I wish there was a way to make people feel safe as they try to learn about different solutions.
The best advice I can give you is to educate yourself and then help others learn. Meet then were they are. The questions you have and the observations you've made aren't novel, which is good, because it means there are others that's have already done the hard work of finding and testing the answers.@Cowbee@lemmy.ml Has a great reading list with a bunch of literature that would help you. It's very approachable.
Every single video of a cyclist on instagram is full of people hating on them and it annoys me so much. I wish "soft travelers" were babied half as much as carbrains.
No I meant he's vindicated in the sense that if you don't carry out the purges you get a massive revolution, which is exactly why he did it, but ahistorical liberals claim he was paranoid and authoritarian and just doing it to seize power.But by putting the revolution in the game, Stalin is proven right. He had to carry out the purges.
(In the perspective of an ahistorical liberal) It would sort of be like if you had an option to do the Holocaust as Nazi Germany, and if you don't do it a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy makes you gay and black.
No they just said it in a more fun way. Moreso they told you you are a fascist in practice and deserves to be executed by communist partisans. Can't say I disagree.
I hear it is actually preferential to cripple soldiers rather than outright kill them in attritional warfare. A dead soldier is a martyr. A cripple is a terrifying look at your future + an expense.
It's also so very deterministic and it reduces politics to a ridiculous fascimile. Not to mention geopolitics, diplomacy and so on. I do enjoy that they vindicate Stalin's purges though, that is funny.
Cyberpunk grimdark setting where you have China on one side with cool Tau-like hypertech against a sort of mechanicus/Ork type thing in NATO where they replaced microchips from Taiwan with BioBrainComputers. Artificial intelligence just becomes intelligence.Basically Trench Crusade where you replace christianity with techbros.
Okay so when I say I declared I had closed it a few months ago nobody bats an eye, but just because some people don't feel like sailing today, Iran gets all the press? Smh this is because of Woke.
He is center right by the standards I have put forth, so definitionally not all standards.Regarding your second point, I'd like to say it sounds like you haven't had much interaction with leftists or left-wing political theory, considering your response.
Edit: And by the most basic standard of "pro-capitalism or anti-capitalist?" He is, by his own admission a social democrat, which is an ideology that believes in reforming capitalism. So by the most foundational definition of what forms the left- and right wings in modern politics, he is right wing. However I'd say he's centre right, rather than a hard right.
You understand that it's not subjective? "Leftwing" and "rightwing" are actual political and academic terminology with actual definitions. Stop talking out of your ass and educate yourself.
You keep describing left vs. right. Who is this "elite" you talk of, why do you think they are in the position they are in, how do they maintain that position, with what tools and for what reason? - Because they are capitalists or they enjoy the fruits of capitalism.And you are also sowing division in that you are describing an ingroup and an outgroup, just like any other political terminology does.Talking about politics only causes division because there is an inherent friction in "I would like to feed my kids" and "I think you should be an indentured servant". The only way to avoid any division is to not talk about it altogether, which only furthers the aims of the "elite" i. e. The capitalists in charge.
Totalitarianism is a made up word by a CIA stooge (who was an actual anti-Semite, before the word lost all meaning) cooked up to draw parallels between the USSR and Nazi Germany so as to propagate red scare propaganda.In Hannah Arendt analysis it does not matter for what purpose the tools of state power are utilised, merely that they are utilised. It does not matter if the state has broad support from the population, all that matters is that the state acts. This is an infantile worldview.The word itself is without any meaning beyond "descriptor of enemy state". Any definition is either so broad as to describe every nation-state or so narrow that it could just be replaced with the name of the state one is trying to foster fear of.
Depends on the country. The "conservatives" in the late USSR were the people opposing abolishing the union. I think the same descriptor is used for chavistas and Cuban communists.
The best advice I can give you is to educate yourself and then help others learn. Meet then were they are. The questions you have and the observations you've made aren't novel, which is good, because it means there are others that's have already done the hard work of finding and testing the answers.@Cowbee@lemmy.ml Has a great reading list with a bunch of literature that would help you. It's very approachable.