But if you're really interested, you can write a followup to this comment. It could be fun to summarize some of his videos in a series of posts to c/Marxism.

I for one would very much appreciate this!

I came here to say pretty much the same thing but you beat me to it. So I'll just drop a link to the text you mentioned, Luna's Oi's translation of Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism v1.

Literally same. It takes at least several days for me to start becoming a little odiferous, even if I've been doing some light physical work. But everyone has some odor to them, as they should, since it is of course natural and healthy. Hell, it is even one of the things that has attracted people to each other throughout the ages. As has been said, capitalism latched onto that as it does everything else that makes us human, and told us we had to buy products to attract people with scent, and then buy products just to keep from offending people by our scent!

I'm not around people much anymore I admit, so it usually doesn't matter either way, (but even when I did live with a partner and only showered 1-2 x / week, I was never told I needed to take one). But when I do have to go out like to run errands in town, that is when I make sure I'm cleaned up, meaning a shower beforehand.

(Only replace the floating hearts with stinky waves. j/k ;)

Same.

I really do think our skin microbiome (it's not just in our gut!) tends to find a good balance if given the chance to do so. People who shower every day or more have a skin biome that is used to getting purged on the regular and will start getting out of control as soon that rhythm is broken, which makes the person stink. Then that person thinks that's just a straight fact "if people don't shower often, they stink!" But as usual, it's more complicated than that.

@SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net, don't let anyone tell you you're "nasty" for not showering more often, you just have a healthier skin microbiome than they do.

I would like to add, I think the film actually intends to trip us up a bit on that at first and make us wonder who exactly it is presenting as the parasite. And that kinda highlights that big misconception we tend to have, as I mentioned above, automatically attributing the parasitism to the wrong group.

Don't worry, it's an understandable thing to miss and you are far from the only person to have not caught that. But it does serve as a good lesson I would say, it really demonstrates how tuned and trained we are as subjects of capitalism to automatically assume the poor workers are the parasites (which is what the real parasites want us to think) rather than the rich owning class who truly are the parasites of society, not just in the film but in reality. And not just metaphorically, but literally, they contribute no value themselves but siphon off the labor from the working class to live with lazy ease in oppulance. Parasites.

Because they are ableist
I do have issues with the DSM, where did I say I excuse their use of it?

Wait, so are you saying it's ableist to use the word "narcissist" outside of a medical context, or that the DSM choosing that word for a medical diagnosis is ableist?

We don't have to use it at all, if someone mean "abuser" or "bad person" they can use those words

Those words mean different things. If I call someone an "abuser" and/or "bad person" I am not implying they have narcissistic tendencies or issues. Likewise when I call someone (who has not been diagnosed with the personality disorder) a narcissist, I am not calling them an abuser or even necessarily a bad person. It is also a matter of scope and specificity, with there being millions of ways that someone can be a "bad person" and narcissism can be one of the contributing factors. Just because a word is being used as an official diagnostic term does not suddenly make it ableist to use it in other ways or in other contexts.

Look, I am a disabled person and I have a personality disorder. Specifically, I have Avoidant Personality Disorder. It would be ridiculous of me or anyone else to say that we should stop using the word "avoidant" outside of a psychological diagnostic context. There is nothing ableist about referring to certain behaviors (or people who exhibit those behaviors) as being "avoidant" when we are talking about issues outside of the tiny narrow slice of the population who (like me) are diagnosed with the actual personality disorder that carries that name. "Avoidant" is a regular word that can be used in all sorts of contexts without being even slightly ableist. So too with narcissism or narcissist.

I am all for consciously and intentionally changing our vocabulary so as to remove the common ableism from it. I've even argued in the past about how we should not use insults like "moron" when it was more common to do so here. But it is also possible to go overboard and label the use of certain words as ableist when they are not. Sometimes that overzealousness, even if it comes from a good place, can do more harm than it does help, as far as encouraging people to recognize the casual ableism in their speech, when you apply it in genuinely inappropriate places.

There was a pretty good Game Maker's Toolkit episode that delved into this question.

I mean, many of them think Bush Jr was a swell guy now. Granted, it's been longer since he was in pop culture ("the discourse"), but from what I've seen, rebranding to be lib-friendly is eventually possible for literally any conservative, so long as that conservative is framed as being oppositional to the current agreed-upon villain.

I agree that Cheney was always in a better position for it, but I don't think that rules out worse offenders of liberal sensibilities from getting the rehabilitation treatment. You could be right, but I'm curious why you think MGT in particular could never be rehabilitated in the eyes of libs - libs who are always hungry for an excuse to extend an olive branch to fascists who make the right noises.

Of course not! But thats not the point. You are the only one who used the term "unborn Nazis" which is an implicit statement that "unborn Nazis" can even be a thing that exists. The anti-communist authors (who I agree were sick fucks) derived their numbers in large part from bogus, abstract, potential people, yes, but they never would have claimed those unborn people were Nazis. By phrasing it the way you did, it makes it sound like you're saying "the people killed by the Soviets were just Nazis and their unborn would-be Nazi children!" Which is a messed up thing to say.

It is a separate issue from the fact that the Black Book authors juiced their numbers with non-existent people. Because even when Nazis do have babies, those babies are not and cannot be "Nazi babies." If they were, that would imply the ideology of Nazism is an inherited trait and is inherent within even the unborn. Which is wrong and more than a little problematic. And it's not something the authors, despite all their other lies and bullshit, ever claimed. But sure sounds like something you are claiming, wording it the way you did.

Even if that wasn't your intent, it is how it sounds. I would bet anything that's how the mod who removed your comment was reading it too, as it's a fair conclusion to think that's what you meant.

I just think it's important to be careful with our wording when trying to educate clueless and even hostile libs, at the very least to make it much harder for them to lie about us by reporting the heinous things those "tankies" believe.

I want to preface this by saying I am in near complete agreement with you and appreciate your comments in this thread.  But the "unborn Nazi's" thing is more than a little offputting, and I understand why whatever mod decided to remove your other comment containing that term did so.  

Even if it is not how you intended it, phrasing it as "unborn Nazis" implies that an unborn person can be Nazi.  They can't.  Nazism is something that a person is infected with only after they have the cognitive apparatus to absorb and host ideology.  Using the phrase as you did makes it sound like you think that the offspring of Nazis must also inherently be Nazis.  That would be a rather vile belief, which is why I don't think you actually meant it that way, but nevertheless it is how that phrase comes across.  It wouldn't be above the liberals or Nazis themselves to claim such a thing, but I really don't think even they would do so in this case because it's contrary to the kind of picture they're trying to paint with all their lies in the Black Book.  They want people to think it was only smol bean innocents that were "victims" of communism and try to obscure the fact that it was literal Nazis targeted by the Soviets, and they want to obscure the fact that their numbers are made up of many potential aka unborn people.  So when you use that phrase, it does sound like you believe "any spawn of Nazis must also be Nazis" which ironically is a very Nazi kind of thing to believe.  

Anyway, I understand what you were getting at over all, and I'm in agreement with it.  But I think pointing out your wording there is a fair nit to pick out of the rest of your otherwise good commentary.