LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Mattopilos II]

Dude with the appropriated Nazi symbol.

[Liriena]

>Implying Western civilization ever deserved to exist in the first place

lel

Disgusting and shameful. Your ingratitude at the civilisation that lets you hold your bullshit beliefs rather than send you to prison for them is duly noted.

"Western civilization" couldn't even hold a single nation from the classical era relatively intact all the way into the modern age. Clearly, Chinese civilization is the superior one.

>that moment when you fail to realize that France, U. K., Italy and Germany are different names for Gallia, Britannica, Roma and Germania.
>that moment when you don't realize Greece has still essentially the same borders

I mean, the fact you used as an exemple a nation that spent the last two millenias fracturing into tens of smaller feuding states should be telling about the level of bullshit already but well...

Why am I not surprised you took serious offense to that joke?

[Torrocca]

Defining Anarchy as chaos is wholly wrong in a political context regardless of that :^3

It's literally the definition of the word lol

Have you ever considered the possibility that words can have more than one meaning?

It's true!

You were saying? :^3

Nevermind the fact that to define a word that has roots in the very idea of "leaderlessness" as chaos is fucking stupid lmao

[Kaggeceria]

It's literally the definition of the word lol

Have you ever considered the possibility that words can have more than one meaning?

It's true!

You were saying? :^3

Nevermind the fact that to define a word that has roots in the very idea of "leaderlessness" as chaos is fucking stupid lmao

Then I'd suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster or Oxford or whatever your preferred dictionary of use is.

And yes, in a political context anarchy can mean chaos.

[Proctopeo]

It's literally the definition of the word lol

Have you ever considered the possibility that words can have more than one meaning?

It's true!

You were saying? :^3

Nevermind the fact that to define a word that has roots in the very idea of "leaderlessness" as chaos is fucking stupid lmao

I dunno, every situation I've been in where there's been no leadership despite the circumstances requiring some form of leadership has been pretty chaotic.
EDIT: Also, as I had said the last time we went over this, "anarkhíā", the root in Ancient Greek from which we get "anarchy" also means "lawlessness".

[Uxupox]

It's literally the definition of the word lol

Have you ever considered the possibility that words can have more than one meaning?

It's true!

You were saying? :^3

Nevermind the fact that to define a word that has roots in the very idea of "leaderlessness" as chaos is fucking stupid lmao

The absence of strong leadership as defined by the ancient Greeks is leaderlessness which ultimately means the absence of decision-making.

[Torrocca]

You were saying? :^3

Nevermind the fact that to define a word that has roots in the very idea of "leaderlessness" as chaos is fucking stupid lmao

Then I'd suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster or Oxford or whatever your preferred dictionary of use is.

Dictionaries don't correspond to politics, FYI. :3

And yes, in a political context anarchy can mean chaos.

Nah.

You were saying? :^3

Nevermind the fact that to define a word that has roots in the very idea of "leaderlessness" as chaos is fucking stupid lmao

The absence of strong leadership as defined by the ancient Greeks is leaderlessness which ultimately means the absence of decision-making.

I guess Athenian democracy (as shitty and flawed as that clusterfuck was) didn't exist.

News flash: people can decide on things without leaders.

You were saying? :^3

Nevermind the fact that to define a word that has roots in the very idea of "leaderlessness" as chaos is fucking stupid lmao

I dunno, every situation I've been in where there's been no leadership despite the circumstances requiring some form of leadership has been pretty chaotic.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. :3

[Kaggeceria]

Then I'd suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster or Oxford or whatever your preferred dictionary of use is.

Dictionaries don't correspond to politics, FYI. :3

"Dictionaries don't matter. I'm just gonna make up my own definitions."

And yes, in a political context anarchy can mean chaos.

Nah.

Uh, yah. If a political situation in a country is one of chaos and lawlessness then it can quite aptly be called anarchy

[Mattopilos II]

Imagine spending this much time arguing over semantics when it is clear you are both using the same term for something with two different practical applications.

[Torrocca]

Dictionaries don't correspond to politics, FYI. :3

"Dictionaries don't matter. I'm just gonna make up my own definitions."

A dictionary definition doesn't have any bearing on the political theory, philosophy, and science behind a concept in a political context.

Nah.

Uh, yah. If a political situation in a country is one of chaos and lawlessness then it can quite aptly be called anarchy

Nah.

[Aellex]

anarchy
/ˈanəki/
noun
1.
a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms: lawlessness, absence of government, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, riot, rebellion, mutiny, disorder, disorganization, misrule, chaos, tumult, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium
"the country is threatened with anarchy"

As usual when talking about Anarchy, you're wrong. :^)

"Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.[1] The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations. In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions."

EDIT: from the same page, actually: "The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".[2]"

Why would I take the definition of Wikipedia that anyone can edit and that precisely use some Anarchist book as a source for the [1] bit over paid professional who write the dictionary one and that are actually qualified when it comes to giving precise and accurate definition?

[Mattopilos II]

Dictionaries don’t aim to give every definition for a term. They usually give the common usage, ignoring the more political or academic usages. Don’t pretend you are automatically correct because you used a dictionary.

[Uxupox]

Then I'd suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster or Oxford or whatever your preferred dictionary of use is.

Dictionaries don't correspond to politics, FYI. :3

And yes, in a political context anarchy can mean chaos.

Nah.

The absence of strong leadership as defined by the ancient Greeks is leaderlessness which ultimately means the absence of decision-making.

I guess Athenian democracy (as shitty and flawed as that clusterfuck was) didn't exist.

