• Tak@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol “anarchistic country” If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You’re like asking them to find an incel that isn’t a misogynist

          • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Technically you can have an incel who isn’t a misogynist. Incel just means involuntarily celibate, most incels are misogynists, but some aren’t, and just don’t talk to people at all because of other mental health issues that don’t get treated making that person completely solitary and unable to communicate with others.

            The term incel was coined by a woman who has been involuntarily celibate and saught to create a supportive community for people like her. The problem arrose later.

            Edit: Spelling.

            • Tak@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good point. I didn’t know the background or history of the word.

              • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                No problem. I just thought it was an important distinction because an anarchist country cannot exist by definition, while there is nothing in the definition of incel that requires them to be misogynistic. Though considering how meaning of words change over time, you could make the case that by the modern way we use the word incel, we don’t mean to include all who are involuntarily celibate, but only the toxic people who blame their situation on external factors. Even then, there surely are at least a handful of gay incels who blame other men for not being interested in them, and therefore wouldn’t be necessarily misogynistic.

                • Tak@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lol I could if I was desperate to be right but I think I used the wrong word to describe what I intended and you can clearly see that. It’s so difficult to pin down meaning on culturally developing words just due to how fluid languages can be. I intended for it to be a clear-cut example of things that can’t exist but you’ve clearly shown it isn’t so clear cut.

                  • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah, it’s not easy to come up with something that is absolute like that, and also make it immediately understandable to a wide audience without needing to explain it.

                    For example I can say “an anarchist country is like saying an unarmed interstellar spaceship”, a lot of people wouldn’t know that it’s actually impossible to have an unarmed interstellar spaceship, so this defeats the purpose of the comparison because it requires an additional explanation.

                    I can’t think of any example right now that is absolute and that is also ubiquitous knowledge to be immediately understood without relying of specialised interest knowledge or explanation…

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Anarchists are basically our version of libertarians. There’s no internal consistency and the vast majority of ideas or arguments don’t survive even a cursory examination.

        It requires humans to behave in a fundamentally different manner than every bit of recorded human history has shown us. It’s a reality that doesn’t, and with all available evidence, can’t exist.

        • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I am not an anarchist and I won’t make their case, but there is a difference between what is and what ought to be. What people have done is a statement about what is. Anarchy, like any other idealogy like it, is about what ought to be.