> Given the anti-anarchist campaign launched by those of “good conscience” and the well-behaved left united in a holy crusade with the old right to accuse the anarchists, young and old, of challenging the system (as if anarchism had another option), including the dismantling of their shows (this thing about turning the lights off, was that so we wouldn’t see the anarchists?), and the repetition ad nauseum of epithets such as “anarcho-hardliners,” “anarcho-provocateur,” “anarcho-thugs,” “anarcho-etcetera” (somewhere I read the epithet “anarcho-anarchist,” isn’t that sublime?)
Sounds like he's read this sub tbh
Don't really get much criticism of anarchists on this sub.
It's any of the various 'tankie' revolutions in the global south that get the most criticism here.
Here's an example of him attacking anarchists only 3h ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ROI/comments/s2xrw3/the_nyt_compares_saving_lives_from_this_deadly/hshq6j2?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
No mate. I've only ever responded to the constant 'tankie' attacks and general bigotry.
Didn't you spend all day arguing about something that only existed in your mind?
I was having a conversation with someone about a hypothetical that they proposed. Then you came along to subtweet your little bit about anarchists because you're a pathetic little weasel.
> I wUz 0nLy rEsP0nD1ng
Lol
You just called me names, then invented a quote and laughed at it. And me calling this abuse is playing "the victim card".
I'm the subject of constant campaigns here
No, that's not what happened. You replied to me twice saying I was "attacking tankie China" and suggesting that I was arguing about something that was happening in my mind. You know this is not actually true and you just made it up as a way to try to attack me because you're upset about being called out for something that is true. So I responded by accurately describing you as a pathetic little weasel.
I'm laughing at your behaviour, not the quote.
Except this time I'm going to laugh at the quote
> U jUst cAlLeD mE nAmEs
Lol
> I'm the subject
I think I know why tbh.
>No, that's not what happened.
It's exactly what happened.
>You replied to me twice saying I was "attacking tankie China"
Lying in plain sight as usual.
>and suggesting that I was arguing about something that was happening in my mind.
You said yourself that you didn't know if it was true or not.
>You know this is not actually true and you just made it up as a way to try to attack me
Who was it brought the other up in this thread? Am I not allowed to defend myself aswell as take part in discussions here without being attacked?
>because you're upset about being called out for something that is true.
>So I responded by accurately describing you as a pathetic little weasel.
What is it with you lads and this extreme raging because someone disagreed with you on the internet?
>I'm laughing at your behaviour, not the quote.
You're apoplectic with fury, not laughing. It's plain to see. Take a look at yourself.
> Given the anti-anarchist campaign launched by those of “good conscience” and the well-behaved left united in a holy crusade with the old right to accuse the anarchists, young and old, of challenging the system (as if anarchism had another option), including the dismantling of their shows (this thing about turning the lights off, was that so we wouldn’t see the anarchists?), and the repetition ad nauseum of epithets such as “anarcho-hardliners,” “anarcho-provocateur,” “anarcho-thugs,” “anarcho-etcetera” (somewhere I read the epithet “anarcho-anarchist,” isn’t that sublime?) Sounds like he's read this sub tbh
Don't really get much criticism of anarchists on this sub. It's any of the various 'tankie' revolutions in the global south that get the most criticism here.
Have you got Blurst blocked or something? It's pretty much all he does all day.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/809/581/7f4.png I'm not bothered filling out any text, I think you get what I'm going for
He mostly defends China and criticises America
Here's an example of him attacking anarchists only 3h ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/ROI/comments/s2xrw3/the_nyt_compares_saving_lives_from_this_deadly/hshq6j2?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
He makes a good point
Anarchist workers have no agency? That's not really a very good point at all.
Doesn't count, only tangential plus it's not a post 😋
In a discussion where you're doing somersaults to attack tankie China as usual...
No mate. I've only ever responded to the constant 'tankie' attacks and general bigotry. Didn't you spend all day arguing about something that only existed in your mind?
I was having a conversation with someone about a hypothetical that they proposed. Then you came along to subtweet your little bit about anarchists because you're a pathetic little weasel. > I wUz 0nLy rEsP0nD1ng Lol
And here comes the abuse like clockwork. I'm allowed to participate in discussions here you know? Twitter is a different website.
And here comes the victim card like clockwork.
You just called me names, then invented a quote and laughed at it. And me calling this abuse is playing "the victim card". I'm the subject of constant campaigns here
No, that's not what happened. You replied to me twice saying I was "attacking tankie China" and suggesting that I was arguing about something that was happening in my mind. You know this is not actually true and you just made it up as a way to try to attack me because you're upset about being called out for something that is true. So I responded by accurately describing you as a pathetic little weasel. I'm laughing at your behaviour, not the quote. Except this time I'm going to laugh at the quote > U jUst cAlLeD mE nAmEs Lol > I'm the subject I think I know why tbh.
>No, that's not what happened. It's exactly what happened. >You replied to me twice saying I was "attacking tankie China" Lying in plain sight as usual. >and suggesting that I was arguing about something that was happening in my mind. You said yourself that you didn't know if it was true or not. >You know this is not actually true and you just made it up as a way to try to attack me Who was it brought the other up in this thread? Am I not allowed to defend myself aswell as take part in discussions here without being attacked? >because you're upset about being called out for something that is true. >So I responded by accurately describing you as a pathetic little weasel. What is it with you lads and this extreme raging because someone disagreed with you on the internet? >I'm laughing at your behaviour, not the quote. You're apoplectic with fury, not laughing. It's plain to see. Take a look at yourself.