I like to read the comments on those articles, I shouldn't because it damages my brain. But I'm fascinated by how deranged they are. Ever since I was young I've been fascinated and horrified by how right wing and conspiracy-minded pretty much all comment sections are. Like in the FT article you have manty people calling Merkel a communist, boring. But I got a chuckle when one was challenged and they respond by literally saying that Germany's not far off from having the means of production owned by a classless society, and that's the problem.
Bulletins and News Discussion from July 22nd to July 28th, 2024 - Fracas in Dhaka - COTW: Bangladesh
Who are these losers?
I've been wanting to read it, and whatever other books suggested, to get an idea of why the USSR is no more. Especially because its dissolution is usually used as a "gotcha" against communism, so I feel I need some good, grounded, talking points against the commonly discussed reasons libs tell me and themselves. I was reading Hobsbawm's The Age of Extremes section on the collapse and even he, disappointingly, came across as "it was a doomed project from rhe start and couldn't be saved". The 90s were a depressing time.
Thanks for the push for us to read this book!
I know some Pennsytuckians myself, even the "leftists" are a confused bunch of former Bernie bro, Larouchite oddities who seem okay with eugenics and population control. The ones I know have moved from disliking Trump in 2016 to supporting him or RFK Jr. this time around.
There isn't a lot of coherency with White Americans lol. Except white supremacy.
I was trying to find some recent update on how much of the convention is planned to be virtual. I haven't found anything definitive but I found a humourous take from a Notre Dame political scientist (always a source for laughs or frustrations) that denies anything would happen. I'm wondering if he's a.) just covering and shoring up confidence, b.) he's just one of many deluded political scientists, or c.) he represents how the dems are thinking about this and they are just this arrogant
From an Article
A key reason for some Democratic leaders preferring to host the convention virtually is the potential for Israel-Palestine protests, which are reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam protests that took place during the 1968 Democratic National Convention — also held in Chicago.
But, according to Layman, this year represents a different time, a different war and vastly different local leadership. “The specter of the 1968 convention hangs over this a little bit since the last time we had these sorts of major campus protests against a sitting Democratic president and his foreign policy was in 1968,” Layman explained.
“But the context was completely different in 1968. We were many years into a very unpopular war with people in their 20s getting drafted into the military, and we had an old-style political machine running Chicago with a more aggressive police department confronting protesters. I think the probability of the Democrats having a repeat of 1968 is very low.”
I appreciate your comment as I've seen people even here on this site make the argument that PSL is being opportunist and taking advantage of the movement. But most of the actual on the ground demos I've seen where I am are a collab between Palestinian groups and PSL, and I don't see other groups getting involved here.
And, an aside, but I had a previous experience as the previous poster where I mostly-anarchist group I was involved with would be the type to criticize PSL and ML org until the group fell apart for sitting on their asses in handling an internal abuser because they had no organizational structure and nobody wanted to execute authority 
Yeah, I had a lot of eye rolling when reading this article
I have no problem assuming the worst intention of Israelis when they are the ones actively committing genocide and the Palestinians are the ones actively resisting. There's already an asymmetry there. It's a pretty useful heuristic to assume the worst intent of the side commiting genocide. Personally, I am not concerned with being fair to both sides or hearing one side out or being careful with assuming intent when there already is such a clear demarcation between what each side is fighting for and why.
But, like you said. It may not even be true. Perhaps just posts. And if so, then the posts are just reflections of what the posters feel - one side is defending themselves from genocide, the other is actively engaging in it. Both sides would have different intentions toward the cries of Palestinian children. I don't think that's much of a stretch, so I don't feel we need to be too concerned with fairness is assuming the intent of genociders.
Also, sorry if am coming across as too callous, or too personal of an attack on your comment. I realize my voice my sound harsh on response to you, but my anger is toward Israel and I have no empathy for the IOF
Sebrof
joined 8 months ago
King today would be casting his vote for the Greg Stillson of yesterday