Removed by mod

Removed by mod

You can write a dismissive “here’s why this sucks” post about anything.

It’s not analysis, but it’s a really good heuristic.

He isn’t talking about dating

He is?

CW: cishet dating

Nuke cishet dating from orbit

It’s good to be skeptical of reform attempts, but we also don’t want to fall into this trap:

Gramsci shows that one of the main historical concerns of the Catholic Church has been to control the reading and the diffusion of Christianity, blocking the rise and spread of popular, autonomous and base level interpretations and thereby saving the purity of the historic doctrine… Many Marxists act the same way. Their biggest worry is the purity of the doctrine. Every time that historical facts challenge the doctrine or show the complexity of the practical operationality of elements of the theory, they deny that these elements are part of the story of Marxist theory and doctrine. This is, for example, what doctrines of betrayal are built on.

The “complexity of the practical operationality of elements of the theory” in the imperial core is that there has never been a successful socialist revolution here and there are no significant prospects for one currently. The most notable “revolutionary” movement in the U.S. right now is what, the PSL? No one has cracked the code of how to build socialism in the imperial core. It’s not a betrayal to experiment with other tactics when revolution has failed (or never started) in your local context. It’s also not a binary choice; you can support the most revolutionary group available and still do reform work to pay the bills, for example.

The touchstones for me are to not lose sight of the end goal (socialism, not kinder, gentler capitalism) and to be ready to move if a mass movement you weren’t involved in takes off.

When you’re talking to sympathetic-but-skeptical libs (and many of us were there once), it’s far better to understate your claims than overstate them. You don’t want to get bogged down on debatable shit; keep the conversation on topics where there isn’t any defense.

Hey now, you’re still cool

That stuff isn’t necessary, but a low tolerance for it significantly restricts your dating pool. It’s like saying you aren’t going to jump through a lot of hoops to get a job – there are employers out there who don’t require that, especially if you’re highly desirable, but it does make things harder.

An example is the patriarchal expectation for men to be the first one to express interest, and to generally take the initiative to move the ball forward early in the relationship. You can opt out of that, but for most guys that would mean dating almost no one. This isn’t even a conscious “game” women play, it’s a social convention, so “I wouldn’t want to date someone who does that anyway” would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

“Disney has decided to waive its right to arbitration” means “we will 100% try this bullshit again, but one bad media wave costs more than this settlement ever could.”

What other word is there besides weird

I believe you’ve hit on how Democrats stumbled upon an effective dig

Stalin himself would go on to ally with governments to the right of social democracies in order to fight actual fascists. It’s absolutely an L that he lumped them all in together as basically the same. It’s also absurd to be so dogmatic about a comment made 100 years ago in a wildly different political and material context.

How many hexbears started out as social democrats during Bernie 2016?

At the end of the day, these are people who’ve taken a concrete step left of the Democratic Party. We should be convincing them to take more steps, not calling them fascists.

It’s the first response by a couple of people here, though.

Oh yeah, I don’t think OP’s theory is likely, but it seems at least plausible and I don’t know enough about breakdancing to have an informed opinion on what her real talent level is.

Absolutely criminal not to include a link

This should be the first response: that if this is what she did (and it makes a certain amount of sense given the fact she’s won other competitions), it wasn’t decided democratically and does not seem to be supported by the broader community.

That’s a much better critique than “she may have dedicated much of her life to this, but she doesn’t get an opinion because she’s a white lady.”

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod