Yeah, so it’s the west that’s been bombing, shooting and raping civilians in Ukraine? How could I have not noticed that before?

And you are not my friend.

A peace deal proposed by arms suppliers to one of the parties in the conflict just might be a bit one-sided, don’t you think?

Russia only exists in its present form because the Russians subjugated 190 other nationalities in a centuries-long imperialist expansion.

Sovereign countries can’t choose their allies? Really? When long-time neutral countries have decided that not even being neutral will protect them anymore from invasion, your answer is that they should be invaded?

Russia has the world’s largest land mass of any country, and the longest border. And they think they’re entitled buffer states all along that border? How is that in the interest of the people in those neighboring states? Most of them have already experienced the joys of having a Russian boot on their neck, and have voted with their feet to control their own destinies instead.

All I want to know is whether you’re getting paid for this or it’s just a hobby for you.

Oh, also what it’ll take for you to go away and never come back.

Without western support, Zelensky won’t be able to terrorize Ukrainians anymore.

Yeah, right. Zelensky won’t be able to “terrorize” Ukrainians by resisting an imperialist invasion, and Putin will turn the entire country into a concentration camp run by a Russian stooge, while systematically destroying Ukrainian identity (which is cultural genocide) and strip-mining Ukraine of anything worth stealing.

And when such trustworthy nations as China and Iran, both of whom have been providing weapons to Russia, offer a peace plan, anyone who’s not an idiot will know that the plan rewards the aggressor and demands the capitulation of the victim. Just like China’s “peaceful” intentions towards Taiwan, and their “peaceful” seizure of territory in the Philippines. And we all know what a force for global peace the mad mullahs in Iran have been, when they’re not busy murderously suppressing anti-government demonstrations by their own people.

Then Putin will go on to similarly “liberate” the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Moldovans, Georgians, and if Trump sufficiently undermines NATO, Poland too.

Not all early Christians followed Paul. The church in Jerusalem under James was at odds with Paul on a number of subjects. There were also more radical groups outside Jerusalem that combined Christianity with Greek philosophy, having women preaching and leading congregations, and incorporating various mystical beliefs that didn’t originate in Judaism or the teachings of Jesus.

The Muslims have never had a big, convoluted End Times mythos like the Christians, at least not in the Qur’an. At some point in the indefinite future, there will be Judgement Day, and everybody living or dead will get hauled in front of Allah and the recording angel will play back your scorecard. Then it’s Jinnah (heaven) or Jehenna (hell).

There are quite a number of hadiths (extra-scriptural reports of things Muhammad said or did) that talk about the end times. Hadiths are assessed by Islamic scholars based on their provenance and general credibility. Those originating from people close to the Prophet are ranked higher; those that contradict the Qur’an are downgraded. Most of the non-Qur’anic end times narratives sound very similar to Christian eschatology, except that the Mahdi, the successor prophet to Muhammad, appears. Jesus (Issa) returns (and maybe he’s the same guy as the Mahdi?), there’s the Antichrist (the Dajjal) stirring up mischief, there are signs and portents, the giants Gog and Magog running amok, the stars fall from the sky as meteors, etc, etc.

It’s not as entertaining as Ragnarök, but it’s more coherent than the Christian fundies’ fanfic.

According to mainstream Christianity, that’s trying to force God to do something. And the Bible is clear that nobody, not even the faithful, will know when the end times will come.

Not that I care, being an atheist. But these people make shit up without even bothering to see if it’s consistent with the shit that’s already been made up.

So what is China trying to extract from Zambia and Tanzania?

You can if you’re building out technology to wean yourself from that critical resource at the same time.

That was all entirely altruistic? Then it must be coincidental that it sounds exactly like the infrastructure the Brits built in India (minus the 5G), whose sole purpose was wealth extraction.

They don’t ask, but they want to extract all the resources they can. and never mind the people living there.

The US is not the only imperialist power.

And that, right there, is an example of the paradox of tolerance of intolerance.

There’s some theory and computer science behind parts. The value of peer review is evidence-backed. The idea that dev teams should self-organize is consistent with some varieties of management theory. Retros have been shown to have value, though the way they’re often done in Agile teams I’ve worked in has left much to be desired. Estimation with dimensionless points has zero evidential backing. The notion that the team should be able to set dates rather than having milestones imposed by management is, at best, woefully naive, since it presupposes a commitment by management that, in real life, few managers are willing to make. And in most cases where the shit has hit the fan, we later find that we needed more analysis, more planning and more design up front, rather than less. There are only certain application domains where you can get away with being as minimalist with those disciplines as Agile exponents claim you should be.

Anarchism isn’t zero organization. It’s organization for legitimate and accountable purposes.

he was wrong about it being necessary to destroy capitalism before this happened

I thought it was more that (using modern terminology) he viewed socialism as an emergent phenomenon that would arise due to the unresolved contradictions within capitalism. So socialism doesn’t require the destruction of capitalism in order to start, it’s more that once it emerges, it’ll supersede capitalism. The Leninist approach of destroying the old order, then building the new one at gunpoint didn’t work all that well (to vastly understate), leading to a long period of totalitarian state capitalism, where workers had no control over the means of production (which is the main attribute Marx ascribes to socialism) and degeneration into nationalism, imperialist nostalgia and cronyism.

But so far, along with failed revolutions hijacked by totalitarians, the main thing we’ve seen is that spontaneous emergence of working, non-coercive socialist organizations such as co-operatives has been met with strong and sometimes murderous opposition from the incumbent capitalists.