[quote]Funding Imperialism is bad, and I feel like it probably does matter.[/quote]
Point went wholly over your head, but yes it does matter; the Imperialists and Capitalists brought better life to people. That's the way of the world. 

[quote]You don't see anything wrong with the business making the rules for itself?[/quote]
These are self-imposed rules, separate from business law. Microsoft contradicting it's own rules doesn't mean jack shit, if you think microsoft is evil switch to ubuntu or throw out your computer, fight the system or your point is forfeit. 

[quote]No, hunter-gatherers literally just did it in their free time.[/quote]
That's flat out lie and historical inaccuracy, going yet further to show how wrong you are in... everything.  

[quote]Considering it wasn't capitalism you aren't wrong.[/quote]
It was in all points but the existence of the word.

[quote]Who the hell cares what real communism is? The system we have now ISN'T working for everyone. Also again-- Catalonia.[/quote]
It's working for me. If you're too lazy/unintelligent/unmotivated/etc. to succeed in capitalism then go make a commune somewhere else. Catalonia also didn't work lol.

[quote]Oh, fuck off. I'm not even a communist, I should specify-- just an anti-capitalist, and fairly clearly an anti-statist and it's literally for this reason. Who the hell cares how anyone looks? Society, today, is based on expansion that's not sustainable, and not nearly enough people are living outside of the capitalist systems that encourage wasteful lifestyles in first world and western nations for it not to be a problem.[/quote]
That's, admittedly a slightly simplified definition of communism, at least left-anarchism. Expansion is sustainable, we have a whole fucking universe, you should turn your head towards the sky for a little. Even if we weren't as expansionist shit is bound to not be enough eventually. Also, once again, without exploitation you are being even more wasteful so you get more and more wrong every syllable.

[quote]In a statist system no one can really be considered a hero-- and I think you know it's the sign of a weak argument when you try to oversimplify it like that.[/quote]
he·ro
ˈhirō/Submit
noun
1.
a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.
"a war hero"

Well would you fucking look at that, you're wrong again. 


[quote]I mean, we are. If want to say you're not, fine. But our lives in one way or another, fuels their crimes. So I mean, you are, lmao.
[/quote]
No I'm not. With a simple boycott of certain things and taking a bit of initiative I can make sure only good causes profit by me. 

[quote]Well, they are. But if you don't want to address them that's fine lmao. Let me address yours.[/quote]
Wait so you can ignore mine but Sleeping cannot ignore your's? Wew...

[quote]Yes! I pay taxes and it sucks knowing you go to jail if you don't provide financial backing for wars of exploitation, among all the other illegal shit the state conducts. How do you change the system if you're a cog of it, just by working so you don't go hungry?[/quote]
It's a state. What it does is legal. Stop the hypocrisy. 

[quote]But the system they operate in does???????[/quote]
many don't

[quote]Ah, focusing on semantics to win an internet argument eh? You might strike the killing blow to anarchists after all.[/quote]
You know, that is just a little bit ironic. Anyways, anarchists are all lazy, unfit, and unintelligent. They aren't going to topple our societies any time soon.