Why wouldn’t learning about politics in depth be like academic study, though? Learning about basically anything in depth is academic study. Sure, there are valid forms of investigation or knowledge which have been shut out from academia, but even if your preferred version of knowledge is more intuitive and experience based, eventually you’ve still got to share it with people and writing is much more efficient in reaching people than one-on-one.

Why is that weird? Marx wrote in the 1800s, quite a few things have happened since then.

This one almost certainly isn’t because of both the jocular tone and the several other “emails to Faith” posted in this comm recently, but indeed they are drawing on the true experiences of graduate students.

Having lived in the UK as a (white) foreigner… You are not a whole lot better over there. “White supremacy” is a bit of a loaded term with a few different meanings. By your question, I guess you mean people who dress up in nazi cosplay? Those guys are still fairly uncommon everywhere, but the thing is that there is a porous border between your average racist prick and one of those guys. As they feel safer to express their true beliefs, they do so more often, and they want to wear the symbols of their movement. They’re very safe in the USA right now so you see more of them. But in my opinion, “white supremacy” is better used to refer to a culture which values white people more or thinks of them as higher on some kind of natural hierarchy. That is, after all, what the words literally mean. Although it’s a broader definition, I think it’s clearer, because it removes the confusion when the average racist pricks start dressing up in fash drag when someone who lets them gets into power. Explicit racists (as opposed to your normal somewhat prejudiced person who still doesn’t believe racism is good) often talk about “hiding their power level”, i.e. not letting on. What I’m saying is, the UK is similar to the US, just a bit shyer.

Nah lol

No, I’m just accusing them of throwing around words that mean nothing and thinking everyone is authoritarian. Just a little joke.

Sorry, I don’t save links to random stupid internet comments

You can see from the very question that poster asked that, whatever clear definition about authoritarianism or whatever you think it has, that’s just not how people are actually using it. Centrists will use it for Mamdani supporters, DSA-types will use it for Marxist-Leninists, and anarchists will use it for almost literally anyone.

“Tankie” is just a derogatory term for anyone to the left of the person saying it

You can just look up the numbers. This isn’t some secret knowledge. 400k civilians directly killed, on the low end, millions more dead from famine and displacement. Versus like 15-20k in Ukraine.

“the US and Israel” is one thing

The money they collect is the money we pay them minus the money they pay us. If we can’t pay them more the only way to get more is for them to pay us less. Gross simplification obviously. Then the typical strategy is to blame immigrants or Jews or whatever for the decrease in living standards, and crack down on anyone who tries to improve things.

Edit: this is sort of a meme-ified version of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall which is the real theory of how economic crises in capitalism come about and not really the same as what I’m describing here, but along some similar lines. It’s worth reading about from actual scholars in detail if you’re interested in that sort of thing.

Ok, some in Yemen and Somalia too, but Wikipedia claims the cost of life of the gwot was 4.5 million, and I’ve seen credible estimates as high as 6.

And I think in this situation we’d only really be comparing Ukrainian casualties to them.

No, no, even if we get that wish I dont want the US state propping up AI longer

Funnily enough the problem with capitalism is actually that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Which they badly need, they are in an incredibly risky position right now. It’s very disappointing, this deal might save them from collapse for quite a while.

Say what you want about Bush, even that war criminal didn’t go as far.

Genuinely not defending Russia here, but Dubya’s pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan was if anything even flimsier than the “justification” for the Ukraine invasion, and that war killed way more people, civilians and not.

Alright, fair enough I guess. I used to think this way too, but I changed my mind about it. I don’t think that voting is actually value neutral, but rather affirmative consent for what the people you vote for then go on to do. There are practical aspects to it - I think it sucks the energy out of taking other actions outside of voting, and gives the winner of the election legitimacy in the eyes of normal people who are kind of checked out - but beyond that I think it morally ties you to the program of the party you voted for. I don’t think someone has to be perfect to be able to vote for them, but there is a line beyond which it is too far. After that, the only thing left to do is to take actions outside voting and not get distracted by the circus.

But in the actual election, vote strategically against the most abhorrent and least humane candidate, or you’re liable to get them.

I understand the appeal of this idea. It makes sense. But bear with me for a minute. Imagine a world where the democratic party really was as bad as the republican party, except they would give one grain of rice more to one prisoner in the concentration camp. Would you vote for that party? Do you have a line at all beyond which you wouldn’t vote for someone?

Oh cool, AI will actually be the end of the world, not because it’s actually sentient but because some meathead who can’t tell the difference pushes the button. That’s fucking great.