What is it with all this essentialist stuff anyway? Are you lot even capable of arguing the actual content of positions instead of just churning out essentialist quips (Sjerp *is* a "crazy zionist", Abtin *is* a "manarchist rapist", ...)? What I said is that I agreed with (part of) the content of their arguments. This is still supposed to be an anarchist movement instead of a bunch of little kids on a playground playing clique games about who is "linked" with who and what not, isn't it?
What is it with all this
What is it with all this essentialist stuff anyway? Are you lot even capable of arguing the actual content of positions instead of just churning out essentialist quips (Sjerp *is* a "crazy zionist", Abtin *is* a "manarchist rapist", ...)? What I said is that I agreed with (part of) the content of their arguments. This is still supposed to be an anarchist movement instead of a bunch of little kids on a playground playing clique games about who is "linked" with who and what not, isn't it?