PbSO4 [comrade/them]

Libertarians Boomer Chuds

“They’re basically adults”

Sectionalism, isn’t that what JD Vance was up to?

The T was actually short for Tal Rasha. Kissinger’s soul shard was plunged into his body and he now fights eternally to prevent his escape.

I tried kissing ass and they put me on a PIP

Let us consider that every ton of food sent as humanitarian aid by Russia is a ton of food not purchased from the US. Every ton of food not purchased from the US is x dollars that did not have to be either borrowed (with conditions including economic restructuring) or earned by selling goods and industries at pennies on the dollar to Western consumers. It does not solve the issue of developing productive forces in the target nations, but its impact is more anti-imperial than it might initially appear.

Changing material conditions to foster the development of a proletarian class is a solid theory of how to build working class power and consciousness. You might deride it as just infrastructure, but the workers who maintain and transport goods on that infrastructure (as well as the people who provide goods and services to those workers, and so on and so forth) now have more economic power and ability to organize in solidarity with each other than subsistence farmers would have against their landlords. And before anyone can build, say, a tractor factory, there must first be adequate infrastructure to supply said factory and take its finished goods to internal as well as potentially foreign markets.

To an observer, I would be indistinguishable from cis het, but finding oneself can be a fuck, so let’s call me a work in progress trending towards “not strongly identifying with or performing” my AGAB or another gender. Parent to plural children.

If they grow up to become bigots, it is my obligation to work to change that fact. The best chance I have to enact such change is to remain a part of their lives as much as they’ll allow. Above all else, however, I have an obligation to look out for their well-being. It may break my heart to be around them, but I brought them into this world, and so long as I’m around they will have a roof and a meal should they require it.

I could say that it’d be fucked up for them to do that to me after everything I did to raise them.

That’s flirting with being abuser talk. I’m going to chalk it up to you not actually having kids in reality, but if you do become a parent, please try to avoid talking to your kids like that, and try to do some introspection on your ideas of what children and parents owe each other.

They didn’t say you were black, they said you took the vile shit 4chan says regarding black people, changed it to say “white” instead, then posted it. And you haven’t offered a critique of interracial relationships, you’ve just declared that you’d shun your daughter if she dared to violate your wishes regarding who she becomes romantically involved with. “Betraying her people” is an extremely strong position to take regarding the human you’ve cared for and watched grow and learn for the past 20-odd years.

Unhousing people over the partner they bring home is probably not the energy I’d personally choose to bring to hexbear.net

South Korea’s government argues that the new scheme allows for greater flexibility

Flexibility for who, motherfucker?!

Great news on that front, actually

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-023-00016-6

Froggerland

Modifying the pH of the urine impacts renal elimination of drugs from the body. Since Adderall is highly basic, acidifying the urine increases its elimination significantly.

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nmp/sonet/rlos/bioproc/kidneydrug/page_six.html

I’m going to argue myself and everyone else in the thread to the point of exhaustion as a bit

Has convinced me to disengage. Have a good night.

Historically, indefinitely.

A case remarkable for its singular, improbable nature makes a poor argument for calculated policy.

I don’t understand this notion of ‘most legitimate heir’ that keeps cropping up

Then pick a different name for it, “person whose claim to the throne could mobilize the most rubles, guns, and hands to hold them”. Non-legitimate claimants may still gain the throne by force of arms motivated by virtue of their adjacency to the last legitimate holder of power. The law exists, but its ability to influence action and the ways it will be rhetorically implemented are not cut and dry. Legally, Peter I was a non-legitimate Tsar while Ivan V should have ruled alone, but de jure legitimacy and “that quality which will motivate believers in a feudal monarchy to support a candidate materially” are not one and the same. “Being the child of the last guy” is a rhetorically resonant plank for such a believer.

Can you demonstrate that, had their deaths been confirmed, removing the ambiguity, there would not have been competing claims to the throne? It is a sound line of argument that removing the most legitimate heir to the throne would necessitate that monarchists either arrive at an agreement on a suitable substitute or else settle their differences, consuming their time and energy.

You instead seem to be making the case that he could have been kept alive, but with rumors of his death disseminated. How long could such a situation really have persisted? Everything leaks, and faster than expected. If there was a prince locked away, who is providing for their needs of life? What do the locals say about that location? It’s difficult to accept the claim that a live prince publicly declared ambiguously living is equivalent in its effects to a dead prince not confirmed dead.

And yet monarchists feuded amongst themselves until 1929 over the rightful heir. I have a low level of confidence that this would be the case with a surviving Alexei.

Any good study should acknowledge its limitations. In this case, applying statistical analysis to historical events faces the issue that statistical analysis is highly dependent on data integrity and on the ability of future events to be predicted by historical data. When we are discussing a proletarian revolution and attempting to predict how the forces of reaction will attempt to combat it, we lack a representative sample in 1918. In this case, we must take the approach of the clinician rather than the pure theorist. Statistical analysis is an invaluable data point, but it is a data point among others. Understanding of the underlying mechanism can and ought to drive decision making in the absence of conclusive data.

Does it matter?

Does it matter that they can’t kill Romanovs they don’t have in custody? Yeah, I’d argue that that puts a damper on things. “There’s Romanovs now” obscures a lot of information about where they are at that time and whether they were even in a position to be executed. Additionally, the entire issue of the dynasty need not be exterminated if the most likely threat is that his direct male-line heir is used as a tool by counter-revolutionary forces. The previous Tsar’s child will enjoy broader support than a cousin by virtue of proximity.

Getting back to my core problem with this argument, “why not just kill everyone” is a poor component of an otherwise well documented and well thought-out post. I think you make some thought provoking points and genuinely care about the moral calculus of revolution.

BRCA positivity has a great deal of work behind it specifically quantifying the probabilities in question.

The specific mechanism driving the elevated risk associated with an heir is hereditary monarchy. While I cannot produce a scholarly work examining the lineages, both actual and claimed, of the individuals advanced by rebel factions throughout, say, Eurasia from 1400-1900, I would assert that a cursory study confirms that individuals perceived to be legal heirs under the laws of their given title (and who subsequently are denied that throne) have a significantly higher correlation with driving civil war than those not holding such a position. The child and heir of the latest monarch, while not the only claimant who could be co-opted by a faction, is certainly one which would command the most legitimacy to the nation at that time.

There was an entire extended Romanov tree to contend with, and there still in fact is.

Were there Romanovs in a similarly vulnerable position that were spared intentionally, or were these individuals unreachable by the same forces that determined the risks of leaving the proximal Romanovs posed sufficient threat to be eliminated?

It’s doubtful to me that one could ever justify, with formal logic, that the Romanovs’ deaths were necessary, but their killing was rooted soundly in an understanding of the propensity for monarchs and all who associate with them to engage in violence to preserve, even if not the rule of specific monarchs, the institution itself.