Shouldn't police only care about what is not allowed? I mean, they usually are known for making people not do illegal stuff.
But if he is allowed to put flyers there, why are they targeting him? Is it maybe because they aren't really what we think they are, and they are actually the loyal protectors of the ruling class?
"The bodies are hidden so it's impossible to verify"
Are these guys even serious? Who is sufficiently braindead to believe this shit?
"Only sith deal with absolutes"
-some old, senile man
Maybe it detects "Death to" and then prompts this warning message automatically
I think it is "city" in russian, like in Leningrad.
We do not use mailing lists very often here. I think it would be hard to convince them. I suggested reviving the old CAASO website, which is abandoned, but it seems like it will remain abandoned for now.
Search "The long march chinese movie" on Youtube. You'll find a few.
I watched a few minutes of one such movies, but the movie felt too different from what I am accustumed to so I stopped watching it.
The professors' union, ADUSP, has entered the strike in the São Paulo campus, so at least there the research has probably stopped.
I do not use IG or social media in general (Lemmygrad is the exception) so I do not know if CAASO (the student organization responsible for the São Carlos campus) or the DCE are using them to communicate. I'll look into it right now to know the answer.
edit: CAASO has an Instagram page and the DCE has a Facebook page. (I can't access any of them because I do not have an account)
That is indeed the right option.
Well, I do not know any websites or anything like that, but in the newspaper Folha de São Paulo there are many news about the strike (although they are basically one-sided agains the students).
Also, I think that the state governor, Tarcísio de Freitas is way more responsible for this than Haddad, since Carlotti, the Dean of the University of São Paulo, wants to be part of the Department of Education of the state of São Paulo, so he is pretty much invested in being "tough" on those "students that only want to cause chaos" or whatever because Tarcísio is basically a "far-right centrist" (he wants to privatize everything and he applauds police brutality, but he tries to not be seen as fash).
edit: I think my poor english made this sound kinda weird, so I'll rephrase it:
Tarcísio de Freitas, state governor of São Paulo, is fash. Carlotti, Dean of the University of São Paulo, wants to cozy up with the fash to get a job in the government. As such, Carlotti is very invested in not appearing weak to "rioters" and as such it will be pretty hard to force him into negotiating.
????
The sources are linked in lemmygrad, but they are from outside lemmygrad.
Also, there is no neutral information in the world, all information has parts omitted (for many possible reasons), has parts that may be distorted because of the bias of the primary sources, or has other biases that you must take into account when reading it.
If you only read information from one side you will only get the biases of that side, and won't be able to understand reality. Most principled communists who study history do not use only pro-communist sources, they actually use mostly anti-communist sources (because, guess what, most historians with resources to do research are american or western european, and literally can't publish pro-soviet or pro-chinese books in well-acclaimed presses) and then they filter out most of the biases (but not all, because that is literally impossible) by using primary sources or translations of primary sources, in case the primary sources aren't in a language they know.
I'm not saying you must read literal nazi books and take their word for it, for example. What I am saying is that if you want to research 19th century India, for example, you must read from at least most of the different perspectives, always questioning yourself about the sources like this:
If you can't even do this, you really won't understand history.
Also, what is considered "neutral" at any point in time is what the ruling classes consider to be beneficial to them. If you could talk to the average white person of mid 19th century southern USA about slavery, they would tell you that news articles criticizing abolitionists and promoting slavery were "neutral". The same applies to current times.
"and then they shot the flyers in self defense..."