You’re right about what I meant, but it’s hardly a “well akshually” moment - OP defined direct action as things that are explicitly not direct action with the sole exception of mutual aid.

And it’s not like the requirements are stiff. Direct action: 1. Aims for immediate effect, and 2. Is not action taken through traditional political processes. That’s it. It’s not hard to come up with dozens examples that fit those two basic criteria.

OP addressed a bunch of leftists while getting their 101-level theory entirely backwards. If OP wants to use the term Direct Action in a way that undermines actual advocates of direct action, the least a leftist can do is call them out on it.

And as an anarchist I’m definitely going to call out users with anarch— in their names who post total “How do you do fellow kids leftists?” opinions. Right-wingers already won the war on redefining libertarianism as neoliberalism, and I’m not ready for them to do the same to the term anarchist while I’m still around. I hope the OP is more naive than right-wing, but it all works towards the same end.

If they would have just said “harm reduction” I would have had no reason to open my mouth, even if I question the efficacy of such tactics. But if they are going to refer to theory, then they need to be held to the appropriate standard to maintain the significance of that theory. And the significance of DA is that it is extra-political.