Sorry for being late with this entry, everyone. Last week I had another midterm, second Psychology midterm, so I was basically just studying the whole time. While I could’ve posted after the midterm I basically dove into research paper stuff, which has been difficult. Picking two countries with acceptable sources to accompany them is a lot harder than one would expect, not taking in to account my own ability to properly represent a country and the injustices it faces. My perspective is still a bit limited but I’m trying my best and have gathered a great amount of sources to boost my paper’s credibility. Anyway, moving on to day 8 of Political Science. That class was spent learning about elections and electoral systems. Most of the course content isn’t worth writing about here, but I’ll bring some of it up if it’s contextually relevant. During our discussion about public policy issues my Professor asked about Biden’s policies, most people brought up COVID, and then Trump was brought up in terms of the economy. My professor said that under Trump the economy was very strong; low unemployment; “tough” on China; he’s a bad guy but he knew how to run a country, a female student said. A male student brought up Trump graduating from Penn State University, the best of the best, so he clearly knows his stuff. While this conversation was a bit uncomfortable for, especially when I had to wrangle my face to not make extreme expression, lest I get called out. We then moved on to election fairness, essentially preventing voter fraud or foreign interference; which leads us to the discussion about the current inquiry into foreign inference in the last federal election of Canada where Trudeau won a minority government. My Professor asked the class which country was being accused of interfering. I put up my hand and said “They’re trying to blame China for some reason”, he confirmed my answer and began to explain the situation a little bit, then he made this statement “Trudeau loves China, he always wants to do good by China” I then raised my hand again and said “Didn’t Mr. Xi Jingping literally lecture and scold Trudeau because he was talking shit behind his back?” My statement was correct and he went on to say that Trudeau was not interested in doing an investigation, implying that China did interfere but Trudeau did not want anyone to know, again I put up my hand “I thought I saw recently that Trudeau did approve the investigation?” I was right, he confirmed this as the day before Trudeau did say he was going to appoint someone special to investigate. This is probably the one class I was super talkative in, I just wish I brought up the Huawei phone ban and the arrest of the CEO’s daughter. Next time. When we were talking about campaign periods and attack ads the same girl who praised Trump also brought up Pierre Poilievre and his “Yes or No” questions to Trudeau and how he’s always dodging simple questions or diverting them to his party members. I don’t like Trudeau but I’d rather set myself on fire then ever defend Skippy (Pierre’s nickname). In conclusion, his girl gives me bad vibes. We concluded the class with electoral systems: • First Past The Post • Two Round/Second Ballot System • Preferential System • Proportional Representation • Hybrid System My Professor proclaimed his praise for the Hybrid System, which Germany uses apparently. In my opinion, it sounded kind of complicated but it’s better than what we have here in Canada which is First Past The Post. Personally, I’d rather have proportional representation. On to day 9, which is today! I was actually almost late for class, I like to arrive super early but for some reason the bus took way longer than it should’ve. Anyway, today we learned about Civil Liberties, Political Culture, Terrorism, and The Mossad. So we started off talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then the Notwithstanding Clause which, apparently, Doug ford tried to threaten Healthcare workers and teachers with to prevent them from striking. But he didn’t go through with it, thankfully. Next was the Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is not legally binding and just lip service. Apparently the whole “Universal Human Rights” thing is at odds with cultural values; Universalism vs Cultural Relativism. Which prompted a conversation about whether we believe in Universalism or if Culture is relevant. A girl argued that it’s more nuanced than just “Yes or No”, the Taliban was used as an example with their opposition to women and girls in school. The girl obviously disagreed with the Taliban and stated that what the Taliban are doing is not in alignment with Islam. There was a bit of a back and forth but she concluded with western values being seen as the universal good needing to spread to other countries is a form of imperialism. After this discussion we moved on to First Generation Rights, which were curated in the West; Second Generation Rights, curated by the Soviet Block (I drew little hearts around it); Third Generation Rights, which were curated by developing nations (his words not mine). Political culture was short but my Professor asked us to compare Canadian Political culture vs American Political culture, which alway annoys me but I’ll illustrate how that went: >Essentially he attempted to explain the question with a scenario, if you’re at the airport and have a Canadian flag on your baggage and another person has the American flag, how would people around perceive you both? Of course, thee first thing was that Canadians are stereotyped as being friendly and diffident, versus Americans being boastful (his words not mine). Canada is multicultural while America is a melting pot and focused on American exceptionalism. Someone even said that Americans like to rep their cities on shirts while Canadians don’t. This conversation bothers me because it’s hypocritical. We claim to be humble and kind and yet boast about how much better we are than Americans while ignoring our gross treatment of Indigenous Peoples and the amount of fascists we have, most of which are in our government! Our terrorism section was very short and straightforward so I won’t get into it, but afterwards we watched a weird propaganda video about the Mossad, AKA the national intelligence agency of Israel. We didn’t finish but here are some things I managed to write down: • “Palestinian Rebels” • “Pawn of a mystery criminal mastermind” (in reference to a suicide bomber) • “The Engineer” is a “hero to Palestinians and a terrorist to Israelis” • “only rule is that there are no rules” (in reference to the Mossad) • “Patriotism is a prerequisite” (in reference to the Mossad) • Then they barged into The Engineer’s house scaring the shit out of his parents, he wasn’t in the house Then class ended. So that’s it for now, hopefully when I hand in my paper I get a good grade.

Is this true? I can’t find any articles about it.

So I heard about this institute in a YouTube video where it was brought up to contextualize violence in Latin America. How many dictators and cartel members graduated from the school. I’m wondering if anyone here knows more about countries that were directly affected by the School of the Americas, I’m thinking about using one of those countries in my research paper about “failed states” but I’m having trouble picking which one. I’ve chosen Libya as one state to write about but I just need one more.

