you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 days ago (1 child)

No, implying science is bad is reactionary shit, as evidenced by the reply to the thread speaking badly of scientific socialism.

The problem with "political scientists" under liberal "democracy" is that they serve bourgeoisie interests. Think more about the language that you use and take Sankara's name out of your damn mouth if you're going to be so cavalier.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    This is on me, as you're absolutely correct. I threw an ironic shit post reply to what I assumed was a shitposty channel given the quality of the 'meme' and text ("chat").

    Its even worse on my part, with an allusion to violence for no other reason than to perpetuate the woodchipper archetype.

    When the motive is profit, or to cement profit's interests through collusion with all arms of capital through "think tanks" and boards, the political scientist is indeed a force for ill. Naturally, it need not be if the interest is in the betterment of the proletariat and the common folk, as demonstrated through scientific socialism which is where the irony was intended to be focused.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments