That's a hell of a spicy meatball of projection in the first paragraph.
I'm not gonna read that, just to be honest, but I wonder if systemic violence is even acknowledged? they bring up violence used by Mao (against literal fucking warlords... oops guess we just forgot to contextualize that...) but is the inherent violence of existence in China, Russia, etc. brought up? Ie Tsarist forces, being conscripted into the military to die as fodder, being slaughtered at the whim of a warlord or colonial army...
It's fucking hilarious to think that Mao or Stalin or Kim (or even Hitler or Saddam) had a lower "perception" of the costs of violence THAN BUREACRATS IN WASHINGTON.
This entire bullshit is premised on "no no the US isn't authoritarian stfu"
Also I need this author to define revisionism or revisionist because that's a nonsensical second paragraph.
"Jackals" and wolves is an academic way of describing degrees of revisionism.
Is classifying people revisionist rats also academic level on this scale? A certain scholar in Wisconsin might have been using American academic language do describe degrees of revisionism.
There is also the strange undialectical manner of being satiated vs being insatiable. Some people have their needs met and others don't. Those that don't have their needs met will want to change things. Perhaps you should try to meet everyones needs as much as possible then you'll have fewer people causing you trouble, but no that would be communism.
Because it wouldn't let her create this amazing graphic on the 5th page:
Edit: Forgot to mention that I left in the authorship on purpose. The article is from 2012 by Prof. Weeks of Cornell University.
Edit 2: Got to the ninth page, apparently Mao and Stalin are revisionist:
That's a hell of a spicy meatball of projection in the first paragraph.
I'm not gonna read that, just to be honest, but I wonder if systemic violence is even acknowledged? they bring up violence used by Mao (against literal fucking warlords... oops guess we just forgot to contextualize that...) but is the inherent violence of existence in China, Russia, etc. brought up? Ie Tsarist forces, being conscripted into the military to die as fodder, being slaughtered at the whim of a warlord or colonial army...
It's fucking hilarious to think that Mao or Stalin or Kim (or even Hitler or Saddam) had a lower "perception" of the costs of violence THAN BUREACRATS IN WASHINGTON.
This entire bullshit is premised on "no no the US isn't authoritarian stfu"
Also I need this author to define revisionism or revisionist because that's a nonsensical second paragraph.
No
Weeks cited Schweller’s 1994 paper in a footnote instead of defining it, so here’s that paper:
Guess “revisionist” is literally defined here as a more academic way of saying “jackals and wolves”
"Jackals" and wolves is an academic way of describing degrees of revisionism.
Is classifying people revisionist rats also academic level on this scale? A certain scholar in Wisconsin might have been using American academic language do describe degrees of revisionism.
There is also the strange undialectical manner of being satiated vs being insatiable. Some people have their needs met and others don't. Those that don't have their needs met will want to change things. Perhaps you should try to meet everyones needs as much as possible then you'll have fewer people causing you trouble, but no that would be communism.
Oh yes, I do agree with you, the "more academic way" was intended to look ridiculous
Thanks for the debunking though, nice to have someone pointing out how much crap this is
large image
*removed externally hosted image*
This shits giving me brain injury.