Hello everyone, this week school is back in session after a short break and Tuesday was my first day back in classes. My professor opened the class by giving us back our midterm and apparently the results were disastrous. I was shocked and some students asked if he was joking, but no, he was completely serious. The midterm itself was 40 points, 10 short answer each worth 20 marks, and an essay worth 20 marks. He said that it was the short answer section that people struggled with. Couldn’t be me since I got 20/20 baby! On the essay I got 15/20, which I’m taking as a win. I haven’t written an essay in a very long time so I’m proud of myself. Could I have done better? Definitely, and I will on the Final and Research Paper. I was scared to look at the comments he made but I also looked forward to it since I want to get better and better. When I checked for his pen marks it was only one tiny comment at the end next to my total: “Good effort. Read text for more content on Conservatism.” This took me a while to translate since I had a hard time reading his handwriting. I believe this comment is because, while I did touch on conservatism in my essay as was required with the prompt, I focused more of my writing on Marxism. To be fair, when Marxism was taught in class it was during the last five minutes with no further elaboration in future classes which resulted in the topic being treated like a joke. I took this essay as a bit of an opportunity to give Marxism the TLC it deserved. Was I perfect? No, but I think I did a better job than my professor. If I ever have the opportunity to rewrite it I will. I’d love to further discuss the issues I brought up without having to rely on my memory during a stressful hour and a half. If any of you would like to see the original word salad, let me know. As of now, I’m too embarrassed to post it. Anyway, after going over the midterm short answer questions he started the lesson. To be honest the topic itself isn’t worth writing about in detail here; in summary we just talked about Unitary government, devolution of power, constitutions, and. federation vs confederation. I don’t find it necessary to go over all the definitions but of course there were some hot takes and weird comments I made note of during the lecture:: When we were learning about federations and constitutional entrenched power shared between Ottawa and the provinces, with said powers being difficult to change or take away, my professor used Danielle Smith (Alberta Premier) and her Alberta Sovereignty Act as an example of her trying to protect provincial powers from Ottawa. If you don’t know anything about Smith, consider yourself lucky. Every time she’s talked about in class I can’t help rolling my eyes. the Sovereignty Act would essentially allow Alberta to oppose federal laws that seemingly pose a threat to the federal-provincial division of powers. She pushed this Act to the forefront during the leadership race (whole other bag of worms) with the main focus being protecting Alberta from COVID guidelines and the new firearms ban Trudeau is trying to put in place. Oh, she’s also pushing private healthcare like the other conservative Premiers around the country. It fucking sucks here. On the topic of confederations; I guess people thought Canada was one? I’ve never heard that before but apparently it’s a common enough belief that he felt the need to mention it. He defined a confederation as a union of independent states which got me thinking; would the USSR be considered a confederation? I did not ask him, I’m not that unhinged yet. Moving on we just went over the responsibilities of the federal system and concurrent jurisdictions (provincial). Nothing super interesting during this lecture we learned about Roxham Road and how, apparently, their looking for a way of closing it. We learned about the Residual Power Clause (example being the Emergency Act) and POGG (Peace, Order, and Good Government). Ottawa has the power to give declaratory power which is not really used anymore, power of reservation which is also not really used, and the power to disallow a provincial law within a year it has been passed this, too, is never really done. This is all according to my professor, by the way. Challenges facing the. Canadian Federation was the final thing we went over in class. This whole last bit was my professor and fellow students just going in on Quebec. I’ll list off the problems and the subsequent comments made: > 1. Quebec has not signed the Constitution; everyone just began to make fun of Quebec and the separatists. A student asked if Quebec should/would separate but my professor believes Quebec is far too dependant on the Canadian government to be able to separate. People started to laugh saying nobody would ever want Quebec anyway, mainly the US. According to my prof. France would approve the separation but the US would veto. >2. Equalization Payments; so this section was just about how because Alberta has the richest population, as in we have more rich folks here (hm I wonder why), Alberta pays more in equalization and Quebec gets that money, which seems to fuel the hatred Alberta has for Quebec. >3. Poor Treatment of First Nations; nothing about Quebec specifically but it is one of the biggest issues we have up here. Theres no clean drinking water, horrible housing, MMIWG, and much more we didn’t go over but I’m positive most of you are aware of. >4. Canada health transfer/Canada social transfer; the problem with this is that when the federal government give the provinces a budget for healthcare and social services, but sometimes provincial governments don’t use the money as it is intended. Instead of using the money for what it was meant for, some provinces will use that money to “balance the budget”. Weirdos on Twitter complain about government debt all the time but isn’t that debt way different than, let’s say, a credit card? We had a premier here pay off the Alberta debt but I don’t believe it actually did anything. I was either not alive or too young to see anything significant. The Canadian Constitution is fairly rigid, meaning making changes to it is quite difficult; if we wanted to get rid of the monarchy, or “get rid of Charles” in my professor’s words, there would have to be complete unity among the provinces and it must be passed by parliament. And because of how not on the same page the provinces are, we’re not going to be cracking open that constitution any time soon. Most people claim Quebec is the main problem but I’d wager it’s Alberta and a few others kicking up a fuss. We ended the class with a short discussion of the history of the Constitution Act of 1982. Quebec did not sign it at the time, sometime in 1987 (I think that was the year, its the one I wrote but I might have heard wrong) the Premier of Quebec at the time wanted in, but Manitoba was the one refusing to sign the new one (or something) this time because there was no protections of Indigenous Peoples. That last bit is a bit confusing but if you were sat in class with me you’d understand the confusion I was listening to. Throughout the class I was surprised there was no mention of the war or China, but one of my classmates was a little late and I noticed she had a bunch of “stand with Ukraine” type pins on her back pack, one of which looked like the cancer ribbon but blue and yellow. No, I was not staring, she sits in front of me and when she took off her bag I saw. I swear to god I’m not a weirdo, I actually actively avoid looking at other people. I feel bad because when I saw flags before, both Canadian and Ukrainian, I wouldn’t bat an eye, my family likes to wave Portugal’s flag. But since the convoy and the war, the uptick in certain symbols hav made me wary. Not all flags, of course. The normal Ukrainian flag and Canadian one are fine but in certain contexts it’s unsettling. Hope that makes sense, I really don’t want to sound like an ass. Anyway, that’s all I have right now. In terms of the textbook I actually have a document going with excerpts I felt necessary to make note of and later share. If it’s possible I’ll make sure to add a who said what on each quote so there’s some context. If you have any questions let me know, I’m open to discussing pretty much everything!

