I mostly point out material contradictions, discuss the idea of class analysis, discuss history generally, and talk about dialectical thinking. I usually let their interests direct the conversation.

Edit: Also, people are receptive to Marxist thought, just don't immediately pit them against their boss, especially if they work in tech or at bars. It's gotta be more esoteric, like in terms of financial crap.

To mirror @Ithorian@hexbear.net, rage, continuous varied education (both self and institutional), weed, and the fact that when I talk to people they usually agree with me, even if it doesn't always stick for them or proceed towards a greater understanding and comprehension of the material world for them.

The incoherence of the average American's politics chiefly lies in the fact that the inescapable propaganda (it literally starts from before school) around them constantly lies and obfuscates reality, something that cannot be avoided, as even if you personally do not watch it, that would also mean cutting out every person in your life that is susceptible to propaganda who then repeats it as if it is fact.

Specifically the incoherence comes from that fact that despite this bedrock and ocean of propaganda we live in, lived reality cannot help but assert itself for the majority of people, and the contradictions between what we are told we will experience v.s. what we experience and how we are told to process those experiences v.s. how we actually process those experiences are quite large. However, because most people do not have any experience or knowledge of critical theory, for them there is no formalized way of making sense of those contradictions, leading to an incoherence and contradictions within their own grab-bag explanations. Ultimately what this means that you can cut through it, but it is incredibly difficult to make it stick. They have to be interested in doing it themselves. My usual social goal is to encourage that formalized exploration.

Low effort bait, especially since, despite persecution, Palestine had a huge percentage of it's population holding medical doctorates, only comparable to Cuba, prior to the Flood.

You don't understand, while it may be less beneficial for the individual Nazi, it benefits and stimulates the larger free market Nazi economy.

Sociology is fine, but I am not a huge fan of their usual methodology, as it places alot of stock in surveys and polls, which imo is a huge problem. But also I am an anthro guy so I am traditionally at loggerheads methodologically with sociologists. Mostly I just think it is a superfluous liberal art that exists because of the popularity of French methods of academic classification.

It is pretty clear that international liberalism as a project, despite appearing to be ascendent and dominant, is a completely dead ideology at this point for the ruling class, not much more than a thin veneer for imperialist, chauvinist, capitalism. To be fair, it is unclear if it ever was anything but that outside of maybe the Nixon administration.

As such, those who vocally support it look increasingly foolish and out of touch with reality, not even being rewarded by the ruling class.

We wanted him dead and not wandering around, lol.

See we thought we could give him up later (we weren't sure about it at that point) if we told him to come back and then he never did so we couldn't.

My friends and I literally spent the whole game praying the monster hunter would come around so we could get rid of him.

This one always hurts me because I literally own every book (some in multiple editions) of this series, and I had someone tell me after I showed them it, " So you like Elon Musk right?", and I was like "No? Why would you think that?" and gained cursed knowledge.

And this was when he was still a bit of a liberal darling.

He is literally being teased by his friend/lover, it's more of a flirting thing.

Edit: Not that I disagree with you in the general sense, just that the context for that specific interaction is important.

You should read Marx and Engels 'The German Ideology' to get a firmer grasp of how this whole dialectical materialism thing is supposed to work.

That said, the basis is so simple that it has literally been smuggled into conditional psychology, despite being formulated before Freud was even born.

Basically, human ideals and ideology are not grounded in approaching a divine will (as Hegel would say) but in what is rewarded by classes of ownership. As the ruling (ownership) class changes and benefits from changes in production, so to does the ideology created by them.

An ideology that does not materially benefit the ruling class is largely phased out losing it's 'conditional' (this bit is my words not Marx or Engel) properties on the working class. Literally, ideologies are skinner boxes for the ruling class based on what the current model of material production is. An ideology without some type of material reward system will (statistically speaking) be discarded in favor of one that does. There will always be outliers, but that does not make something the primary ideology of the era. The goal of the revolutionary then, is to seize the means of production by any means available, and orient them towards rewarding an ideology that has communist/socialist ideals, which should be oriented around the ideals of the working class, as the primary creators of value, not the ideals of the ruling class, who are parasitical on that labor-value.

It's incredibly unclear to me how these trots get to their conclusions outside of a complete reactionary rejection of Marxist-Leninist analysis. It's basically "Lenin said there are labor aristocrats, so therefore there aren't."

