Definitely can't hurt. This is one of those things therapy is good for (versus stuff that's the consequence of capitalism).

Also, depending on your disposition, adopting a new companion animal can ease the pain. It obviously can never replace the void of your lost animal, but it allows you to forget and keep youe mind off it.

Unfortunately Scarlett was right to be suspicious.

Bless the maker and his water

crying from the grave, since it's not like the displaced will have UBI and the chance to foster creativity and human flourishing.

JK Bayonetta may be but it's actually awesome

Was coming here to post this.

rest in power

Good to see Man with a movie camera posted

It's the goat.

I did a reading club in /c/theory about If We Burn last year. It's a great book.

The best art revels in it's own artifice. "you wanted a hit" is such a banger in this regard

LCD Soundsystem just tells you they're doing a piss break, which I appreciate.

A helpful essay for you comrade:

Emily St James on Wanda vision : https://www.vox.com/culture/22325656/wandavision-finale-justice-disappointment-story-karma

When/if you make the post I'd love an @, I have thoughts too but don't generally like being the OP

emojis everywhere.

I'll miss the comrade that killed Kissinger. Hopefully the legend returns with an alt someday

Yeah it's not the thing to watch if you don't want problematic themes but the show is smart.

The first episode is definitely shocking and I understand if ppl bailed on the show. However even then it felt very similar to Tarantino where it revels in the problematic to then subvert it. The absurd

Seems to suggest that the show wants you to feel uncomfortable. The whole scene is unsettling, and I think intentionally so now. Obviously there's also humor in it, but it's also like, contrast with the most recent episode and it's realism around SA and such and I think the show gets it.

Literally proven wrong today:

https://xcancel.com/LostMediaBuster/status/1857434492790526217#m

As a teacher of literature there is nothing wrong with reading a summary first. I encourage students to do it because when you're reading what's important isn't merely what is said but how it is said and the context it exists in. So knowing what's coming (yards of linen, coats, or the French revolution) is important, but understanding how it's presented.

I think is what you get from reading the material i.e. "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living" and understanding that this is why revolutions often clothe themselves in the trappings of the past because we cannot escape history (or, as Marx puts it one sentence before, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."). Reading a summary to understand the broad strokes allows you to recognize the meaning in the text as you encounter it, rather than middle through.

Most importantly, you can use the summary as a point of productive dialectical disagreement. If you accidentally read the CIA summary of Marx that's not a problem, you can use the disagreement between your reading and the summary (as long as your reading is grounded - this is where conversation with comrades and such can help) to actually understand the text. Summaries, after all, are focused on one set of priorities and assumptions, and if you disagree that's not a problem - you're just noticing something different in the text.

So use summaries, but never feel chained by them.

Read the manifesto comrade. The characters are the different classes in the progress of history.

The manifesto

Bonus: the 18th Brumaire - anti hero the bourgeoisie

Can I just throw in If We Burn as a very recent example of what happens without the work done in those other texts? You can see it as a "how not to do it" manual in many ways.