Hello comrades, It’s currently reading week for me, meaning I don’t have classes until early March, like a miniature spring break. I’m spending my time working on my own personal creative projects, playing D&D with my friends, cleaning up my notes from my classes, and studying for my statistics midterm. For my Political Science class we have to write a research paper about one of five topics our professor laid out for us in the syllabus. It isn’t due until mid March but I figured during my break I could compile some sources for the topic I chose: >Using two cases, indicate the main tasks to be included in the rebuilding of failed and collapsed states? Do you agree with the argument that attempts to universalize human rights in such states are imperialistic? The other topics were not as interesting nor would I be able to talk about Marxism unless I got incredibly creative. This was the only topic that was vague enough that I could talk about whatever compared to the rest focused on very specific scenarios with very specific countries. I’m writing here because I figured some of you would be willing to point me in the direction of sources to help me with my research paper, or even give me advice on going about writing it. I figured one of the ‘failed’ states I could talk about is the USSR, and maybe Yugoslavia being the second since I can’t really think of any other collapsed states (Czechoslovakia? A unified Korea?). I’m sure with this topic I could really dive into why certain states have fallen, how they could’ve survived, and how they can be revived once more. I could also potentially shoehorn information about western influence and plotting leading to collapse of rival states and the continued turmoil the global south continues to face today, imperialism disguised as spreading ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. If I should cross post this in another sub please let me know!

I really love Margaret Ely Webb’s illustrations so I thought maybe embellishing my “diary” posts with them would add a little *something*. Anyway, last post I mentioned studying for my midterm which was yesterday. I know @redtea was curious about it so I figured it would be nice to share what the content was. So before the midterm we were given review and practise questions to get a gist of what the exam would look like. I’ll say that the real exam was in the exact same format, down to identical essay prompts. So the first half was all short answer, we had to answer 10 out of the 13 given, so dealer’s choice. there were no multiple choice as my professor believes it to be juvenile; high school level. The questions themselves were fairly simple, along the lines of defining certain terms, understanding who said what, differences between Canadian and American systems, and a geography question. The second half is the more interesting bit in my opinion: the essay portion. We were given 4 prompts and had to choose one to write about. I won’t mention the prompts I didn’t choose (unless you’re curious) because I think the one I chose is the most polarizing. The one I chose asked me to write Marxism and Conservatism based on: conception of society and the economy, and application to current politics. This was ballsy of me considering the other essay questions would have been way easier to write without either outing myself or at least finishing the exam early. But I just couldn’t help myself. I literally started off with the quote “A spectre is haunting Europe… the spectre of Communism” then proceeded to write about the differences between Marxism and Conservatism, which was simple enough. I mentioned the foundation and superstructure, how labeling certain art work as “degenerate” pushes conservatism (we’ve all even the weirdos with the statue profile pics), and just how conservative and capitalist ideology dominates most of global politics. When I wrote about Marxism in our current climate I did get a little enthusiastic about how certain states have survived capitalist violence despite all odds, how the ghost of the USSR still permeates, and that there is a bit of a new red scare going on (I did bring up the Chinese weather balloon). Would I have liked to be a bit more detailed and what not? Yes, of course, but this was a midterm and I wasn’t allowed to pull up sources to cite verbatim although I did make sure my information was factual. Vietnam, Thomas Sankara, the Korean War, stuff like that. In terms of content I believe my essay deserves full marks, I answered the prompt and that’s that. But I am fearful that I may have “fucked” myself. I mean, my professor is on the record stated that the USSR was a colossal failure and just hasn’t been friendly to Marxist thought at all. And while I know that he’s supposed to be impartial and mark me based on what I’ve learned, but the second I handed in my exam and stepped out of the classroom a wave of dread washed over me. I’m worried that, even if I don’t get docked marks, I’ll be reprimanded or put on some watchlist or something. Did I put a target on myself? Yes, 100% and it probably didn’t help that I ended off my essay with “A spectre is haunting the world… the spectre of Communism” because I love a good call-back with a twist.

