I can’t tell if they just spoke without thinking about it, and then clumsily doubled down out of pride, or if they are that extreme of a Holocaust exceptionalist. I’m inclined to think the former, but idk

It was coined to describe the Holocaust years after the fact, applied retroactively. Like most words to describe actions, that does not mean it cannot be correctly applied retroactively to other events that meet the same criteria. Do you deny that the slaughter of Indigenous Americans was a genocide?

By my understanding, Ghengis Khan mostly did not do things that map on to “genocide.” He was a horrific warlord who lead the slaughter of a baffling volume of people, but genocide does not simply mean “killing a whole lot of people.”

At least from my understanding of history, his goal broadly wasn’t purging ethnicities, it was owning territory and especially settlements to collect tribute from while crushing any military opposition. This is just what warlords typically do.

This stance is increasingly becoming the mainstream one. Spend less time on an astroturfed reddit shithole and that becomes apparent.

Israel is literally and concretely an apartheid state. Its existence is “going too far”.

If leftists were enough to tank the election for kamala (statistically this is blatantly false), then that’s a failure of the democratic party to win votes first and foremost.

Because liberals sit around producing “owns” like they’re in a collective shower argument and get so used to tha that they forget that their sorkin fantasy is not reality.

Communists also do that sometimes, but we generally live in neoliberal society and mostly know neoliberals, so we literally can’t manage to be in that much of a bubble unless we totally compartmentalize our political conversations to spaces like this one.

Responding to a comment you made here, it is critical to think of Marxism as not being a moral philosophy. We can talk about moral motivations for one’s activism and moral tones in the writing, but the philosophy itself is not grounded in moral assumptions and that is a core feature to what it is. The (imo somewhat unfair) dismissal of lumpen people is not about them being bad people but because another important element of Marxism is the way thay the specific relations of production in society creates a revolutionary class, and in this case that is a relation the lumpenproletariat is mostly alienated from.

But still a third vital element of ML philosophy is that neither Marx nor Lenin were prophets, and being a Marxist-Leninist does not mean following whatever they said, but instead using their basic framework, which one may decide leads them in some respects to different conclusions. It’s a common ML stance that the past judgements about the lumpenproletariat were too limited and short-sighted, though their seperation from the rest of the proletariat does also represent a real difficulty in terms of organizing.

Yeah, I think if anything it’s a similar issue that the literature being adapted is itself very frequently uninteresting and the adaptations, though certainly they usually add things, do not add nearly as much as they could.

Part of the reason for the huge emphasis on manga adaptation specifically is that you practically have the script and storyboard right there already, and it is rare for an anime to heavily emphasize elements requiring a lot of new storyboarding (exceptions include Bleach TYBW and Mob Psycho, and even still they are mostly the same).

But also of course another reason that applies to both cases is that capital is risk-averse, so producers overwhelmingly gravitate toward work that already has fans.

Also the Forerunners from Halo, but this was all lost when Адам and Єва (those were their true names) were cast out from едем, which I understand to be somewhere in modern day Kyiv

That one is weird. The people should have the power regardless. Unilaterally doing revolution (imagining you could) and then “giving your power to the people” is silly, blanquist, and more bureaucratic than anything Stalin ever said.

Sorry for overstepping, since I did mean it that way (mostly, the Christian part was meant to be a looser analogy than it was received as) but it was wrong to put all that on you. My bad. My main thing was:

I don’t have perfect arguments for all of those points.

If he has better arguments than you, then doesn’t that mean you have more reason to agree with him than to hold the previous view? That won’t prevent you from investigating the matter further, just as him lending credence to your arguments should not prevent him from investigating it further, and in either case you might hypothetically double back to a stance more like your earlier opinions, but better-informed.

And hopefully you would, since he’s like 90% wrong in terms of what you relayed.

But again, my bad.

If they ask you something in the screening, you should treat it as though you are firmly obliged not to lie, though perhaps you can ask if such a question is legal.

They have their own loophole, which is that they can ask you (in so many words) if you intend to do nullification. If you say no and then they can prove that you did intend to, that’s a perjury charge or something against you, which is serious. You can try to be a gamer and say “nah, I just really can’t be sure beyond a reasonable doubt he’s guilty” but that’s playing with a loaded gun.

Yes, there are times where it is clearly the better option to convict. Don’t think of it as moral purity about participating in a capitalist system, it’s too late for that, think of it as what would be the better outcome for society. If some whitecollar criminal got a hundred million dollars defrauding senile senior citizens, it’s not praxis to let him off the hook.

They’ve never been more right, though enshittification was a good one too.

I think refusing to acknowledge the accomplishments of China is a silly idealist affectation. I think they’re a revisionist bureaucracy too, but that doesn’t change that they have achieved a tremendous amount and we should be combating state department lies about them as they continue to achieve more (also duly criticize wrongdoings).

Your main concern should not be running to your internet ML friends to get words to say to justify inherited opinions, it should be developing a good epistemology and a healthy outlook and method therewith so that even if, for example, you are convinced by the trot and it also happens to be that he is wrong, you can dig the both of you out of the hole as new information contradicts previous assumptions. He will also care a lot more about what you have to say if you approach this from a genuine, open-minded but critical standpoint rather than act like a Christian apologetics-style dogmatist.

Well, it was the non-suffrage that was the issue.

Also I’d tack on the Senate even for the shortlist.

amogus

It’s truly a legendary project to combine to annoyingness of AI writing with the annoyingness of trots

It would be sort of funny in a morbid way for the government to stage a top-secret mission as a “cover story” for the true motive of irradiating one of the most important rivers in the world

I think that user means more like the PRC making it into a Special Administrative Region or something (which I am pretty sure the PRC says is its goal too).

Would you like to elaborate?