nephs

"i don't think whoever gets to win, or to lose, nor whoever wins or loses, will win. Or lose. Everybody's going to lose." - Rousseff, Dilma. When getting couped out of Brazilian presidency.

It's out of context, but one of my favourite quotes ever. I've never seen it translated.

Sorted.

I'd suggest using industry standard (utm tracking codes) for that. I thought v=10 was a versoning parameter and didn't remove it. :D

Some very politically "neutral" are "the book of" series. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24878419-the-sociology-book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8493026-the-philosophy-book

You can find them on Anna's archive.

I honestly don't know how to describe them relative to how lemmygrad's political line, but I like that there's a time line, and it felt complete enough for my young self.

I suppose after getting a grasp, some vocabulary, and context, it is probably easier to follow prolewiki's: https://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Portal:Marxism

I'd also follow the collective study groups here, in your position. :)

Let me know how it goes! Hasta la victoria, siempre!

How about starting with a guide, and make notes on primary sources for later?

Anything you get here will be someone's take on the path for sociology. Just like the author of a sociology review guide/book.

Otherwise, sociology concepts tend to be non trivial to navigate, because beginners miss the historical context in which concepts are proposed. And where primary sources are coming from.

This take "primary sources only" hamper your potential understanding, in my opinion. Building this knowledge individually feels pointless, idealistic, even. Because it lacks dialogue with other people that are living and applying those concepts, and risks giving you just a perspective based only on your own limited experience, instead of an actual grasp on the gradient of sociological ideas. Which is apparently what you are looking for.

Is that level of seniority expected in the battlefield?

Looks like you were bothered. Why? That might help figuring out the appropriate reaction.

Feels like you felt personally attacked for being the one they chose to cut in front to. If that's the case, a clear "hey, please find somewhere else in the line to cut in front to" might be enough to get them to at least swap places with you. It acknowledges them, is polite, but firm.

https://pca.st/episode/cff5699b-99fc-4ec8-9854-944f359631ec

One more from one of my favourite news podcast. Not outspokenly communist, but based as fuck. And sprinkled with fun editing. ;)

I wasn't aware of the controversy, but I'm not surprised it's yet another mess caused by the existence of the British empire.

If they're Brazilian, we have a few comrades doing really great comms on youtube: Jones Manoel, Ian Neves, João Carvalho, Humberto Matos, to name a few.

https://youtu.be/-QYhViVpavg

This is a 2h30 long lecture for web on the topic. With almos 600k views.

https://youtu.be/JwDDPwGT7UQ?t=3m33s Or this, in 20 minutes, hot from today.

Theres also the podcast xadrez verbal. Two historians discussing international politics weekly, adding a lot of historical context to current event. Not revolutionary, but it brought me much closer to the lemmygrad line. Their coverage after Oct 7 was almost 8 hours long. https://youtu.be/gDaChPREsd8?t=13m54s

Uhm. Maybe they don't need that much, but if conversation open up, there's a few sources there. All of them really great at explaining the historical context around everything.

We also have c/Brazil, here... For later. Best of luck!

They never report casualties. Unless someone leaks irrefutable evidence. And even then. Not always.

My read is that:

• dialectical relates to the tension between opposites. Pick "anything", there's something else in conflict with it, causing it to be, or not to be. This contrasts with a frictionless immutable analysis, where there's no interaction between the "anything" you're analysing and it's surrounding context.

• historical means that this analysis is applied to historical aspects of society.

• materialism means that any support on the analysis must be originate in material reality, with as much context as possible. In contrast with idealism, which is kind of moral judgement on what things look like, or should be.

Am I too far off?

You guys ever plan to occupy Instagram/tiktok space?