Next week is my midterm, which I don’t know if I should be nervous for. I think I’ll be alright. Anyway, my sixth class was on Tuesday, and like with writing this post I was also a few minutes late. I didn’t really miss anything which is good but I’ve still go some knowledge to share. This week was focused on the role of political parties and special interest groups. Obviously both are very connected. I don’t believe I’ll have to go into the basics of what political parties are/what they do, so I’ll skip to the more interesting bits, especially when it comes to my professor’s and fellow students’ comments made throughout class. So when it comes to classifying what type of party one is we looked at two terms: Missionary parties (also known as ideological parties) and Broker parties (also known as Pragmatic parties). The former having a commitment to a specific ideology with the want to convert people, kinda like Jehovah’s Witnesses hence the “missionary” title (his example not mine). The latter group being less about ideology and more about changing their party positions to maximize votes (they are also called Catch-all parties). I’m sure most of you are already familiar with these but I didn’t know that specific classifications existed. Next we learned about party systems; one party, two party, you get the gist. So what was interesting here was when we were talking about one party systems, my professor brought up Cuba, North Korea, and China as examples. While I know outside of the classroom setting this isn’t a negative, but he was very negative about one party systems in general and didn’t go into the nuances of how the systems works in Cuba, North Korea (which is a bit difficult considering everything), and how china does have multiple parties, just one is more dominant. Which is what a one party system is, top heavy, again this was his definition. When China was brought up as an example there was a strange debate on whether China is an aristocracy or oligarchy because most decisions are made by Xi Jinping and a few others. he claimed that Xi Jinping has massive influence on the population. He proceeded to ask the class if they believed the Chinese Communist Party (his words) governs in their own interests or the people’s. Most students said own while I quietly said the people’s… The terms “de facto” and “de jure” were discussed next. De facto meaning one party is dominant while de jure is only one party being allowed. He used Cuba and North Korea as de jure examples. Again, I know Cuba and North Korea are fine but the way he relayed this information was very biased to the typical Liberal Democracy system and acting like Cuba and North Korea are under some totalitarian dictatorship. A girl in my class is from Türkiye and she talked about how the current President is in a coalition of sorts with the fascist part of Türkiye. My professor sort of sputtered at her terminology and stated he hates to use the fascist since it’s very heavy, but the girl was insistent on the fact they were fascist and therefore the current president of Türkiye is way more far right than our professor was making him out to be. Germany was brought up because I think they also have a coalition going on, and proceeded they are a fairly left wing government (Green Party). I don’t know much about current day German political parties so I won’t say if I believe it’s true but considering how they’re handling the was I’d say that their principles are a bit all over the place. Then we talked about no party systems which was easy and self explanatory; Saudi Arabia was used as an example. We ended the class talking about interest groups and what not, nothing too crazy, and then a five minute debate. Two people were chosen as Pro marijuana and the other two were opposed. It was a weird debate and just kind of frustrating. Anyway I’ll conclude with a comment my professor made when it came to Joe Biden and Donald Trump: “I’m non-partisan, but I don’t think either are that great. Also make sure to watch the State of The Union address.” Had to write this quickly because I’ve got a DnD session really soon.

