tbh like, have you tried any other social media? lemmy’s honestly pretty cool for anarchists comparatively, i suppose except for the fact that it’s too small to spend all your tine in explicitly anarchist spaces. Yeah it’s not amazing but that’s pretty nuch inevitable with any large and relatively diverse group of people

What’s an ML?

It’s hard being anything these days because actions speak a lot louder than your internal ego.

Reassess your values, then reassess your interactions with strangers.

Identity labels seem to be a thought-quelling mechanism. As is moralism. Complex theory needs to be approached with an intellectual and analytical mindset

What tactics were used during the Russian and Chinese revolutions? What classes and contradictions were they contending with, what hurdles did they have to overcome, and what choices did they end up making (and why)? Did these strategies achieve their intended purposes, in the short term, mid term, long term? How might those strategies play out in different circumstances?

As the complexities are dissected and analyzed, a moral analysis can also take place: what are my goals and values, and how do these tactics and their effects relate to them? Is there a discrepancy between a desired outcome and the tactics necessary to accomplish it? If so, can that be reconciled?

But naked values with no analysis are unlikely to accomplish anything, and can in fact lead to outcomes that benefit our opponents. If We Burn is a good overview of this problem in the protests around the world during the 2010s.

At the same time, people who reveal themselves to be thinking without analysis can be dismissed, be they liberals, anarchists, or MLs. But the depth of thought is the operative variable here, not the identity or category.

You say that genocide is an evil action, liberals and Tankies will defend their favorite country’s actions because you’re a shill for the enemy if you do.

Um, no “tankie” would be upset if you call out genocide. Are you talking about the Uyghurs? Because that’s not a genocide.

Annoying being an anarchist (or variants, dv incoming) in life, pretty standard, every time I’ve tried, that’s your moral/ethical choice, stand by, take strength from whatever you do, and change what you can.

Named self after EVD, who famously became a marxist after reading theory while stuck in prison

complains about being told to read theory

Have you tried having serious politics instead vaguely vibing with generally anti-government ideas?

Get used to it, anarchists pick losing fights against the whole world

from what you’ve typed here, it doesn’t sound like you’re expressing very thought-out arguments.

everything is a broad stroke or a defensive sarcastic poke.

your account is only 2 weeks old and this is your first post.

I just checked your comment history, a lot of your comments look designed to antagonize people and you use broad terms like fascist a lot without adding anything relevant to the conversation.

If you comment on specific policies without coming to a knee -jerk directly insulting holistic conclusion you probably won’t be called out as often.

imagine that the people you are talking to are real people and how willing they would be to engage with your ideas if you said to a person face to face the things you are writing.

I don’t know if Varyk’s claim of your style of engagement is true, I haven’t looked at your comment history, so I’ll respond to what you’ve faced regardless of if you’ve attracted more disagreement than strictly needed.

Being an anarchist, and being super direct and upfront about your views, is going you get you some ire no matter where you go.

The reason is, generally speaking, you’re looking through history and systems of power with a lens that makes the problems with those other systems quite glaring.

The people who have adopted those other systems and ideologies will have already accepted the cognitive dissonance that comes with them, and they’re not going to take kindly to your nuanced opinion that makes them have to reevaluate their cognitive dissonance again. It’s much easier to dismiss or attack you instead.

Now there are ways of softening your critiques and opinions to make them less liable to attract anger, such as adopting the Mr.Rogers style, but sometimes that can be too soft, depending on the context. You’ll have to decide when that’s appropriate for yourself.

Also, bear in mind that while sometimes your viewpoints and arguments will gather hatred no matter what you do, and it can seem hopeless to express your views, as though it does no good; there are many more neutral lurkers than there are people who engage with you directly, and you’ll be having an outsized impact on that group just by having that counter arguement or viewpoint available for them to compare, which may unknowingly be changing minds for the better.

You’re wrong, having any firm opinion is annoying on Lemmy. Everyone here is the most difficult person in their social circle and we will throw hands

Maybe its their right to tell you your opinions suck in their eyes

Also “liberals”, using that therm for US democrat voters will make you look like a Trump supporter in the eyes of basically everyone.

government

You’re not the right kind of anarchist

Welcome to humanity, I guess. We’re full of contractions and no matter your opinion, someone will hate you for it.

I wouldn’t worry too much about it and just focus on your own beliefs first. You’ll never start a conversation with someone or change their opinion if you only tell them how they are wrong. And I’m not just trying to single you out. In fact, the people you are complaining about do the same thing. As soon as someone’s beliefs are put into questions they will do anything to defend it no matter how irrational it is and will even contradict themselves just to prove that one belief.

As an example, unless you’re a straight up piece of shit or a bigot I can’t find a reason to actually support innocent people getting killed or hurt. But if someone supported a person/people before shit got worse, they’ll try and justify it and believe there must be a reason. It’s kinda like a toxic relationship. Someone will stay in a relationship with someone for years with abuse, but because they love them they’ll try and justify it and believe they must have deserved it. It’s really easy to see shit from the outside, but from the inside you want to believe there is a reason and that you are right. No matter what. Because if you’re wrong, what do you even stand for?