As shitty as it is, this country 1. Isn't designed in such a way that would allow a third-party candidate a genuine chance of winning and 2. Has too many centrists that will vote for Biden regardless. Trump has repeatedly garnered heavy support in Republican polls, so they're pretty much almost all in on him. Splitting the blue vote between Biden and whoever else will only lead to a Trump victory after which we might not even be ABLE to vote in 2028.
I'm legitimately having a panic attack. These airheaded anarcho-kiddies are genuinely going to land us all in camps.
biden's doing literally nothing to stop states from criminalizing lgbt people's existence 
their fears about a trump presidency are valid but i wish these libs would stop putting their hopes in the DNC when its clear they have zero interest in running a candidate that isn't complete dogshit
Hot take: I don't really like this whole "they aren't REAL [insert ideology]", it's a game anyone can play, and win, and feels like a bit of a cop out. The definition of a political ideology is malleable and changes all the time, anyone can come up with their own interpretation and the only thing really determining it's validity is it's popularity. If Vaush became as popular as Kropotkin was in his day and remained that way long enough his interpretation would be as valid.
I think it's better to attack them on more solid grounds than whether it's a real/not real interpretation, you can say it's ridiculous, contradictory, in contrast to pretty much every other earlier interpretation, but it's not really "fake", no more or less so than any idea floating in the human collective consciousness.
deleted by creator
Not "valid" in the moral sense, but it would be a "valid" in the sense that people would consider it an interpretation, a horrible, awful one, but it would exist. We don't really pull this with anyone to our Right politically, nobody really gives a fuck that modern MAGA doesn't seem to have anything to do with Thomas Sowell or William F Buckley Jr.
But who sets the definition? With Marxism you do have the fact the ideology is named after a specific guy so you can argue people who claim to be "Marxist" but who's conceptualization of Marxism is too far from Marx's original ideas are operating in error, but even early anarchism had a lot of internal divisions and wildly different interpretation.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Here's the thing, people have different conceptualizations of what a "hierarchy" is. Plus a lot of anarchists say they're only opposed to "unjustified hierarchy". I think how the AnCaps conceptualize it is that me declaring myself feudal baron over the parcel of land I acquired by being such a brilliant entrepreneur is a justified hierarchy, cuz I actually earned that unlike the evil guberment. That completely falls apart in practice, which is what we should be attacking them on.
With NATO-Anarchists I think their logic is "lesser-of-two-hierarchy-ism", they see NATO and the West as hierarchical, but Russian Nationalism and Chinese Dengism are WORSE hierarchies, so unless full anarchism is on the table you should support NATO in the short term.
See the thing is these bull-crap pseudo-left ideologies usually have a kernel of logic to them, unlike the far right which is just willfully incoherent mind palace shit. We should be attacking them on the logic of it, not having semantic debates about what is and isn't an actual anarchist.
deleted by creator