Hello everyone, sorry for the radio silence. I recently had a midterm for my psychology class and I’ve been trying to catch up in statistics. I’ve also been to my first UN club meeting which I will talk about in this post as well. Day three of Political Science consisted of learning about the Upper House, Congress, Formal Executive, Political Executive, Electing vs Appointing Judges, and what we all want to know about: Ideologies. I wont go over the government positions as it’s fairly straightforward and is only really focused on the differences between the USA and Canada. The first ideology my professor talked about was Social Democracy, the Scandinavian model. He explained it as having a heavy emphasis on economic equality; bridging the gap between the rich and poor, social progress, progressive taxes, and Keynesian Policy. He also talked about Consociational Democracy and Cosmopolitan Democracy. One meaning special protections for minorities (power-sharing) and the other being about applying democratic principles to Global institutions, the UN being an example he brought up but did mention how it’s not democratic due to certain countries having veto power over the rest. I was surprised he mentioned this, to be honest. Next we won’t over criticisms of democracy: There is a disconnect between promised policies and the implementation of policies. The growing apathy of citizens due to mistrust. Influence by small special interest groups. Aristotle had a negative view of democracy, believing it to be the degenerative form of Rule By The Many, with Polity being the best version. Aristotle himself, I guess, believed in Rule By The Enlightened. Also democracy breeds populist leaders which is annoying. Then we finally plunged into ideology. There was talk about how Canadian media is generally “left”, even stating the CBC was very left. After this little blurb we went over the left centre and right positions; Communism Marxist-Leninism, Tradiotional SocDems, Market SocDems, Reform Libs, Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, Conservatives, Neo Cons, and then Fascism. Ideology is not to be confused by party name. He used the NDP as an example of SocDems, with Rachel Notley being a more right wing example. My Professor started us on the right side of the scale with defining Fascism. Obviously the first thing to come up were the Nazis, National Socialists. Fascism is accompanied with an unquestioned leader, hierarchal system, authority over the people, reject of reason (this is important), social Darwinism, society governed by race, extreme nationalism, irredentism, and state corporatism. A girl in my class asked about China being state corporatist but my professor said China has state capitalism. We finished off day 3 with Conservatism. It’s main principles being respect for tradition, status quo, religious values being a priority, patriotic, pro-life, anti-pornography, censorship, capital punishment, no affirmative action, deregulation, and the belief that the rich should help the poor which we all no does not happen. Day 4 we jumped right back into ideologies starting with Neo-Cons; also called neo-liberal, it was essentially the same as conservatism. Liberalism was next and he was quite enthusiastic about it. He explained liberalism as an optimistic ideology, with a healthy skepticism of the church and monarchy. Liberals believe in basic human rights, that all are created equal, social justice, utilitarianism, limited government, and lots of freedom. Some things I noted about my professor’s personal views was he dislikes modern liberals, claiming that they are intolerant and only want control. He brought up the mask mandates and the Emergency Act as too much government overreach. I had to press him a little bit, asking how he felt about the COVID policies and he said he believed they went to far. Next was SocDems again but I’ll only talk about the new stuff rather than repeat. State level vs Utopian Socialism. The State level was split in two; revisionism and fabianism. Revisionism was pioneered by a guy named Edward Bernstein; revising Marx’s vision with an evolutionary gradual approach to socialism rather than revolution. He added the middle class to the mix. Fabianism was a UK thing from 1884 with a belief in socialism through elections. Fabianism is now the Labour Party. Utopian Socialism was about small community socialism through cooperation, collectivism, social benefits, and common ownership of property. In the last five minutes of class he briefly went over Marxism; the study of how society is shaped, with the foundation and superstructure. The foundation being the means of production, techniques of the production, and the relationship between the workers and capitalists. The superstructure was explained as religion, government, ideology, and exploitation. When it came to exploitation my professor went about it in a very silly, and almost condescending way. He picked a girl in our class to help with his scenario, saying that on the weekend she goes to his church or whatever and prays, but then during the weekday she goes to work for him and therefore he is exploiting her. He played it off as if it’s a stupid thing to believe, that Marx was pulling his ideology out of his ass. Maybe next class I’ll try to push back on that but at the time class was over and I needed to skedaddle. During his talk about conservatives beliefs in “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” he caught be rolling my eyes and tried to press me on it but I got super scared and tried t wave him off. He tried to ask other students about their opinions on it and their responses were “it depends”, which was very helpful or enlightening but I can’t really judge since I was too scared to challenge the notion on my own. I am, however, talking a bit more in class, answering and asking questions so that’s good. So my first UN meeting was overwhelming and a bit confusing. Most of the time was spent going over UN etiquette, how to address your fellow delegates, all that kind of stuff. What I do want to mention is that one of the UN leaders talked about his experience in a model UN held in Japan: he got into an argument with another delegate about nuclear energy, he is anti-nuclear, He felt negative towards Russia and North Korea as the Russia delegate brought up North Korean relations and he felt that was suspicious? He also had beef with some Québécois delegates because he cringed and essentially admitted to having Quebec. All in all a very weird experience. I don’t think I’m going to be doing much in this club for this first year as I entered a few weeks late (not my fault, I signed up at the beginning but they never got my form) and preparations for some trips were already underway. I’m just going to lay low and maybe try again next semester, who knows. I thought we’d be choosing countries to represent and do our own UN at our school and then travel around to other model UNs and represent there. There is a model UN being held in another city that only some delegates are going to. Basically a group of students from a bunch of universities represent one country and come together for a model UN, the club is now preparing for this by picking a country and then writing a position paper to be selected for the model UN. There is one inNew York but I have no idea what’s going on with that one. I’d like to go to New York but the information surrounding it is confusing. Anyway that’s all the information I have, tomorrow is day 5 of Political Science but I don’t believe we’ll be learning much as our midterm is next week so it’s most likely going to be a review class. But I’ll still post about it if anything interesting comes up. I make sure to make special notes of what my professor and fellow students say since it’s always interesting and we can gauge what the hell I’m working with.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/500681 > So this video has been the subject of online discourse. It was trending on Twitter and even Hasan talked about it which resulted in even more eyes on the topic. His fans don't have the best takes, to be honest, but a few did. > > People are obviously split on this, with leftists getting the most heat for being critical of Mr. Beast and the system that curates the "need" for people like him, relying on charity to solve systemic issues. > > On the opposing side there are people saying that Mr. Beast isn't the problem and he doesn't owe anyone anything. Beast is doing a nice thing and is not the person to attack or criticize. He doesn't need to use his platform and influence to educate people on systemic issues. > > My perspective is that criticizing Mr. Beast brings light to systemic issues. He's clearly a very large creator and has many eyes on him, using his content as a stepping stone to introducing the general public to these problems. Sure, he's not the main contributor to homelessness and unaffordable healthcare, but his videos are clear examples as to how the system is an abject failure. Mr. Beast's name and image garners a lot more clicks than many of the other bourgeoisie that we criticize. The left can use his videos and connect it to other contributors to hyper-capitalism. On the other hand, this can clearly backfire if not handled carefully. If one criticizes Mr. Beast himself too much it can brew more enemies > rather than allies. > > Anyway, just thought I'd share since it seems relevant.

So this video has been the subject of online discourse. It was trending on Twitter and even Hasan talked about it which resulted in even more eyes on the topic. His fans don't have the best takes, to be honest, but a few did. People are obviously split on this, with leftists getting the most heat for being critical of Mr. Beast and the system that curates the "need" for people like him, relying on charity to solve systemic issues. On the opposing side there are people saying that Mr. Beast isn't the problem and he doesn't owe anyone anything. Beast is doing a nice thing and is not the person to attack or criticize. He doesn't need to use his platform and influence to educate people on systemic issues. My perspective is that criticizing Mr. Beast brings light to systemic issues. He's clearly a very large creator and has many eyes on him, using his content as a stepping stone to introducing the general public to these problems. Sure, he's not the main contributor to homelessness and unaffordable healthcare, but his videos are clear examples as to how the system is an abject failure. Mr. Beast's name and image garners a lot more clicks than many of the other bourgeoisie that we criticize. The left can use his videos and connect it to other contributors to hyper-capitalism. On the other hand, this can clearly backfire if not handled carefully. If one criticizes Mr. Beast himself too much it can brew more enemies rather than allies. Anyway, just thought I'd share since it seems relevant.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/497845 > This is fucking horrifying, but are we surprised? Here is a [twitter thread](https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1618770802492706816?s=46&t=1GHZgZXF6Lm8X1PNbkHN5g) that goes over the refugee issues, as in Ukrainian refugees being fast tracked into other countries while non-white refugees have to fight tooth and nail just to get some space in a camp.

This is fucking horrifying, but are we surprised? Here is a [twitter thread](https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1618770802492706816?s=46&t=1GHZgZXF6Lm8X1PNbkHN5g) that goes over the refugee issues, as in Ukrainian refugees being fast tracked into other countries while non-white refugees have to fight tooth and nail just to get some space in a camp.