Essentially, yes.

Histories and current oppression and discrimination have to be addressed to understand the role of dominant identity workers participation in this discrimination and how it weakens the cause of labor as a whole. This is not "identity politics" it is the very essence of 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.'

If there is to be a vanguard party movement, then it is within their ability to address the needs of identity. The inability to do so suggests a lack of understanding of what Marxism is about, which is a further postulate of liberal thinking, a rejection of the libertarian idea that the needs of individuals are necessarily opposed by the needs of society, instead falling for a stripped down version of Marxism often postulated by western academia that is essentially vulgar class politics and materialism. Being a dialectic materialist doesn't mean a rejection of ideals, it just means understanding that any ideals that are not rewarded by a material base are built upon sand. As such, any worker's movement that does not seem to empower dispossessed minority groups will soon find itself without that support, which is essential, not only for our ideals but for pragmatism as well. Nothing crumbled faster than 'Marxists and communists' who sought to subsume all identities into stripped down "Well we are all the working class, so you should just be on our side." ideology and practice.

To agree with you, this phenomena of real observations being used and pushed by bad actors is exactly how things like GamerGate are smuggled into popular culture. In that case, they specifically smuggled in "Games are becoming female and woke." (plus targeted harassment of particular female content creators) from the pretty ubiquitous observation that 'Professional games journalism is pretty much horseshit created to drive sales of increasingly homogenized and poor games, not to critique games and drive improvement of the medium in a way that benefits the consumers or workers in those industries.'

Of course, that was also simply tapping into a misogynistic culture that was already very present and loud, and directing that into 'consumer politics'. It's not like they had much work to actually do.

You have a good nose for bullshit. "Identity politics" have been central to successful organized Marxism for over a century. Attributing them to 'post-modernism' is itself a contemporary idea that divorces them unessecerily from class politics.

Most communist states always had specific women's labor and political groups, as well as usually catering towards the needs and problems of ethnic minorities. The need for this is well recognised even as far back as Marx and Engels themselves, with Eleanor Marx being one of the prominent caretakers and disseminaters of Marx's writing into the hands of the continental European left after his death, with the Bolsheviks truly being the party that insisted on a multicultural doctrine, having leaders from many different ethnicities and nationalities, and insisting on native language and ethnic conservation programs (something which even the modern CPC continues today). It is in fact a rejection of material support of this multi-cultural heritage that exemplifies the worst revanchist and reactionary elements of modern Russia, which is now experiencing a greater cultural flattening (loss of non-Russ language and culture) than ever existed during the Soviet period.

The idea that we can just become one big working class is an idealistic model of class politics that doesn't represent historically successful communist parties. In order to get to that point, as that is where our power lies, through our labor, we will have to address matters of identity. We don't get there by insisting they don't exist.

Edit: This catering toward ethnic minorities within the party btw, was one of the essential wedges used by the 'National Socialists' to distinguish themselves from communist parties. You know we are in a bad place theoretically when even supposed communist organizations are parroting literal Nazi propaganda towards organizing the working class.

Christ, another assertion that has very little to do with the topic at hand.

Also, 'debunked', I feel like I am on atheist/skeptic YouTube and Reddit again. Very much a walking tagline generator. It's always weird when the community has one on the line and just keeps playing with it, the degeneration is always wild.

I highly doubt 95.8% of the U.S. is literate. Or at least literate past the point of 'oh I know how to spell 'car'".

Case in point, what in the world does the One Child Policy have to do with literacy rates? Are they implying that it isn't possible to have high literacy rates in countries that have more children? That is an incredibly bold assumption and assertion, a real correlation doesn't mean causation basic statistical problem. Such a random offshoot that would get you docked points on any essay as to whether or not you even are literate in the topic you are discussing.

Real high-school liberal shit.

Oh man, I can't even remember what system we are on now.

Idk why anybody puts any stock into this stuff. I mean, Astrobot won GotY, which don't get me wrong, Astrobot is a cool game with some really good uses of the PS4 graphics capabilities, efficiencies, and hardware, but it really just served as the wake to the graveyard of PS Exclusives.

It's been pretty clear that the whole thing has been mostly industry payola from the beginning.

I love how absolutely dogshit the media is here. If they wanted the fighting to stop they would have prevented Assad from falling. Turkey just scored a huge W, the whole point of which was to then be able to launch a campaign in Northern Syria.