Starting with this post:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/44999037
Continues here:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/45035437
More posts discussing the fallout:
Dbzer0 admin claiming Uyghur genocide is 'overblown and misrepresented'
Dbzer0 admin casually defending Uyghur genocide denial because "libs worse", yikes
Banned from meanwhileongrad for "No db0 allowed".
Removed false allegations against goat from a post on db0
Another anarchist ~~tankie~~ did a write-up of the situation
More links: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52444570
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/329886
So now it's not
It's that they 'just became' an anarchist.
I can name other anarchists I talk to regularly, but it's clear from your about-face here that you don't actually give a fuck about any of your claims, you just want to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
lmao
"No TRUE Scotsman"
Not what I said, but of course you're incapable of acting in good faith even for a second.
No, it's ok. Your first example proved everything I wanted it to prove for anyone still paying attention to you. It's clear anarchists are just a useful tool to you, to be discarded when they don't serve your purpose, much like they are for the tankies.
Is a literal and direct quote. Holy fuck. Are you this detached from reality?
You literally discarded the example of an anarchist I gave to you when asked because they didn't fit your preconception of what an anarchist is - namely, someone who's okay with Holodomor denial, like you are.
Your projection is top-notch, as always.
Did I deny they're an anarchist? I said you claimed it, because I didn't know this person. Then I checked and adjusted my statements. Any more uncharitable shit you have to throw?
EDIT:
This doesn't argue the way you think it argues. But it is very funny.
"Every principled anarchist with years of experience in the movement is a tankie and a fascist, but this baby anarchist right here that happens to agree with me, is the true anarchist!"
"I didn't say it, I implied it."
So THAT'S what a weasel sounds like! I always wondered.
By 'adjusted' you mean 'rejected them as irrelevant'
But according to you, that's not 'discarded', because you lack a basic understanding of the English language or any of the words you use. That, presumably, is why you think anarchism means supporting genocide and fasicsm.
Oh, how ironic.
No True Scotsman is about refining a claim ex post facto after its been disproven. From "No Scotsman" to "No TRUE Scotsman"
Or here, "No anarchist" to "No EXPERIENCED anarchist". Not that that's true either, but it shows where your mindset is.
Sorry that your understanding of logical fallacies is as meagre as your understanding of history, politics, and the English language itself.
That's your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.
Also not what I did or said. But do feel free to uncharitably read what you want out of my sentences, nothing I say seems to stop you from that practice.
No mate, I didn't reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.
Sorry that you find a basic reading of what you wrote to be 'uncharitable', I understand it's tied up with your own struggles with basic English.
This you, fascist?
You asked me to name a single anarchist I talked to. I did so. You then rejected them as irrelevant, and then denied that rejecting them as irrelevant was 'discarding' them in context. Sorry that you didn't understand your own request? Like, holy fuck. Do you work at being this bad at basic communication, or does it just come naturally once you start simping for fascists and playing apologist for genocide?
disengage
Why? Because you think that you shouldn't be called out for supporting Holodomor denial, making not just bad faith arguments, but shitty and easily disproven bad faith arguments (I note that you didn't actually understand the refutation of your claim about No True Scotsman, instead trying to link it to identity instead of the refinement of a disproven argument's claim), and simping for fascist coup attempts as some bizarre form of anarchism against revisionist neolibs like Rosa Luxemburg?