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?!

Milei Massacre

If only there was some other place besides money that political power could grow from

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.

this is that it is such a liberal standard that it can be applied to nearly everyone. There are scores of documented peasant rebellions throughout history, so by the same standard it is plausible that any given peasant may be at risk for launching a peasant rebellion down the line and thus, by that same standard, we are justified in liquidating them.

This folds under scrutiny. Any given peasant may pose a threat of revolt, but a royal heir poses a specific threat, and of a much greater magnitude in both likelihood and severity that the two cases are not comparable. There existed specific powerful groups who had a vested interest in putting an heir to the throne back onto it, and the means to attempt to do so in bloody fashion.

In this case, the specific qualities of the subject set them apart from the general population. I liken it to BRCA positivity. Yes, any given breast may cause cancer. However, it is not prudent to excuse every breast. It is prudent to excise one's breasts if one is double BRCA positive. One does not have to do this, but it is a reasonable response to a specific threat that can prevent greater harm in the future.