Schmoo

They'll just make legal carveouts for government and commercial use, and go after consumer-facing VPN providers that refuse to comply. For VPN providers based outside the US, they could delist their websites from DNS or block their IPs. They can't stop someone who's determined from finding a way, of course, but just a few simple barriers prevents most people from putting in the effort.

It might help people to see some local journalistic coverage of Cuban elections. Seeing the kinds of things Cubans say publicly about and during the elections can give people a more intuitive understanding of what Cuban democracy is actually like for the people participating in it, as well as start to reveal the outlines of the overton window there.

Journalism is my preferred medium for understanding the political landscape of other countries; for an example I like to watch friendlyjordies on youtube for a peek into Australian politics. I'm not sure if it would be very easy to find English translated Cuban sources though.

The anti-Muslim rhetoric comes out more in foreign policy discussions, and the degree to which more liberal-leaning politicians and talking heads let it slide unchallenged makes people not pay as much attention.

we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.

To give an example, I disagree on this. Now, if you were to approach this discussion under the pretense that my disagreement is based on poor understanding of history or of theory, that would be pretentious, and therefore unproductive if you actually want to change my mind. Instead, keep an open mind and be willing to entertain an alternative perspective.

In my opinion, the Bolsheviks were oppurtunists who co-opted the revolutionary fervor in order to centralize power and influence in the movement under their control. They did indeed use Marxist theory to guide and justify their actions, but that doesn't make it right. I understand that Marxist theory advocates for the centralization of power and control, I just disagree with it, which is a view more in line with Trotskyites than Marxist-Leninists.

I'm not trying to say that you are particularly arrogant or pretentious, but Marx and especially Lenin certainly were, and that is reflected in their work.

You can try acknowledging that people have actual differences of opinion instead of referring to different ideological tendencies as a result of poor understanding. Doesn't really help your cause to always come across as pretentious and arrogant, even to people who would otherwise be your allies.

Use your ship log, it'll remind you of all the clues you've found so far and how they connect together. But I agree it's better to play continuously without large time gaps to keep everything you've learned fresh.

They're just pals, nothing to see here.

Narrative-driven games give players the illusion of choice. To me this seems like it would lend itself to being even more effective than traditional propaganda because it's capable of tricking the player into thinking they came to a conclusion on their own.

Don't get me wrong, I love Disco Elysium, but it is very effective communist propaganda. Propaganda has a negative connotation but is not inherently bad or dishonest, though it certainly can be.

Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you're referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I'm aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about "alpha" wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study's findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.

People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The "tragedy of the commons" is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.

If that's something they need then that's something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.

These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The "lie down" movement - also "let it rot" - is similar to the "quiet quitting" movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).

Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.

Capitalism does what you're doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.