I’d more say that the military occupation was done for the sake of confrontation (this is similar to the official Chinese line). It was a really senseless invasion, as far as I can tell (and I disagree with the Vietnamese line that the war was expansionist).

Come on, you’re more well-read than this. You know that military occupation and annexation are not the same thing.

If I was just complaining about border skirmishes, then I’d mention India or something. The attack on Vietnam was more than just a “minor border skirmish”.

the map is far more accurate than it is not though

Come on, Yog, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than this. It’d be so easy to just color in Vietnam and then you’d be set, but by posting it in its current form you are actively lying.

deleted by creator

The one is not the other

Arendt is one of the more overrated authors in America short of the founders, but she has a point about how, when you are removed from the brutal nature of the violence, you can just sort of shuffle it into your day-to-day activities. Sure, you can certify the paperwork, it’s just letters on a screen. Hell, you can even administer the needle, as it’s not your job to concern yourself with his innocence or guilt, it’s your job to use this specific set of injections to kill him in a visually benign way. Separating arbiters from brutalizing and brutalizers from arbitration makes the flagrant injustice much more palatable to both parties.

It’s like, what are the actual implications of baristas doing “unproductive” labor? They’re attaching an emotional meaning to it, but unproductive for Marx only means that the labor does not reproduce capital, the M-C-M’ process is interrupted. So what’s the problem? That capitalism has bullshit jobs? That some people make minimum wage undeservedly?

But this is already ceding too much ground to their bunk analysis, because baristas are obviously productive labor. They make and serve coffee, meaning they are important in getting money out of the cafe (or whatever), the coffee beans, the coffee machines, etc., even if we totally discount the possibility of excess value being extracted from their labor and treat them like instruments of production. They’re part of the circuit, or they wouldn’t be employed!

Calling service economy work unproductive labor isn’t picking a weird corner of Marx’s writing, it’s completely misreading it.

Frequently they blame ““communist”” politicians for letting the immigrants in

I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that “I’m trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin’ sucks,” your internal response would be “This person is trans, but doesn’t understand why they are trans.” [Or that it is likely that they don’t understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]

Is that a more fair representation of your view?

(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)

deleted by creator

We’re talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are “likely not trans”, that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren’t. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were “80% sure” that someone wasn’t trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren’t.

All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can’t access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the “Excuse you”.

You can’t tell in the movie but in the script, all his lines and stage directions are written in greentext.

This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.

That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.

On this chart, Labour is to the left of Lib Dems, 93% to 90%. They are to the right of Greens, who have 96%.

Uyghurs (Chinese Muslims)

And then his policies did produce polarization and a new bourgeoisie. I think it shouldn’t be controversial to say that he was substantially revisionist, and that a circumstance where some are prosperous and some are not is opposed to the principles of a socialist society because it is the product of stratification of social position in the population, i.e. not conducive to achieving the “classlessness” thing.

He’s often regarded as a right-deviationist for a reason

I mean, I don’t think the war in Donbas was “genocide” by most common definitions. It was the reckless slaughter of a minority group, and that’s borne out just by looking at the magnitude of civilian casualties. imo the argument for invading on behalf of the breakaway regions is not that those regions were being subjected to genocide, but that they should be entitled to self determination in response to ongoing cultural repression, and if Ukraine is going to try to then surpress them militarily, Ukraine should be suppressed militarily (while trying to negotiate for peace, of course).