Stop calling anyone who doesnt follow your narrow vision of events a liberal. It’s lazy.
Stop calling readily verifiable historic fact my “narrow vision of events” like a liberal would. It’s pathetic.
As for calling you a liberal, well… “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…” But that’s not lazy, it’s just being honest. When I was an anarchist, I hadn’t studied enough history, yet importantly I didn’t engage in historic revisionism to justify my ideological outlook nor to try to wash away the profound achievements of my leftist comrades. That is something liberals do. Even if you call yourself an anarchist, my assessment of your liberalism was still fair and accurate. If you don’t want to be called a liberal, stop doing the exact thing liberals are known for doing and that actual anarchists do not do.
(and frankly not very interested in your bootlicking excuses).
lol. Yeah, material analysis is “bootlicking excuses.” Friggin’ liberal.
Stop calling readily verifiable historic fact my “narrow vision of events” like a liberal would. It’s pathetic.
As for calling you a liberal, well… “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…”
But that’s not lazy, it’s just being honest. When I was an anarchist, I hadn’t studied enough history, yet importantly I didn’t engage in historic revisionism to justify my ideological outlook nor to try to wash away the profound achievements of my leftist comrades. That is something liberals do. Even if you call yourself an anarchist, my assessment of your liberalism was still fair and accurate. If you don’t want to be called a liberal, stop doing the exact thing liberals are known for doing and that actual anarchists do not do.
lol. Yeah, material analysis is “bootlicking excuses.” Friggin’ liberal.