It’s a video of some guy, I believe he was some CEO or politician or something, and he was talking about how there was a group plan for massive layoffs, manufactured unemployment, to keep workers desperate for any job no matter how shit the pay was. I remember seeing this some time last year but I can’t seem to find it. It’s frustrating because I’d like to share it with my friend who’s job is currently laying off a shit ton of people.

What’s the consensus of sharing published papers here? As a university student I do have access to pay walled and typically inaccessible papers which means I can distribute them here. Though I’m wondering if posting these papers, which are usually incredibly long, is even needed. Would it be unwise to share? I’ve found some papers my professor published but I’m hesitant to post them as I can risk doxxing myself. I’m not really worried about anyone on here knowing my location/school but I’ve seen some warranted paranoia from comrades and it’s making me pause. Just wanted to know any opinions on this.

Wow, one small interaction and it shook me to my core. My social anxiety is absolutely debilitating that even this seconds long debacle messed me up a little bit. So the next provincial election is happening in May so I guess MLA candidates are making their rounds campaigning for themselves and the party they represent. The person who came to my door was part of the Conservative Party. As a person he seemed nice, I guess, and I don’t know what it is about me but I feel terrible hurting other’s feelings even when they are evil or working for evil. It’s something I am actively combating but when it comes to real life altercations I freeze up, go back to my people pleasing ways, and try to end the interaction as soon as possible. The conversations went as followed: “Hello, the election is happening in May, are you a voter?” “Yes I am.” “Cool, I’m so-and-so, running for MLA of this area and with the United Cons. Do you have a few minutes to chat?” “Well, I will be voting in May soooo (Just trying to make this end)” “ Can I just leave this pamphlet with you?” “Yes, of course! (I tend to be overly nice and friendly, which I want to change)” “Great! Can I count on your support?” At this point I hesitated and wanted so badly to tell him I was a communist but I was so scared. So I let my fear take over and went nice mode again. “Uh…. Maybe?” “Sounds like a no, but that’s alright! *something about election stuff* have a good day!” He left and I was shaken. I know it’s silly but I grew up having to please others no matter what. While I am actively working on assertiveness and not falling back into those habits in therapy, in moments as random as this I freeze, short-circuit. I guess the whole friendly demeanour just made me feel bad. I mean, he’s working with the enemy, no matter how cute his dog is and how happy his family seems on the pamphlet, the policies he supports hurts others. I recycled his pamphlet and am just stewing in regret. I need to better prepare myself for these moments, I don’t want to be so passive. Next time I’m just going to say what I wanted to the whole time: “I’m a communist” it’s not rude, it’s the truth. Note to self: Stop letting your fear stop you from being yourself and advocating for your comrades.

Hello comrades! I totally forgot to write about what happened during my second day of PoliSci. I was so tired and instantly passed out when I got back. Anyway, I don’t suspect I’ll be writing about every single class I have, only the ‘eventful’ ones. And class number two was kinda spicy! So this class was about Democracy. We went over definitions and the differences of authority: Authority - perceived right to rule, brings moral obligation on the ruled to obey. Traditional Authority - based on history and bloodlines. Basically the monarchy. England and Saudi Arabia were brought up as examples. Legal Rational Authority - aka Bureaucratic Authority. Based on the election. Not much was said to be honest. Charismatic Authority - super human qualities of the leader. An ability to awe with words. My professor brought up Hitler as an example, he said Castro’s name but was interrupted by a student asking if Trump fit the bill. Legitimacy - Rightfulness to rule and exercise power with the consent of the people. A girl from Türkiye in my class used Kim Jung-Un as an example, stating he was illegitimate because he only rules on account of birthright. My professor surprisingly pushed back on this talking about how the people seem to want him as leader. Then another girl talked about how they are all brainwashed—with a guy chiming in that North Koreans are too scared to speak out against the government. My professor laughed both of these statements off! Basically stating that we don’t have enough information about North Korea to be making these judgements. We went over Substantive and Procedural democracy. Substantive encompassing civil liberties, basic rights and freedoms. Political equality. Procedural being about elections, which is minimalist and does not mean a system is democratic on its own. Both Substantive and Procedural work together. Putin was brought up when we were discussing Substantive democracy, basically stating that the people of Russia do not have the freedom to criticize Putin due to the risk of being “disappeared”. I’ve heard this statement a lot over the years but I genuinely have no idea if it’s true. I made sure to write a little note for myself so I wouldn’t forget to mention it here. The rest of the class was about Liberal Democracy and the differences between The Parliamentary System and Presidential system. Which was fine but did get me thinking about how a lot o countries have both a President and a Prime Minister, so how the hell does that work? Anyway that’s all I have for now, if any of you have any questions I am more than happy to answer. Edit: I apologize for any grammatical and/or spelling mistakes. I am typing this on a new keyboard so I’m getting used to the different size, button weight, and formatting. It’s an iPad Bluetooth keyboard so it’s smaller and the keys have different inputs than what I’m used to.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/484594 > Hey everyone! As some of you may know, I’ve finally started university this month and am pursuing Psychology and Political Science. My PoliSci professor mentioned we have a model UN club that even goes to the actual UN in New York! > > The problem is I have to fill out a registration form listing 3 countries I’d like to represent, I also have to submit a one-page position paper, and a 90 second speech about climate change. > > I’m asking here because I’d like your input on what countries to list and how to go about my position paper. They’re kind of vague on details about how to write said paper so I thought I’d look for guidance here since you’ve all been somewhat of a rock for me. I feel safe and balanced here especially since school is full of well meaning libs. I have horrible debilitating anxiety and I’m sort of throwing myself into the fire but I feel it’s necessary for my journey into fighting misinformation and red-scare propaganda. > > I want to take advantage of the resources available to me that many are barred from accessing. > > So yeah, that’s my whole thing haha. If you have any advice for dealing with the anxiety especially when it comes to debates I’d be incredibly grateful. > > Will be cross posting this to freechat as I’m unsure if this fits here.

