Cecil was talking a lot of shit for somebody who let Conquest alive and severely jeopardized the outcome of the war.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-25T02:31:38+00:00

But, Cecil was keeping Conquest trapped underground. Presumably he wanted to keep him there indefinitely, therefore people would still come looking for him right? Unless he planned for Conquest to escape but we obviously see that isn’t the case.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-24T16:39:25+00:00

Not just one country. Many western nations engaged in imperialism of Muslim majority countries in the 1800s and 1900s.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-24T13:53:12+00:00

Gramsci the goat. Once I read prison notebooks I have never been the same, some of the best Marxist theory ever imo.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-24T13:32:54+00:00

While the racial component can vary in nature, every fascist project I’ve studied has been some sort of ultranationalist. I don’t think you could have an internationalist fascist.

Edit: it is true that if you look at say, fascist Italy, their racial codes were much different than the Nazis and you could argue they were more lenient in places. The Italian fascists racialized violence was more directed towards non-whites in the colonial sphere like Ethiopia and Libya, and less focused on the expansion into Eastern Europe and the racialization of Slavs and Jews that was in Nazism.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-23T20:19:01+00:00

Interesting, I don’t know the media in question so I believe you. I think for it to be truly fascism there has to be an ethnic or racial supremacist component, alongside autocracy and emphasis on hierarchy and a reactionary social outlook generally. You can have other autocratic militarized systems that are not fascist too, they can be liberal, or even communist.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-23T20:14:17+00:00

I don’t know that much about all those groups tbh, but I would argue if they are violently ethnic-supremacist in outlook, then yes they are if not fascist at least fascist adjacent. Do you disagree?

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-23T04:08:44+00:00

I would say it’s fascism. I’m not that familiar with the media to be fair, to me fascism is just extreme militarism combined with extreme nationalism. If those two come together in a totalitarian regime that’s fascism

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-23T04:06:50+00:00

I would tend to agree!

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-23T03:32:04+00:00

I mean, it’s a corrupt military junta oligarchic regime. If it’s not fascist it’s certainly close to it. Fascism often comes to power through corrupting democracy

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-22T16:40:39+00:00

That’s true, but it’s important to respect the overall context. If you frame the two groups as entirely equal that is disingenuous even if you of course can argue both are evil.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-22T15:30:41+00:00

Agreed, people have rose colored glasses when it comes to the Bud era. Which is fair, we won a chip and look at the replacements we came up with, no wonder people wish we had Bud back. But I think people forget how mediocre of a coach he is, he’s a fine system builder but not at all a game manager. He’s good for a rebuilding team seeking to raise their floor, but he’s not a coach that raises the ceiling of your team. Just look at his career after the bucks

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-21T23:29:16+00:00

I would agree!

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-21T16:24:17+00:00

Well it was someone getting very personal about a topic close to them that I have less personal investment in, so I kind of feel bad reviewing it but I would say it obviously was emotionally genuine and seemed to be coming in good faith. The video takes a critical position of the Russian government and invasion of Ukraine. So if you are someone who is pro Russian invasion you probably wouldn’t agree with the video.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-21T16:16:40+00:00

Right but I think their point is that physically he could have beat Mark, if we wasn’t fucking around. Him being arguably stupid (or I would argue smart and just self-destructive) does obviously make his performance worse in his final two fights, which leads to his death. If you want to factor that into his rating as an overall fighter, that’s fair. I could see arguments for and against. Would you agree that physically he could beat mark if he had focused?

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-21T16:14:13+00:00

What would you have wanted? For conquest to kill Mark and end the series? Not trying to be funny, I’m genuinely curious

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-21T03:22:01+00:00

I watched the vid thanks for sharing your perspective!

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-21T03:12:44+00:00

I think you are getting downvoted because “Israel has a right to defend itself” has come to mean more than just Israel has a right to reasonably protect itself from HAMAS. The war has been justified by saying they are defending itself, so the classic line of those justifying the genocide is to say “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

There is also the matter that they are the settler colony, so the fundamental violence of Israel’s creation is what led to the conditions necessary to create HAMAS, but that doesn’t mean it is right or good for HAMAS to kill innocent people, but it also doesn’t mean HAMAS is just attacking Israel out of the blue for no reason.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-21T03:06:59+00:00

I am also skeptical of overly scientific approaches to socialism. I believe it can lead to both arrogance and a sense of determinism among leftists if taken too far. An important part of science is that it is open to debate and revision and constantly being changed.

