My guess is you never met an anarchist, but anomists who call themselves anarchists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie

"In sociology, anomie or anomy is a social condition defined by an uprooting or breakdown of any moral values, standards or guidance for individuals to follow. Anomie is believed to possibly evolve from conflict of belief systems and causes breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community"

That's where the word "enemy" comes from.

Please define "human advancement" so I can answer accurately.

"Unconditional freedom is an oxymoron."

Neither I nor other anarchists want unconditional freedom. You're making this up.

"Anarchy also includes freedom to do the bad stuff"

No, it doesn't. Your definition of freedom is wrong, based on the mind control of bad people. Freedom is never unconditional, because there are and always will be requirements for having freedom. Most people know this by the term "Golden Rule" – freedom can only exist when freedom is respected. There is no freedom when freedom is violated, obviously. So pure logic tells us that unconditional freedom can never exist – it's the anomists who want unconditional freedom, not the anarchists.

"The term "anarchist" is perjorative and slanderous."

Yes. They did that because anarchists are enemies of slavery. So, the stigma makes it very difficult to reach the true freedom anarchists are advocating for, because people will fight the anarchists instead of the slaver. It's a divide and conquer strategy.

I'm not a fan of applying new terms like "activist" and so on, because it's easy to attach the stigma to the new term. That's called a euphemism treadmill: The new term gets the negative meaning of the old term, so you need another term, and so on.

So, I just stick with what anarchy actually means and don't accept the reframing.

You could adjust your definition, but I'm under the impression that you reject that because you don't want to get into trouble.

So, to answer your question: True anarchists advance humanity by trying to abolish slavery and disrupting the religious belief in government that's hold by the majority. True anarchists are scientists who swim against the stream of "scientific consensus", or inventors who create something that challenges the status quo. They are the ones who say the truth even if it means to get burned at the stake or die on a cross.

"I haven't a clue exactly how anarchy (a state of being without a clue to progress is one definition of anarchy) is exactly desirable as an end goal."

That's because you refuse to define anarchy correctly.

"It depends what your notions of "normal" and "boundaries" are, I guess."

No, it depends what your notions of "right" and "wrong" are.

"If by "opposing slavery" you mean breaking into slave markets and causing a bit of "heroic idiocy" mayhem and violence..."

Opposing slavery means breaking into slave markets, freeing the slaves, and preventing the slavers to profit from slavery in the future.

"I would say that would be a better, more useful thing than getting burned at a stake or dying on a cross."

Of course. But freeing the slaves also means: If they don't know that they are slaves, or refuse to accept that reality because it makes them feel uncomfortable, anarchists can experience violent backlash even from the slaves. In most cases it's not the authority that burns or crucifies the anarchists, but the obedient slaves who follow orders out of fear and mind control.

"Call me awkward, I don't really understand this obsession with suffering for a cause to the point of extinction."

As eternal beings, there is no extinction. But being forced to live on a prison planet, deprived of memories and spiritual evolution, slowly fading into oblivion, is the bigger suffering. If you're okay with that, you're like that corrupt guy in the Matrix movies who wanted to be brought back into the Matrix and forget the real world.

"My experience of anarchists has been that they have been butt hurt excuse seekers"

That's because you refuse to define anarchy correctly. We can do this all day long. 😉

"Anarchists never made a better anythign AFAIK"

Just look at the people you call "Dissidents, people who seek a better, more joined up and fairer way of doing things", and you see the evidence. You just refuse to call them anarchists because you don't like the word. But that's what they are.