Hey everyone! As some of you may know, I’ve finally started university this month and am pursuing Psychology and Political Science. My PoliSci professor mentioned we have a model UN club that even goes to the actual UN in New York! The problem is I have to fill out a registration form listing 3 countries I’d like to represent, I also have to submit a one-page position paper, and a 90 second speech about climate change. I’m asking here because I’d like your input on what countries to list and how to go about my position paper. They’re kind of vague on details about how to write said paper so I thought I’d look for guidance here since you’ve all been somewhat of a rock for me. I feel safe and balanced here especially since school is full of well meaning libs. I have horrible debilitating anxiety and I’m sort of throwing myself into the fire but I feel it’s necessary for my journey into fighting misinformation and red-scare propaganda. I want to take advantage of the resources available to me that many are barred from accessing. So yeah, that’s my whole thing haha. If you have any advice for dealing with the anxiety especially when it comes to debates I’d be incredibly grateful. Will be cross posting this to freechat as I’m unsure if this fits here.

It’s seems okay so far, a nice small class size and my professor seems nice. Though he did make me pause a few times. I couldn’t gauge where he lies politically as he seems to see Trump as a joke while also making neutral comments/examples on the likes of Danielle Smith. It is the first class so I’m not going to make quick judgements of his stances. What did make me *slightly* uneasy is his sprinkled comments about China here and there. By comments I mean him using China as an example for a few of the terms we were learning about. The first comment that came up was China using ”soft power” to influence African countries and to push Chinese culture on said countries. He gave the example of the push for learning the Chinese language. The next time he brought up China was when we discussed Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis, this sparked the conversation about the idea of dual-citizenship and how China is very against it. You can only be Chinese, nothing else. The last time he brought up China was in regards to Taiwan. We were learning about what the definition of “State” was: - building blocks of politics - legal entity - sovereignty—absolute control - territoriality - population - government - external recognition (UN) Taiwan was brought up as an example of a place wanting to become sovereign, a state of its own, but China having absolute power to veto their request. At this point I put a little star in my notebook that my Professor seems to be very focused on China. He never had anything good to say but so far he hasn’t said anything explicitly negative. Anyway that was my first day of PoliSci, by the end of it I sent in a request to join the model UN club lol. If anyone has some great resources on China to dispel any misinformation, both common and obscure, I would appreciate it very much. Even just pointing me in the direction of certain books and/or historical events would be incredibly helpful. If any of you would like me to share more of my experiences in, not only my Political Science class, but also Psychology, let me know!

Just finished my first day. I only had one class and it didn’t even go the full length as we only went over what to expect in the class, typical first day stuff. I’m writing this because even though I only had one class I was still scared shitless. I was shaking like mad walking through the different buildings looking for my class. I almost fell down the stairs in my panic. Battling the constant negative thoughts with some semblance of neutrality and logic was taxing as hell. I was so embarrassed just walking down the halls. Everyone looked so fashionable and sure of themselves, I felt like a loser to be honest. My fit was definitely a bit weird and I just caved in on myself, to the point I was too scared to properly stomp the snow off my boots. I waited outside the class door until it was the scheduled time, but when I went in the auditorium was almost full. I was confused if I was interrupting the previous class. But since this is day one of the year the classes ended way earlier, letting the next class enter early as well. Doesn’t seem like a big deal but all these little bumps felt like an earthquake to me. I even made sure to take my meds but I was still anxious as hell. I was just filled with self doubt: my hair looks awful, my clothes are stupid, I’m tracking in wet snow, I shouldn’t keep my coat on, is my typing too loud? Does my screen saver look stupid? What app is everyone else using? And many more. Although, I’m still excited and determined. It seems impossible that I’d feel that way but I know this is my first step in my long term plans. Get your honours undergrad, work towards your PhD, graduate with a PhD, and get to work changing the world. My professors seem really nice and chill, even giving study tips to help us not get overwhelmed. I’m looking forward to the start of my other courses and hopefully this anxiety will lessen. Definitely a day to tell my therapist lol

So I’m housesitting/dogsitting and the first channel on the TV when I turned it on is a channel that streams old anime, I guess. I never bothered to change it since I always just airplay videos from my phone, but today I left it playing normally for background noise. The current anime playing is City Hunter and I noticed the main character is a HUGE pervert. In the beginning of an episode he literally steals and revels in a pile of girls bras and underwear. I’ve grown up seeing these types of characters in every anime I’ve watched but I guess I’m a little put off by the fact that it goes farther back than my era. Pervert characters have always bothered me, even when I was younger and less aware, and I know they’re supposed to be comedic relief but I have a hard time finding the comedy in sexual harassment. Some even go as far as sexual assault. They are so common and also happen to be part of the main cast which, for me, makes it so much worse. One Piece is a show I had to stop watching because of Sanji, I had other issues too but he was a big contributor. Does anyone know why these characters are so prevalent?

I saw someone reply on twitter that “woke”has just become another way to say the N word.

