👆

I definitely believe the deep empathy that neurodivergents are usually better at plays a key role, along with the obsessive interests and experience of oppression/discrimination. Most autistic people struggle with keeping a job for two years, so the financial and time management struggle I believe pushes us to the left quickly.

I have noticed that many people who are disabled (such as myself who is AuDHD) or GSM/trans are usually the first to be radicalized as MLs (or at least anarchists).

I do like FRSO, too, but I learned about PSL first and they have a pre-branch in my area that I was able to join.

From my experience, if a member is a trot in PSL and become problematic, they are kicked out or drop themselves out. However, we are working with people coming from early stages of radicalizing. You'll notice the kind of people we work with from the questions they ask on some of The People's Forum's classes on YouTube. Many people are still developing, and I believe PSL does pretty well with educating them.

Tbh, Idk. I believe PSL usually educates and follows ML principles but may make mistakes from time to time. I'm not sure if they have trot-like tendencies from my experience so far, but I know there are other issues that I believe they need to improve on. However, one theme of ML is that the material conditions in different nations have an impact on which methods of organization are needed for a successful revolution, and we have yet to see an advanced capitalist society turn socialist. Even if PSL isn't perfect or may or may not be the vanguard party of America in the future, I believe the actions they are taking are helping build class consciousness, which is absolutely necessary right now. We're having to build from scratch after COINTELPRO, which means we are still in the very early stages of organizing despite growing exponentially. I don't think PSL is necessarily trot as we have to build class consciousness and develop a centralized party under the belly of the beast, which means we have to learn and adapt to the conditions of America and use the elections as a tool.

If PSL is anything, it's Maoist, and they seemed to have leaned a bit on the ultra side when they first started the party, but I believe they have improved since then.

One of their old articles on China is somewhat ultra and idealist: https://www.liberationschool.org/what-do-socialists-defend-in-china-today/

I mentioned this article here where I was able to get outside perspectives.

As we go marching, marching, unnumbered women dead. Go crying through our singing, their ancient call for bread. Small art and love and beauty, their drudging spirits knew. Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too.

Also not just one baby, but another two babies' toes

Does Biden have a foot fetish?

2x still means 2 * x.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=6%2F2x

x is still multiplied last. There's not a rule for implied multiplication shorthand preceding operations to the left. You still need to wrap 2x in parentheses if you want the operation to occur first.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=6%2F%282x%29

This isn't like a polynomial like ax^2 + bx + c as division is done between 6 and 2 before multiplication with x. Typically you wouldn't see such an equation (which is intended to trick you) as normally addition or subtraction would occur like in a polynomial or another variable equation (such as a linear graph), which would be done after the exponents, multiplication, and division with the variables are calculated. In the instance you wrote, it should be written as (6/2)x, or 3x, to avoid obscuring the equation. Though you intended for 6/(2x), or 3/x.

And no worries, comrade, I'm just meaning to help since I am good at math and like helping people (I don't mean this in an egotistical way). I'm not taking offense, and I am not meaning to offend anyone.

2(1 + 2) does imply multiplication: 2 * (1 + 2). The reason it counts as one term, as I noted below, is because it is inside a two-dimensional fraction which has implicit parathenses in the numerator, denominator, and the fraction itself. The first equation is actually ((6) / (2(1 + 2))). When a fraction is written in two dimensions instead of a single string, the division between the numerator and the denominator is supposed to be done last.

The first equation is not 6 / 2(1 + 2). If it was, this means you get (6 / 2) * (1 + 2) as in the second equation, which means (1 + 2) is moved up to the numerator ((6(1+2)) / 2 = (6 / 2) * (1 + 2)), which means the two problems are not equal to each other. I believe this is the point of the "joke".

As someone with bad handwriting, I can say it is a 1.