He isn't saying that a woman would not have started the war. So either he claims any woman leader would be so incompetent that Russia would lose the war, or so competent that she would win the war faster (which would according to him be a good thing).
King is in remarkably good health for a 75 year old former cocaine and opioid addict who got hit by a van
guess the wheel of ka has need of him, its one purpose is to turn
long way of saying " resurrect Lyudmila Pavlichenko and put her in power armour "
The last time a woman ruled Russia they conquered Crimea and eastern and southern Ukraine.
Eastern Ukraine was already part of Russia since 1654, Catherine II conquered Western Ukraine without Galizia.
why is liberal feminism so deeply weird? genuinely asking
'cause liberal feminists are unironically super sexist, usually in the "putting women on pedestals made of pure light" kind of way
the misogynistic rage that follows the failure of any given woman to stay aloft under such conditions is usually a sight to behold as well
putting women on a pedestal encapsulates it so well, I'm embarrassed that wasn't my first thought. some naive part of me didn't want to see that pathetic, simpish side to them, I suppose.
In this case, because it doesn't challenge any of the underlying assumptions of the patriarchy or western chauvinist thought in general, just the specific notion of how women participate in it.
one of the most horrifying things the internet has given me is the destruction of my personal images of Stephen King, William Gibson, and a whole bunch of others
I thought these guys were world historic insights who had masterfully dissected the fate of mankind. I thought they were the coolest guys on Earth. I still respect their storytelling abilities and how they conjure forces beyond themselves, but that's all they were. They were conduits speaking to greater truths than their own personal outlooks. I guess as I get older that's how I rationalize my continued admiration of artists. The point of artists isn't that they're creative geniuses alone, although some are, rather, they're channels of the whole collective insights of humanity. They're simply able to translate greater concepts, truths, symbols, and purposes into a digestible artwork and perhaps don't even fully understand their own creations.
King's books have an insight into the nature of evil I've always liked. He portrays evil as not a collection of distinct behaviors or beliefs, but rather a self-destructive machinery bound by arbitrary laws/codes. Evil's abstract and uses people to perpetrate it, but those people aren't in control of it. Evil's a mathematic formula. The Crimson King never controlled the evil forces of the universe, he's simply its avatar. He's the one closest to the gears of it. Being closer to the inner workings of the machinery drives a person more mad.
and yet despite King's ability to illustrate concepts like that, he's just a person. He's a rich white milquetoast boomer bound by the ideologies of the society that created him.
Also the power of drugs. King's books from the 70s and 80s are really great IMO, but he was also high all the time. I mean, glad for him if he's happier sober (I'm sure he is), but his newer books just aren't the same IMO.
being on the internet since childhood has definitely instilled the lesson that smart, talented, capable etc people are really mostly smart, talented, and capable in their wheelhouse, and once you remove them from it you get this
We have Marx's personal letters to family and friends, plus all the articles he wrote to newspapers like when he'd argue with Herbert Spencer. I've read a lot of those.
Those actually paint Marx as genuine. He lived and breathed the theories he wrote. There are a few times where he expresses standard bigotries you'd expect from a middle class European at the time, like at one point he calls Mexicans uncivilized, another time he calls Ferdinand Lassalle the n-word. Otherwise I think reading Marx's entire body of writings enhances his image. He truly was committed to research and worker movements and took it seriously as much as he could, despite the limitations of his health and poverty. He seemed like a good father to his kids too.
Marx on social media would be probably be a firebrand of a poster. He'd never be the first to log off.
Ferdinand Lassalle the n-word.
He doesn't say that, he used the words Juden Itzig. Translates more appropiately to the antisemitic k-slur.
Still, never used Lasalle's Judaism against him yada yada, not an antisemite, etc - just wanted to :posting: about this common mistranslation.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. He uses the antisemetic term you said, but Marx also uses the phrase "Der jüdische N----- Lassalle." He used the English n-word in his letter. Check it out (best German version I could find):
https://www.iisg.nl/collections/herzenstichting/marx.pdf
I remember Marx also used the word in another letter to Engels about the American civil war, saying something like "one n----- regiment could muster up morale among northern soldiers." I can try to find that one too if you want.
Marx knew what to say publicly and privately. He knew not to use racist terms in his public writings since he didn't want to muster racist organization. He publicly kept his disagreements with Lassalle purely on theory and practice.
Ah, I had never read that letter before, thanks! Until this point I had only seen the Itzig passage quoted in this context, so I thought ppl were mistranslating.
It was such a weird experience reading Neuromancer then getting on Twitter and realizing Gibson is a turbo-lib boomer. I'd waited a long time to read the book, everyone kept calling it a masterpiece. The book lived up to those expectations. And then Gibson turns out to be so damn boring and normal.
The idea that the gender of the current leader has anything to do with the reason wars occur is so childish. It’s unreal hearing it from grown adults
Identity Politics + Great Person of History + surface level understanding of feminism = this bullshit
I think he's saying that if a woman took over right now then all the Russian troops would be out by New Years and the war would be over, and he's saying that either because he's ignorant of the fact that the Russian invasion was an escalation of the Ukrainian civil war and that them pulling out wouldn't actually end it or because he knows that and doesn't care. Either way dumb.
If we just had more LGTBQ+ unmanned drone operators, all this would be over yesterday.