Love my Twitter comrades, the only ones keeping me from leaving (mastodon is not my cup of tea). I wish I knew some of the skills required but I’m not great at sneaking lol

This article is from 2017 but I just caught wind of it today. This sentiment has been going on for quite a long time. Nowadays they try to play off expanding MAiD as empathy when it’s always been a cash grab.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/455616 > cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/455615 > > > AKA Canada is not a sovereign nation. This is not to say the Canadian State does not have free will at all, in most cases it does especially with domestic issues. But I swear to god every time NATO, and more specifically the US, we always follow suite and do whatever they want. > > > > I don’t recall any other nation having beef with Canada, at least not to the extent of needing warships. The Trudeau government is just starting shit with other countries, for what? I have no fucking clue. Not that any other mainstream party in parliament would do better, the cons would definitely do the same. Are they embarrassed that Canada isn’t as noticeable as the US? Do they want to make themselves look big and strong and not to be trifled with? > > > > I’m not advocating for Canada to start conflicts by itself, hell no. I just wish our politicians had the balls to sit out of NATO conflicts and say no. Stop being lap dogs, it’s pathetic.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/455615 > AKA Canada is not a sovereign nation. This is not to say the Canadian State does not have free will at all, in most cases it does especially with domestic issues. But I swear to god every time NATO, and more specifically the US, we always follow suite and do whatever they want. > > I don’t recall any other nation having beef with Canada, at least not to the extent of needing warships. The Trudeau government is just starting shit with other countries, for what? I have no fucking clue. Not that any other mainstream party in parliament would do better, the cons would definitely do the same. Are they embarrassed that Canada isn’t as noticeable as the US? Do they want to make themselves look big and strong and not to be trifled with? > > I’m not advocating for Canada to start conflicts by itself, hell no. I just wish our politicians had the balls to sit out of NATO conflicts and say no. Stop being lap dogs, it’s pathetic.

AKA Canada is not a sovereign nation. This is not to say the Canadian State does not have free will at all, in most cases it does especially with domestic issues. But I swear to god every time NATO, and more specifically the US, we always follow suite and do whatever they want. I don’t recall any other nation having beef with Canada, at least not to the extent of needing warships. The Trudeau government is just starting shit with other countries, for what? I have no fucking clue. Not that any other mainstream party in parliament would do better, the cons would definitely do the same. Are they embarrassed that Canada isn’t as noticeable as the US? Do they want to make themselves look big and strong and not to be trifled with? I’m not advocating for Canada to start conflicts by itself, hell no. I just wish our politicians had the balls to sit out of NATO conflicts and say no. Stop being lap dogs, it’s pathetic.

Does anyone have more info on this? The [OP](https://twitter.com/uwukko/status/1599777783940411392?s=46&t=l2NGTNQ5bhjfilgeuGL5UQ) doesn’t link any articles…

Here’s the Washington post [article](https://t.co/20MAlgAFJN). The twitter replies are laughable, but not funny Ha Ha, funny weird…

Found this by a comrade retweeting it and thought I’d share

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/444425 > The restaurant’s Facebook response: > >  > > They also have a gift shop where you can buy the Nazi flag and one with Bandera’s face on it! > > So many NAFO fucks are flossing the replies, plus Ukraine flags in general.

The restaurant’s Facebook response:  They also have a gift shop where you can buy the Nazi flag and one with Bandera’s face on it! So many NAFO fucks are flossing the replies, plus Ukraine flags in general.

The videos posted are extremely shocking, so trigger warning for death and Nazi paraphernalia. I’m wondering if people are finally realizing what this war is actually about, though I can’t say a trending topic on twitter is indicative of rising view points. I’m hoping it gets through peoples heads but only time will tell.

Usually when I’m doing work, or chores, or anything, I like to have something playing in the background. I do listen to music, podcasts, and YouTube videos, but I always tend to run into a drought. I’m trying to find a series to watch but I’m having a hard time finding any. I don’t like to spend my time scrolling on Netflix trying to find something interesting. I do use other means to stream movies/shows so I’m not limited by services, I’m just at a bit of a standstill for content. If you know any communist media (movies, shows, etc.) that I could watch please let me know. Also it doesn’t have to be political content, your everyday sitcom or anime work as well. I’ve literally binged Love Is Blind and The Ultimatum so there is no pressure for recommendations lmao.

So I used to watch the show One Day At A Time but haven’t since it was taken off Netflix. I recently remembered the cringe inducing scene where the daughter compared Che Guevara to Hitler and Kanye. This then made me remember Celia Cruz being praised on the show and her music being a part of the soundtrack. I looked up how she felt about Castro and the revolution; turns out she was one of the anti-revolutionists that fled Cuba. Most of the sources I could find when looking for more information were fairly anti-Castro so I’ve hit a bit of a wall when it comes to why Celia made the choice she did and what she believed in general. Weird question, I know. But considering her music is still quite popular and she’s talked about on that show, I have an urge to learn more.

I’ve just recovered my robbed dabloons and was gifted a total of 12 dabloons from kind cats along my journey. I think I might be the only one here on dabloon TikTok…

Hated shark tank ever since I was a little lad who loved berries and cream. With this interview coming out I feel somewhat vindicated in my early hatred for these fucks. O’Leary claims it’s amazing that 3.6 billion people are living in poverty while the 1% hordes all the wealth. He condemns redistribution and believes that poverty incentivizes the poor into idolizing billionaires and thus “working hard” to become one. Every day I become more and more enraged, to the point I scare myself.

Was scrolling TikTok this morning and a video popped up on my fyp: a cat was selling homes for what ever amount of dabloons. I had no dabloons so I moved on. Next video a frog named Clarice offers me soup and shelter, then 5 dabloons as she sent me on my way! So now I have some dabloons. Came across another cat selling goods but I decided to save my dabloons since I didn’t have much anyway. Then I see [THIS](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFHmXHdp/) news broadcast about inflation and counterfeit dabloons, so being the rational person I am, I treaded carefully. Not carefully enough apparently, because a few videos later I get **robbed** of all my dabloons!!! So now I’m straight broke and I feel like this dabloon economy is a metaphor or something… People in the comments saying “this is why we can’t just print more money”