pyromaiden

What makes you think they aren't already aware?

D&D alignment is more for individuals than governments or organizations IIRC since D&D is a character-based game.

In which case a character can change their disposition over time, just like real morality.

While this is cool I don't think it's very accurate to how the D&D alignment system works.

Lenin for example can't be Lawful Good as he was a revolutionary, which is antithetical to a 'Lawful' character. The category specifically refers to how the individual interacts with authority, in which a Lawful character respects the authority of institutions/figures even while trying to fight against them (basically reformism).

'Chaotic' by contrast has little to no reverence for authorities - even nominally 'good' ones - and is closer to an anarchist than a communist. Not where I'd put Stalin at all.

"Neutral" is an explicitly moral quantifier; the middle ground between "Good" (compassionate, empathetic, selfless, etc.) and "Evil" (cruel, corrupt, petty, etc.) and refers to literal moral grayness; e.g. a "True Neutral" would be a mercenary-type figure. Not how I'd classify Marx at all.

Honestly this may end up being an even worse disaster than Afghanistan. I don't think the empire can endure yet another unjust war; Venezuela could very well end up the final nail in the coffin for American hegemony - if not in the world at large then at least in Latin America.

yeag yeag yeag

No one "valorizes" the hatred of men. The hatred of men is a completely social phenomenon. It affects virtually no one and has virtually no significant on society. Just bringing up the fact of its existence is pointless, much less trying to analyze it. The goth subculture has had more influence on society than women who hate men. This entire talking point is a product of the misogynistic manosphere and feeds directly into incel narratives.

I repeat: by shifting discussion from the systemic reality of misogyny to the mythological fiction of "misandry" you are hijacking the focus from that of women's emancipation toward that of patriarchal retrenchment even if you try to obfuscate it with a veneer of concern about the harmful effects patriarchy.

We don't need discussions about how colonialism hurts colonists. We don't need discussions about how slavery hurts slave owners. We don't need discussions about how fascism hurts fascists. A system harming those that perpetrate it is an accident of its poor design; not an intention of its designers. Ergo their oppression at its hands isn't relevant beyond being used as a reminder that the system is poorly designed.

I'm going to be frank with you: I will never trust the intentions of anyone who will look at the systemic oppression of women through patriarchy & misogyny and has the audacity to ask, "What about men?"

Because regardless of your intentions these discussions end up hijacking the narrative and reorienting away from the oppression of women to prioritize men as the focus. This ends up being just another case of women's issues being sidelined by men's concerns. There's nothing "feminist" about this; it's erasure.

Acknowledging the power imbalance between men and women is vital to understanding the systemic nature of patriarchy. If you can't do this any analysis you try to make is going to be based purely on vibes rather than material conditions.

Yes, patriarchy does negatively impact men. But why does this deserve to be discussed? What benefit does it bring to feminist analysis or theory? How does pivoting away from the many ways women constantly suffer under patriarchy to the far fewer ones men sometimes suffer under patriarchy help us combat, dismantle, or replace patriarchy? How does this help bring us closer to gender equality - or even gender abolition?

It doesn't. It hijacks the narrative. It weakens the voices of women to amplify the voices of men. In the end this just recreates the conditions of misogyny; men are once again being elevated above women.

Capitalism hurts the bourgeoisie too, you know. Capitalists also experience alienation leading to depression from loss of community. Should we pivot away from the exploitation of workers to discuss suicide rates among the elite? Is that a conversation worth having? Will it bring us closer to socialism?

Their idea of keeping women "safe" involves chaining women to the stove.

The capitalists would invade it and probably destroy it if it wasn't able to build a state in time to protect itself.

lol

lmao, even

America was all those things, though.

It was already an established bourgeois society with a liberal democratic model of governance. The growth of this society, however, was being constrained by the British Parliament - who had established the Thirteen Colonies for the purposes of extraction to the benefit of Britain. This put the British aristocracy at odds with the American settlers and created a class conflict of interests; with Americans settlers wanting to expand their profits by pushing deeper into the territory of indigenous peoples' and rival empires while the British aristocracy wanted to safeguard their resource farms in America to fuel what was really important to them: their estates in the British Isles.

While the labor movement may have been nonexistent at this point in this time there was still a growing abolitionist movement to consider. Chattel slavery was used throughout the colonies and played an integral role in the colonial modes of production. This was a direct threat to bourgeois interests and it's why despite having many champions slavery wasn't abolished when the USA was established. The Founding Fathers even admitted that they couldn't oppose slavery, despite disagreeing with it on moral grounds, because it benefited them directly.

As for imperialism, what did America do right after gaining independence? What was doing while fighting for independence? What was it doing even while it was part of the British Empire as a colony? Expanding violently & rapidly to take as much land and resources as possible, projecting power wherever it could, pushing rival empires out of its sphere of influence, enslaving those countries it either couldn't conquer or didn't want to conquer.

The American project of empire-building was 100% the original incarnation of fascism and it's why Herzl, Mussolini, and Hitler copied our homework.

When you're raised in a society that encourages men to view women as property, sex objects, baby makers, or something to mock it's fairly common for the average man to belittle and infantilize women. I'm never shocked by it anymore, just disappointed.