The less popular sequel to dance dance revolution

/r9k/

Used to edc a mju ii, the lack of zoom was limiting though.

It’s also possible that the men were self medicating instead of seeking help for underlying conditions.

I prefer sources with obvious bias since it makes it easier to account for. Sources that pretend to be unbias are far more insidious.

Turned? Have you ever heard of the Rockefeller and Morgan families?

Your impression is basically the Trotskyist view.

Stalin himself answered your question in an interview with an American reporter some time ago.

Yes , you are right, we have not yet built communist society. It is not so easy to build such a society. You are probably aware of the difference between socialist society and communist society. In socialist society certain inequalities in property still exist. But in socialist society there is no longer unemployment, no exploitation, no oppression of nationalities. In socialist society everyone is obliged to work, although he does not, in return for his labour receive according to his requirements, but according to the quantity and quality of the work he has performed. That is why wages, and, moreover, unequal, differentiated wages, still exist. Only when we have succeeded in creating a system under which, in return for their labour, people will receive from society, not according to the quantity and quality of the labour they perform, but according to their requirements, will it be possible to say that we have built communist society.

You say that in order t o build our socialist society we sacrificed personal liberty and suffered privation.

Your question suggests that socialist society denies personal liberty. That is not true. Of course, in order to build something new one must economize, accumulate resources, reduce one’s consumption for a time and borrow from others. If one wants to build a house one saves up money, cuts down consumption for a time, otherwise the house would never be built.

How much more true is this when it is a matter of building a new human society? We had to cut down consumption somewhat for a time, collect the necessary resources and exert great effort. This is exactly what we did and we built a socialist society.

But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

The confusion is between communism as an economic system and communism (more properly, Marxism-Leninism) as a political system.

Economically communism is a classless, stateless, society.

Most Marxist-Leninist states take the position that transitioning to that instantly is impossible, and you need to build the material conditions for it by transitioning through capitalism (be that state capitalism or some other form) to socialism to communism. The Communist Party of China for instance has a goal of achieving socialism by 2050.

That’s a very simplified version anyway, and some (Trotskyists mostly) disagree that a transition period is necessary.

Vulnerable dark triad.

I have it, it’s annoying to say the least. I’m not fully ambidextrous though.

The closest I can think is someone who is ambidextrous but also dyspraxic.

You want a conspiracy theory?

It was designed to make any criticism of big pharma look crazy.

Didn’t they abandon decentralisation a while ago?

I’m a little obsessive about this myself.

Usually I have

• Dark colours, woolens, and delicates
• Stuff I think could run (raw denim, etc)
• Whites
• Light colours and stuff I don’t care about fading, which can be washed either way.

While most non-colour detergents don’t contain bleach any more, they contain optical brighteners that absorb UV and emit white light, to make whites look “whiter than white”. This can make dark colours, and especially blacks, look dull grey. Other than that you don’t usually have to worry about most colours, especially after the first wash. There are exceptions to this, such as raw denim which runs like crazy. You can also get “colour catcher” sheets for peace of mind that stop runs.

Usually I use a non-biological delicates wool detergent for dark colours, woolens, and delicates, which I wash together, on a wool cycle. It doesn’t hurt to wash something more delicately than it’s supposed to be washed, and it means I don’t need to do as many loads. Sometimes I’ll throw light colours in with this if I have room. Anything “runny” I’ll wash with like colours, at least for the first few washes.

Whites, light colours, and stuff I don’t care about looking dull like towels gets the cheapest own brand biological detergent.

If you have dark coloured bedding you may want to get biological colour detergent, I don’t.

I’ve had this for years, I just exit and restart.

Charles Mountbatten-Windsor

It’s pretty depressing that by modern standards the Lewinsky affair, and even Watergate, would be considered a normal Tuesday.

Yeah sure, so they can rig their primaries again.

Islamofascists worse than what it’s replacing.

I once read that socially conservative but economically left wing voters are quite a large group, but usually get very little representation. It’s just a guess, but it makes sense that those people would vote for AOC on economics while tolerating her on social issues. On the other hand economically right wing democrats like Kamala would have zero appeal to people like that.