TOTW: Suffer fools gladly?

1. Are you more lenient or demanding in discussions with other anarchists?

lenient when first meeting and defining terms, but play rough once I decide someone can handle mild discomfort

2. How do you distinguish bad faith arguments & trolling from irritating disagreements?

observing patterns of behaviour over time but genuine disagreements don't irritate me

3. How do you respond to each? Have you discarded certain people & online platforms wholesale? Why?

ignore bullshit or respond with abuse but genuine disagreements are interesting and useful.
i discard people all the time. i hate people. trash for the heap.
human life probably has inherent value or whatever but you won't catch me writing poetry about it.

4. What things make you avoid engaging in a conversation?

when someone's nervous system is blasting alarm bells and they lose all ability to reason

5. What makes for pleasant conversation? What makes for worthwhile conversation?

fine food and drink. sincerity and curiosity. lots of spare time not being squandered online

Discussions are anathema to anarchy and little more than a bourgeois luxury afforded to those not living anarchy. Craving conversation is an authoritarian drive where Others exist to entertain or inform the conversation craver with all their criteria and preconceive notions for what constitutes "pleasant conversation".

If the question is "What makes for worthwhile conversation?" then the anarchist answer should be: "fuck you."

The time for talk is over!

(to respond to only one part of this list), are words that are really loaded but still used lightly (rape, fascist, intimate violence, etc), unless i really know the people who are talking and listening. which means it doesn't happen online. or at least, hardly ever.

good faith and bad faith are also hard to gauge with people online, strangers. but it's possible to engage in good faith with one's self online, to develop arguments that you want to develop, without relying too much on the appropriate behavior of others. is kind of a zen practice tho.

Yes, keep starting your big ass-ertions with "Anarchists do __________ (insert negative thing they do)". It's making you look very elaborate and engageable, yawn.

Have you got some sexual frustration about some anarchist(s) u met in the past, maybe?

So no, I don't *disagree* with everyone all the time. The fact of questionning every claim doesn't make me 100% against those claims. As in.... nothing's black & white binaries, you know?

I am for putting all convictions into question -even my cautious belief in an afterlife- as this is my best defense against authoritarian bullshit.

One of my main disagreement with people can be summed up in being against politics & government. I'd even say that's what constitutes part of the core of the definition of anarchy in a way (an-archy), but this is much disputed, including by libertarian socialists who also call themselves anarchists. I guess I'm more lenient with ordinary folk who don't call themself anarchist because they behave just like I expect them to, yet I'm annoyed when those who identify as anarchists espouse the same opinions. The dissonance between "become ungovernable" and campaigning for "democratic self-management" implying self-organization into federations and cooperatives.

Ah - discussion! What a wonderful concept.

I've just left a discussion that revolved around a post-modern text. I entered into it very much wanting to discuss the text, but conversation was derailed by a person who sucked all the air out of the proverbial room. I found myself weathering the storm and finding places to interject my own thoughts and try and steer conversation back to the original intent of the conversation.

So yeah, we had a conversation. Was it pleasant? Not really.

it seems now the move is for anarchists to start policing things, either words, thoughts, or social media, even here comments will be deleted by the owners, we see more fash0jacketing, and policing from anarchists than anyone, and it reminds me of an older anarchists I talked to before who said anarchists can be the most authoritarian ideology

Are you more lenient or demanding in discussions with other anarchists?

lenient, most anarchists i talk to are my friends and sometimes it takes a while to get to the motivation or root of their perspective. a hardline approach would shut down conversation before i could get the full picture.

How do you distinguish bad faith arguments & trolling from irritating disagreements?

forum of the conversation. patterns or behaviors of person.

How do you respond to each? Have you discarded certain people & online platforms wholesale? Why?

i usually stop engaging. not gonna waste my time, however i almost exclusively get bad faith arguments from non-anarchists so it’s no loss.

i’ve discarded Raddle almost wholesale. with exception of a few long-time users, this current wave of users is dogshit.

What things make you avoid engaging in a conversation?

ideological goofballs.

i prefer to not suffer fools, it just irritates me. so i’ll listen/read to what’s been said before engaging usually.

What makes for pleasant conversation?
What makes for worthwhile conversation?

that all ideas be permissible to discussion.

I suffer fools ambivalently.

I accept fools, why should they be excluded for merely being human. No one is perfect or an angel, and the sooner we accept the weaknesses and flaws of all those who wish to get close to and engage with us chosen anarch individualists, the sooner we can guide them to free themselves from the myriad spooks which perpetuate the ignorance and foolishness of their existences.