Jeffrey Epstein had LOTS of Scientist friends. Stephen Pinker got "kicked off the island" after disagreeing with Epstein's views on eugenics.

Science is impartial, scientific institutions are not

Shedding jobs is literally what our administration has set out to do. Its what the Fed has been aiming for. They recently voted to hold interest rates, with some members voting to raise them. Idk who these "analysts" are, but they're fucking morons. Even if interest rates were cut, it would take like 6 months to a year to see wages and employment bounce back.

I'm def not saying it is good to be losing jobs, but it is intentional.

I think its probably just gonna take practice, connecting the brain to the arm and hand to the paper. Like, creating those pathways in the nervous system, it is a very practical and physical process. Its almost like, you aren't practicing to "get better" making stuff is practice. You'll move through a period of deliberate decision making to just having those connections set up and flowing.

Thanks so much for sharing!

Try making copies of ones you like and coloring them. Even just a little. Try some watercolor, or whatever is on hand.

Get a pack of cheap frames and try framing a few. Putting a frame on something can like really punch up how something appears. Sometimes a frame is all that's needed to feel "finished."

If you wanna get "better," study anatomy, draw bones, muscles. Draw bodies. Draw portraits. Look at art and watch some videos. Work bigger.

Personally, idrc if something looks funky or off. I kinda prefer a funky portrait or abstract done with love and concentration and time, over some shitty ai glowing full color rendering. My fav kind of art is like "outsider art" where the person was just making shit all the time, expressing themselves, technical stuff doesn't matter, they did it out of love or habit.

Personally, I really like your drawings! I'd love to have one framed. If you never studied anatomy or whatever, and kept doodling, sketching, working stuff out, that would be very cool and admirable. Most people don't have time or energy for what it takes to be a "real" artist. Shit is so fucking gatekept its insane. Just make stuff cuz it feels good and you're left with something you can look back on. Your art is 1000% valid, and you don't need approval from some bourgeois art critic or buyer.

BUT AT WHAT COST??

I don't find these sources to be particularly damning toward PRC. The section in the second reference that was like "why would an authoritarian communist country support a democratically elected government?" Was just like redscare bs. Is it hard to believe that China does not want a civil war on its border? That they would make moves to stop illegal arms markets? Criticisms of China would be much more convincing to me if the reporters weren't holding flashlights under their chin and describing somewhat normal and peaceful IR tactics in a spooky ominous tone.

Like, no, I don't think supporting a military junta is a moral good. But I can also recognize that, after 5 years of civil war, China may want to normalize relations with their neighbor. If they invaded to overthrow the junta, that would also be bad. If they support the rebels, then the junta uses that to foment anti-Chinese sentiment on their border. It might be appropriate to disagree with the policy, but it seems to be coming from a source where no matter what actions PRC took, there would be risks and grounds fr criticism.

Based on the sources you provided, even reading through the doomish tone, Chinese actions appear pretty rational. Not above criticism, perhaps, but such criticism should be carried out in a principled and not opportunist or polemical manner, at least, if it is to be convincing to me. I like objective views, and I like views coming from real people. Lacking that, and serving a big dose of propaganda, is a real turn off for me.

Thanks for the links I'll check them out

I mean, yeah, after writing my way through it, I can appreciate the perspective. I generally like to be precise, concrete with definitions.

But the more I thought about it, the more I worked through it, I found it interesting that, based on strict definition of the EU, as an entity unto itself with particular functions, it is like you say, it is never imperialist.

But when searching for the contours of it, where an imperialist or historically colonial member nation ends, and where global imperialism picks up, those lines are not clear at all. I'm sure they are defined legally somewhere, and I would be interested in those legal definitions, but when defined by its relation to power, it is conspicuously "never imperialist", while existing between, and functioning in tandem with, national imperialist powers and global imperialist powers. Like it's a little too unimperialist for an entity that is situated deep within, and rooted intrinsically with imperialism.

I think it has been a good discussion and exercise sussing this out, I don't think i was wrong with my comment, but I was also only looking at it from this one perspective that doesn't consider the EU's most crucial relationships. And as a matter of fact, I think defining the thing, particularly in the realm of social/economics/IR, by its relationship is much more revealing and historically accurate. So i guess I mean i started with the concretization process when I commented, but it wasn't until we continued discussion that I was able to really work it out.

But that's why I contribute to discussions! In good faith, I learn a lot

Governments of various kinds were created because Anarchy does not work

Based on what history or anthropological theory/evidence? Sounds like a preconceived notion, rather than factual truth.

My reading of various sources is that egalitarian societies established material relations that turned into castes, and then one caste established dominance over the others and created a ruling class. That ruling class created the "governments" to effectively rule over the rest based on their own material class interests.

The nature of government has changed over time, at one time there were feudal relations, now we have capitalist states. At no time, and in now way were governments created because anarchy didn't work. On the contrary, egalitarian societies worked pretty well until divisions in labor and distribution of resources became concentrated and monopolized.

I'm not an anarchist, but I disagree with your framing and would like to know what it is based on, if anything

I think it is highly debateable that having Nazis in a country is justification to invade them, because that's a justification for practically any country to invade practically any country. Especially when the Invading country is also full of neo-nazis.

In this case, "propaganda" is a matter of emphasis. I think that there is a very strong case to be made that the USA supported pro EU/pro NATO forces in Ukraine, with weapons, services, and goods, during and after Maidan. This aid influenced Ukraine to join NATO which was a hard red line for Russia. There is a strong case, and historic precedence to be made that the USA pushed, or at least nudged (using aid, which made up 90% of foreign aid) Ukraine to join NATO specifically to draw Russia into a long, protracted conflict with Ukraine.

NATO is an entity that was formed to stop Soviet "spread" into Europe. So.why does it still exist after the fall of USSR? It still functions as a hostile military front against Russia. It makes sense in any context that Russia would not permit a new NATO installation in Ukraine.

Does this justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Fuck no. But that doesnt mean that being objective about the history is propaganda, it means the lead up to the invasion was messy, there were western and Russian elements using Ukraine to carry out their own imperial agenda. Ukraine has been incredibly vulnerable and heavily exploited for a very long time. Ukraine had the lowest standard of living during the USSR, which dropped significantly after the fall, and basically never recovered. Post USSR Russia played a role in this, as did the USA, EU, and NATO.

Propaganda does not mean "facts that don't suit my camp". Such facts may be used in propaganda, but doesn't make them false, context is everything. Being a pro-USA campist is also bad. Even if it puts you on the "side" of the victims in the invasion doesn't give you the right to disregard the USA's role in using Ukraine for their own imperialist aganda.

Edit: gonna post some links for reference https://thewallwillfall.org/2022/04/17/retired-swiss-intelligence-officer-explains-ukraine/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/788874844/how-u-s-military-aid-has-helped-ukraine-since-2014

https://www.stimson.org/2022/u-s-security-assistance-to-ukraine-breaks-all-precedents/

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea?s=08