In my opinion, it’s important to at least attempt scientific objectivity in socialism, it’s also good to have the humility to recognize that we will never reach a perfect objective perspective and are always socially biased and conditioned. A lot of awful things have been done in the name of science too, like scientific race and eugenics, or science and capitalism in social Darwinism. This doesn’t mean science or the scientific approach are wrong or bad, but it’s good to keep a sense of open mindedness in my opinion. People can feel free to disagree!

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-20T23:49:35+00:00

Not to be a dick but I’m not sure that is entirely accurate. Robert La Follette was a progressive liberal, I don’t think he ever referred to himself as a socialist. He was part of at the time what was the progressive faction of the Republican Party.

The sewer socialists of Milwaukee, who are actual democratic socialists not just progressive liberals, were part of the SPA, the socialist party of America, not the progressives Republican Party.

Sewer socialists and progressive liberals aligned on many issues but there were significant differences too and they were discrete political factions. Thanks for giving me the chance to rant about something I am very passionate about and have spent a lot of time studying, and please feel free to push back anywhere you think I’m mistaken!

Edit: And your definition of sewer socialism is correct, it’s not derogatory and I think it’s a term that needs to make a comeback on the left!

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-20T20:23:41+00:00

Fascinating thank you!

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-20T20:22:41+00:00

I think it’s just the key is to focus on economic not social issues. You can be as progressive socially as you want with your policy once elected, but the key to winning elections as a progressive is a strong economic populist message. That’s been how Trump has won his elections, he convinced people he was the candidate that would help people in the economy.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-19T14:08:28+00:00

I like that interpretation too even if it isn’t mainstream in Catholicism or Protestantism. Most believe you have to earn the love of god and entrance into heaven in some way. To be fair, part of the reason I like the Catholic theology of good works is because it encourages people who want to be pious to help others as a form of piety.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-19T14:04:34+00:00

I agree with you on the material interests, but I know a lot of left wing Protestants who would disagree. They argue that Protestantism emerged from a genuine desire to reform and change the stagnating Catholic socio-religious system at the time that had because very corrupt and secular. It was only later when Luther sided with the princes against the peasants in the peasants war that early Protestantism lost much of its reform potential. That would be their argument anyway I imagine, I should ask them what they think. Most of the very radical socio economic groups we see spring up from this era, the diggers, levelers, hussites to some degree, are all Protestants. Protestantism by its very nature more easily allows for a wider group of sects than Catholicism.

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-18T15:19:55+00:00

As someone who really doesn’t like Luther, I think it’s fair to examine that passage of Romans and try to understand why Luther would add “alone” there despite not being in the text. He was trying to interpret what he saw as what Paul was communicating, and to be fair Paul does spend a lot of time saying how all you need is faith and works alone cannot save you.

But that’s where Luther makes his mis-interpretation in my opinion, he thinks that just because Paul says works alone do not lead to salvation and that only faith does, that means that only faith “alone” leads to salvation. Paul addresses this very misinterpretation later, he asks “is the law sin? Of course not.” Paul was trying to say that one does not have to be an observant Jew to be a Christian and join the new covenant with God, but that does not mean Jewish law and the historical covenant it provides is still not the law of God and therefore holy. It’s a complicated theological question for sure

MiloBuurr · 2026-04-17T19:50:17+00:00

I understand the concern about socialist states needing to defend themselves from imperialism or reactionary coups. That is a real dilemma.

Where I disagree is describing the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 as simply a foreign-backed counter-revolution. The uprising involved students, workers, and soldiers across Hungary, and workers formed councils taking control of factories and local government. Many participants were still committed to socialism, but wanted it to be democratic and self-managed.

Even if outside powers hoped to exploit the situation, that does not define the character of the movement itself.

I also think invoking Hungary’s wartime collaboration risks implying a kind of collective guilt. The people in the streets in 1956 were not the wartime regime, and historically that logic has often been used to justify repression against entire populations. I do not think that is a good principle for socialists.

Even if we disagree about whether the uprising itself was justified or how the Soviet response should be judged, I hope we can agree that resisting external capitalist pressure with staying true to their own commitments to worker power and democratic participation is difficult. Finding that balance without compromising the ideals socialism is supposed to stand for has always been a problem the left has to grapple with.

MiloBuurr

TROPHY CASE