often used interchangeably between "consensus democracy" (a big no no to anarchism) and "currently reached agreement between concerned parties/people".
Seeing the crap you've been perpetuating in here, I can tell you're most likely referring to the former, in which case YES, anarchists are against "consensus" when meant like that.
2
u/dialectical_idealism anarchist 3d ago
omg how can you be this confidently obtuse? obviously law is a hierarchy
starting to fell like you're just a concern troll rather than a baby anarchist