The first definition is spot on. The other two are pejorative and don't really have anything to do with what was at one time a very practical political ideology, and not just a word to describe a lack thereof.
Ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchía) < ἀν- (an-), “‘not’”), + ἀρχός (archos), “‘ruler, authority’”)
I think this point is worth nitpicking on. In the early 20th century, anarchists were an unironically organized political force. It's unfortunate that modern anarchists are just angsty teens who listen to shitty punk and eat food from dumpsters. Don't even
get me started on the anarcho-primitivists. My own beardliness notwithstanding, those guys are fucking clownshoes.
Similarly, the etymology of the word "radical" has nothing to do with its pejorative use by Fox News pundits; it actually means "to the root of something".
That's not to say that dead anarchists or other radicals would approve of bleeding heart hippies organizing boycotts or shooting professional documentaries. None of that bullshit really constitutes direct action as it was historically practised. Unfortunately,
those are the tools available at this moment in history.
I hate the appeals to emotion as much as anyone else, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the rational reasons for not killing dolphins. They're tacitly understated because rational arguments make for boring documentaries. To wit: dolphin meat isn't exactly
a delicacy and the meat sold in Japanese supermarkets
contains high levels of mercury
and other heavy metals.
Believe it or not, gentleman, this speaks to a serious structural flaw in late-capitalist society in that earnest political reformers have to compete with entertainers and other noise in order to get our attention. No wonder they get frustrated and throw bombs.