Because you're telling other people what to do.

What's not anarchist about expressing my opinion?

"I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do so"

"They shouldn't be allowed"

Being the key word.

I don't get your point tbh

"you shouldnt" and "im not allowing you" are two different things

authority and violence is key

And yeah, I literally said I'm not saying even that

Right but in Laure's opinion, if things were run as he sees them.

There would be some authority to stop them.

What

That's what you said, that's how shoulds work.

I literally said I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do so
Which is like a negation of what you're arguing with

That's not even a strawman

Then why did you say it in the first place?

You're bad at English.

I actually am.

I spent like 5 hours explaining the difference between should, must, and "best practice" to people at my old job.

So I'm fucking anal about my legalese.

But that's not the point, you have a very weird understanding of anarchism
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you disagree with some things or that you think some behaviour is wrong

Sorry Dad

*Triggered*

I'll be more careful about what I say the next time

But yeah, you're right that stupid shit like that is divisive.

The real problem is when you try to force someone to do something

It's like one-issue voters.

It's okay to argue with people trying to change their minds

Exactly

Like these parties in different countries

That are just made to highlight one issue

Like UKIP.

Women's Party

<:kek:519747357076881408>

We had one

Or maybe still have

Will the women's party replace all the chairs to prevent manspreading?

But it's irrelevant nowadays

<:kek:519747357076881408>

That'd be based

I fucking hate males