I wish we’d gotten to see the rest of Lovecraft’s redemption arc.

He died so soon after beginning to realize and acknowledge that his views about the world had been abhorrent.

Edit to add:

If anyone’s curious to read an example of the beginnings of his realization, check out this letter, written about a month before his death:

https://github.com/punchmonster/Lovecraft-Letters/blob/master/19370207-Catherine-L-Moore.md

It’s a fairly long letter, but the whole thing is interesting. He seems to have been radicalized and was becoming quite critical of capitalism, if not a full blown Marxist. You’ll find the following quote in the last paragraph:

I looked around for a 1924 photograph of myself to burn, spit on, or stick pins in! Holy Hades—was I that much of a dub at 33 … only 13 years ago? There was no getting out of it—I really had thrown all that haughty, complacent, snobbish, self-centered, intolerant bull, & at a mature age when anybody but a perfect damned fool would have known better!

There’s more evidence in there than just that passage, but this is already becoming a wall of text!

How about you spread information about everything the current administration does wrong to sway the public opinion. There is ton of material already and its been day 1. You jerking off to mass murder is working against your goals of a better society.

When we do that it gets hand-waved away as “TDS” or some equally trite nonsense.

I’m not a communist or a socialist, nor did I write the quote.

ETA:

After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified, and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[717][718] around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[719][720][721] some 390,000[722] deaths during the dekulakisation forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[723] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[724] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were “purposive” while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.[725] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_toll

The population of the USSR in 1924 was ~124m. The population of the USSR in 1952 was ~186m. This gives us a percentage of 2%-1% of the population.

The revolutionary war saw ~1% of the colonies’ population dying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

There was a 58% population decline from 1800 to 1890 of natives in what is now the United States of America. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States

What a ridiculous position. You honestly believe that all socialists and/or communists want to kill the rich and the landlords?

Or is that just a convenient strawman you’ve created?

Communism commits evil when it goes wrong; fascism commits evil when all goes to plan. No one, not even Stalin, ever became a communist in order to do evil, whereas that’s the whole point in becoming a fascist. - Julie Burchill

New York Times - Feb. 1, 1933 (Archive.org copy so you can zoom in and read it more clearly)

Agreed. The humor of the comic is in the hyperbole.

Definitely. Innocent until proven guilty. But then, the conversation does still have to happen, sometimes. That’s how people (on both sides of the debate) learn the difference in the first place.

I’m unfamiliar with the show, but thank you so much for engaging with the nuance of the situation, here. I agree with what you have to say regarding context surrounding “Moliendo Café”. Context matters. OP’s comic is a bit too “strawman” for my tastes.

There’s discussion to be had, for sure, but this comic squeezes all the nuance out of a complex topic just to score an easy gotcha.

i dont know that ill say IP shouldnt exist.

And the authors aren’t really saying that, either.

To be clear, I don’t agree with all of the authors’ positions. I also think it’s worth noting that the authors are not advocating for an elimination of the patent and copyright systems without replacing them with systems better suited to ensuring creator prosperity while also allowing for speedier human innovation.

It’s worth a read, if you’re interested in the subject matter. It challenged my opinions on intellectual property, but didn’t change them entirely. Things they discuss, such as patent trolling and patent squatting, are worth contemplation. How can we change IP law to disincentivize such antisocial intellectual property law use by bad-faith actors?

ETA:

The economic burden of today’s patent lawsuits is, in fact, historically unprecedented. Research shows that patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in direct out-of-pocket costs; in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $60 billion in firm wealth each year.

(From the above article… and that was in 2014!)

This is a great read on the IP topic. I highly recommend it:

Against Intellectual Monopoly

This is the co-author’s site and it does contain the full text, although physical copies are available directly from the Cambridge University Press.

Here’s a summary:

“Intellectual property” – patents and copyrights – have become controversial. We witness teenagers being sued for “pirating” music – and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high priced to satisfy patent holders. Are patents and copyrights essential to thriving creation and innovation – do we need them so that we all may enjoy fine music and good health? Across time and space the resounding answer is: No. So-called intellectual property is in fact an “intellectual monopoly” that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps. This book has broad coverage of both copyrights and patents and is designed for a general audience, focusing on simple examples. The authors conclude that the only sensible policy to follow is to eliminate the patents and copyright systems as they currently exist.

ETA: It’s written from the perspective of believers in the broad capitalist structure. The authors are serious economists that support the free market in no uncertain terms.

We will always love to see others enjoy a part of our culture (as long as it is not in an exploitative and fetishistic way).

I think this is a big part of the reason why some people get all white-knight about cultural appropriation. It can be quite difficult to know, as a cultural outsider, and from a glance, when something is being done in an exploitative and/or fetishistic way.

100% agreed. I used the graphic to illustrate the point but really should have just linked to the Wikipedia article, which explains the difference.

In the instance I replied to, the slippery slope is invoked but the steps are not described, and no evidence is provided.

Besides, I’d argue (in good company) that centrism is and has been a cloak for fascism.

I’m still always surprised when people say “slippery slope” in earnest, as though it isn’t a well-known logical fallacy to be avoided. As though, at no point along the slope, would we be able to reverse course. “This thing must necessarily lead to that thing over time!”

Okay Nostradamus.

Absolutely this but instead of “Self Esteem” it’s “Nitro (Youth Energy)” (from the same album).

Here’s a source for you. If you’re interested in learning more I’d be happy to look around for some more for you.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14578

And don’t mind finitebanjo. They tend to be extremely rude and unpleasant.

They must not be too big to dissuade people from investing in real estate even as prices reach record levels.

"To understand revolutionary suicide it is first necessary to have an idea of reactionary suicide, for the two are very different. Reactionary suicide: the reaction of a man who takes his own life in response to social conditions that overwhelm him and condemn him to helplessness.”

“I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions.”

“But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.”

– Dr. Huey P. Newton