So you're admitting that you're forgetting?

This is priceless.

which one, the one were oyou said that anarachist would acept some kind of heircy ?

After all the times that I argued that we were using different definitions, you decide to pull out the 'semantics' card *now*.

Oh, no, the one where I said that we were using different definitions.

BRB, got to laugh my head off.

You cant just make up your own definition for words yha know

Which is why o corrected you in the first place

and this started a little differnt then that

Fucking aussies smh

some rant started your existence of 😄

i doubt hes assie, the heat kills all the austism

>you can't just make new definitions

Still dodging the actual concepts and my explanations of them, like I said before.

>the actaul concepts and your explanaition of them
>you can't just make new definitions
Pick one

It is you who makes up new "nuances" to definitions to fit your half assed strawmen

```>the actaul concepts and your explanaition of them
>you can't just make new definitions```

You're the one saying that I'm making these new definitions.

Incidentally, I say the same of you, of course, but my point regarding that is that when I use the concepts that I'm familiar with, you keep inserting your own in even after I've clarified my position, and then proceed to knock down a straw man which isn't a point of controversy between us.

**Of course if I use your concepts, it's much easier to get the results that you're hoping for (though even then I think you're still jumping over some gaps which you're not plugging).**

You can't just make new definitions *and expect me to use them for my own argumentation after I've said what I mean*. You should expect me to explain why your definitions are inadequate with regards to deciphering what I mean.

```It is you who makes up new "nuances" to definitions to fit your half assed strawmen```

So sayeth the fool who admits that he doesn't read half of what I say.

I've already explained how your concepts are so abstract that they lack concrete grounding. You're working from ahistorical premises to arrive at a conclusion which concerns our practice (i.e. history, which does not refer exclusively to the past).

**You don't get to say 'oh, look, this complete freedom which only God can have is impossible for us' and then screech that - because achieving this frozen freedom is impossible - finding concrete freedoms is also impossible.**

You start from an uncontroversial premise (which you think I'm trying to argue against but hilariously end up agreeing with you upon) and then make this huge jump, saying shit like 'freedom cannot be expanded' and so on.

But even to conceive of this abstract god's-eye-view freedom requires some defined concepts when this abstract freedom is supposed to escape all definitions by its own definition. Moreover, what about the freedom to not be completely free in that abstract way? **The concept cannot exist as a frozen thing: it's impossible. It has to evolve to contain new freedoms.**

No one even cares about 1/3 of what you say so me not even reading half is a whole lot 😄

>No one even cares about 1/3 of what you say so me not even reading half is a whole lot 😄

So why argue against it?

As for your freedom, you are crazy to think that the oppression of oneself true the corrupted self is freedom

And again, in what ways does this corruption happen?

We are always 'corrupted' in some way. There's always something that one can pull out of one's arse or concretely demonstrate as an example of 'corruption'.

You don't get to say 'oh, we're always corrupted' **while ignoring anything that deals with actually-existing forms of this corruption**.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/134/Nirvana-Fallacy

Mining quotes (which you've almost always taken out of context) and substituting my historicised terms with your frozen and self-destructive frozen absolutes is not an argument, by the way.

**Whether or not I'm using a very unusual set of nuances is irrelevant. In fact, whether I'm backpedalling or not is irrelevant too because I can still justify my original point that you have less reasons to call yourself a Communist than I do. You still have to deal with what I'm saying now.**

At once you pull out the 'semantics' card to say that we're not using the same definitions and that I'm floating around in my own assburgerian universe of nuances and then you accuse me of not using the definitions that you want me to while bolting on your own to little snippets of what I'm saying.

...all while failing to justify why you're using those definitions in the first place at every turn besides this idea that they're the ones in common usage.

**I know that it's difficult for you to think in the same terms that someone else is thinking since you're not interested in it, but __if you don't understand half of what I'm saying, then why argue against what you do understand when you haven't shown that you don't need to read what you haven't read to understand my points *despite me specifically telling you that it's part of my argument*?__**

Can you get over your appeals to (the impossibility of) Nirvana?