You can be an anarchist and poke fun at naive interpretations of anarchism. I don’t think you have to read “all anarchists are like these hypothetical human pets” into that joke.
You don’t have to, but that is absolutely the correct interpretation when ‘anarchists’ is further qualified only by, ‘pet’, which only implies ownership. That’s even worse than calling anarchism naive. That’s implying anarchists are so dumb as to be considered pets.
No, in English a descriptor not only means that they’re only refering to a specific subgroup, but that the general group doesn’t universally have that trait. So it’s saying both that only the specific anarchists described in the OP are pets, and that anarchists aren’t usually pets.
I don’t deny that there’s plenty of naive anarchists around. But it’s a false conclusion that anarchism itself would be naive because of that.
You can be an anarchist and poke fun at naive interpretations of anarchism. I don’t think you have to read “all anarchists are like these hypothetical human pets” into that joke.
You don’t have to, but that is absolutely the correct interpretation when ‘anarchists’ is further qualified only by, ‘pet’, which only implies ownership. That’s even worse than calling anarchism naive. That’s implying anarchists are so dumb as to be considered pets.
No, in English a descriptor not only means that they’re only refering to a specific subgroup, but that the general group doesn’t universally have that trait. So it’s saying both that only the specific anarchists described in the OP are pets, and that anarchists aren’t usually pets.
To be fair, I do have a harem of pet anarchists
Call that a polycule