News flash: people can decide on things without leaders.

I dunno, every situation I've been in where there's been no leadership despite the circumstances requiring some form of leadership has been pretty chaotic.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. :3

You mean the Athenian democracy in which the three leaders (Archon, Polemarch and Basileus) utterly blocked each other and thus unable to make decisions about the matters of state in which was a key factor in the loss of the Athenians during the Pelopnnesian war? Another example would be the northern campaign in Africa during WW2 unto where Rommel had an Italian counter-parts that partook in his own decision making (as Gen. Gariboldi and Gen. Ettico constantly blocked his attempts at offensives and counter-offensives?) and their Wallies counterparts only had one commanding general that Gen. Eisenhower which was factor in their success. There were no petty squabbles between the leadership as all answered to just one leader. It's this specific conditioning that drew the attention of the Soviet Union during it's early stages of birth (The Soviet Union had a system devised based on volunteer leadership which they quickly scrapped when they noted it was highly inefficient at the decision making process). There is a very good reason as to why all leadership styles devolve around one leader. Having a multitude of leaders will only inspire dissenting opinion and create roadblocks such as the situation that happened in the Athenian democracy. You must also remember that the Romans also had this style of leadership of having two consuls (or two rulers) each having the power to veto the other in laws and ruling, as basically an idea of ancient Carthage of having dual executive power (as no man in Roman ancient values should wield too much power). Obviously we all know how that ultimately ended.

Having multitude of leaders in times of emergencies that have to agree on a decision where time is of the essence only spells disaster at the end.

[Aellex]

Why am I not surprised you took serious offense to that joke?

I took offense at Tor's "hur dur western civilization shouldn't exist", you were just wrong and I corrected you as I was at it, that's all.

[Aellex]

Dictionaries don’t aim to give every definition for a term. They usually give the common usage, ignoring the more political or academic usages. Don’t pretend you are automatically correct because you used a dictionary.

But we're exactly talking about the common usage here, tho.

[Korouse]

Fuck off. I live near an Indian reservation. There's barely any fucking clean water there, not to mention all the homelessness and suicide going on. Take your 1/128th Iroquois fat white ass over to one sometime.

Korouse: *** 3 day ban for flaming. *** You should know better by now than to respond to other posters, no matter how frustrating you may find their views, with flaming.

I'm convinced Old Tyrannia is developmentally stunted. I'm not frustrated just because I'm right. I'm being mean to him for rhetorical effect.

[Kaggeceria]

Korouse: *** 3 day ban for flaming. *** You should know better by now than to respond to other posters, no matter how frustrating you may find their views, with flaming.

I'm convinced Old Tyrannia is developmentally stunted. I'm not frustrated just because I'm right. I'm being mean to him for rhetorical effect.

Attacking mods after being banned by them?

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see where it gets him.

[Korouse]

Defining Anarchy as chaos is wholly wrong in a political context regardless of that :^3

It's literally the definition of the word lol

Dictionaries can be wrong. You can look up the definition of imperialism in the dictionary, but it's not the theoretical definition as defined by Lenin and several other bourgeois political scientists.

[Kaggeceria]

"Dictionaries don't matter. I'm just gonna make up my own definitions."

A dictionary definition doesn't have any bearing on the political theory, philosophy, and science behind a concept in a political context.

Yes, you being wrong doesn't stop you from making up whatever retarded meanings you want to assign to random words.

Uh, yah. If a political situation in a country is one of chaos and lawlessness then it can quite aptly be called anarchy

Nah.

Yah.

[Kaggeceria]

It's literally the definition of the word lol

Dictionaries can be wrong. You can look up the definition of imperialism in the dictionary, but it's not the theoretical definition as defined by Lenin and several other bourgeois political scientists.

Yes, only Lenin's definitions have any meanings.

The Politburo approves.

[Korouse]

A dictionary definition doesn't have any bearing on the political theory, philosophy, and science behind a concept in a political context.

Yes, you being wrong doesn't stop you from making up whatever retarded meanings you want to assign to random words.

Nah.

Yah.

It's not "retarded" it's literally just the political definition of the word. Are you joking or being deliberately obtuse? I can't tell.

[Kaggeceria]

Yes, you being wrong doesn't stop you from making up whatever retarded meanings you want to assign to random words.


Yah.

It's not "retarded" it's literally just the political definition of the word. Are you joking or being deliberately obtuse? I can't tell.

"I only accept this one definition for my word."

"Are you being obstuse?"

I R O N Y

[Farnhamia]

Korouse: *** 3 day ban for flaming. *** You should know better by now than to respond to other posters, no matter how frustrating you may find their views, with flaming.

I'm convinced Old Tyrannia is developmentally stunted. I'm not frustrated just because I'm right. I'm being mean to him for rhetorical effect.

If you have an issue with a Mod's ruling, you can always appeal it with a GHR. Waiting until you can come back and then flaming that Mod only gets you a
*** 7 day ban for flaming. ***

[Torrocca]

A dictionary definition doesn't have any bearing on the political theory, philosophy, and science behind a concept in a political context.

Yes, you being wrong doesn't stop you from making up whatever retarded meanings you want to assign to random words.

Ah, irony. So sweet, nectary, and delicious. :3

[Torrocca]

"Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.[1] The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations. In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions."

EDIT: from the same page, actually: "The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".[2]"

Why would I take the definition of Wikipedia that anyone can edit and that precisely use some Anarchist book as a source for the [1] bit over paid professional who write the dictionary one and that are actually qualified when it comes to giving precise and accurate definition?

Dictionaries aren't definitive of a word in its political context.