Blank means they had no representatives for the vote. Venezuela because they can’t access the US-based UN facilities. Probably the same for Afghanistan. Idk about Ukraine.

Not sure if going after specific crimes of Israel would be the best approach. Even if all you arguments stick, your friend might still remain positive to Zionism as a concept. Thinking a government change or something like that would be enough to put Israel “back on the right track”. They might even think that a Jewish state elsewhere might be a good idea, that true Zionism was never tried, etc…

What I’m meaning to say, is that you have to discredit Zionism as an idea. I believe another commenter already mentioned it, but Zionism is anti-Semitic, even in the conventional sense of the word. Anti-semites across time and space (including the fucking nazis) have promoted Zionism. A Jewish state gave them an excuse to not give any rights to local jewish populations, even to the point of expelling them back “home”. A Jewish state transformed a genocidal rethoric into an anti-immigrant one.

There are more things to say about Zionism of course, but this comment is already long enough.

Happy to know my input helped, and happy for you for having done something good.

As for the new issues that arose, I may have a few ideas.

When it comes to Trump, I don’t think trying to change your neighbor’s mind about Trump would be productive. Instead you can dodge the issue by trying to convince him that who the president is doesn’t matter, that the power structure of a country can never be summarized to a single individual. If he’s a fan of the “deep state” theory, then could be easily convinced of this. Like last time, avoid focusing on individuals, but rather their collective behavior. For example, a capitalist is forced to follow the rules of capitalism, lest they get out-competed and/or lose their class position. Cops, officers, judges, etc fonction similarly.

As for immigrants, you could try the “let’s stop invading, couping and sanctioning third world countries” approach. If those countries were allowed to develop independently, without IMF restructuring, civil wars, and while being able to control their natural resources, immigration would basically be a non-issue (beside environment-related ones).

One last thing, maybe discussing about planned economy could be useful. You can start with things like the military-industrial complex, which he would likely agree is a massive waste of ressources and by extension lives. That approach should be particularly effective if he’s a veteran, but even a “patriotic” Trump supporter could be swayed by this. After that you can extend your reasoning to heavy industry, transport infrastructure, etc… You can try invoking China as a competitive comparison if you think that would work. Similarly for healthcare, only mention it now if he’s likely to respond positively to it.

I’m not really proficient when it comes to LGBTQ issues, so I’m afraid I can’t help you with that.

I think you should actually talk to him. Do avoid calling him out, but ask him a few questions. From my experience, right-winger usually recognize that there are things that are fundamentally wrong in society. They often get to an inch of attaining class consciousness before concluding “It’s the minorities’ fault” or something like that. If he doesn’t already believe that, it shouldn’t be hard to convince him that capitalists are bad (if not capitalism as a whole). Try to focus on the filthy rich ones first, lest he become defensive. Avoid focusing on the individual characteristics of capitalists, and more on their behavior as members of a class.

If you’ve done some reading, it shouldn’t be hard to find more plausible reasons for society’s ills than the ones he was taught. Just take it slow, seed some doubt in him and let it grow on its own. If you give him a good basis, he might very well reach a close to communist conclusion on his own, which will implant those ideas much more firmly than if they’d been fed by an outsider.

However if he’s the billionaire larping kind, I’m afraid there’s nothing I can say to help you.

Ah yes, I’m sure the Kyiv Independent is a reliable source on how close their enemies are to surrendering.

A reference to some little gaming done by our Yugoslav brothers.

Also, we successfully broke the algorithm :

Change my mind : Nazis weren’t recruited by NATO and the US despite their war crimes, but thanks to them.

In ebil China, people are forbidden from learning about the crimes of their government…

Thankfully we don’t have that kind of brainwashing here !

By the grace of Allah, we shall bring Stalin back.

The West has fallen…

That’s really fucked up. Idk what to do. Dare them to eat a battery I suppose.

Edit : Maybe try to record the parents or grandparent. Worst case scenario, they won’t be able to blame it on anyone but themselves and you’ll have legal proof.

You should call the police or something like that at this point. At this rate it’s only a matter of time before something incredibly dangerous happens to the kid. I understand that you might want to avoid conflict or go easy on your father, but this may very well be a matter of life or death. I don’t know about the Law in your country, but in most you father could be severely punished for that kind of neglect. Try looking for someone else to babysit the kid at least.

Sure. I’m already beta-reader for a web novel, and have written a few myself. (Appeal to authority or smth) Just DM me a link or something like that, and I’ll take a look at it.

Counterpoint : French aren’t people

Nice, I hope they’ll manage to pull an article 5 on Israel too lmao.

Socialism is literally the period of transition between capitalism and communism. It’s expected to still have currency, classes, and the state. Especially as communism isn’t an internal process. Class divisions doesn’t apply purely to internal divisions, just as the state’s role as wielder of violence for one class cannot be limited internally.

You don’t wither away the state, that’s not even what “wither away” means grammatically. It’s an organic process that happens depending on way more factors than the will of the ruling class (wether the proletariat or the bourgeoisie). There is no communism button, and there never was.

Starting to intentionally weaken the state, in a context where class divisons are strong both internally and externally, is probably the best way to get yourself invaded or couped.

Beside, the workers do own the means of production in China. The communist party represents them exclusively. Last time I checked, out of the 2000 members of China’s national Congress, only 2 could be considered capitalists. Additionally the communist party has cells in every major company, and effectively all of the infrastructure and extraction industry is state-owned. Companies have no choice but to comply to will of the CPC, as the latter could simply prevent them from accessing necessary goods or services, and has demonstrated a willingness to execute rebellious CEOs.

China is no less socialist than the USSR, though maybe you would call them state capitalist too, in which case I’m afraid we simply do not have the same understanding of socialism.

Finally, let me end with a few appeals to authority.

Lenin : Source “Within the limits indicated, however, this is not at all dangerous for socialism as long as transport and large-scale industry remain in the hands of the proletariat. On the contrary, the development of capitalism, controlled and regulated by the proletarian state (i.e., “state” capitalism in this sense of the term), is advantageous and necessary in an extremely devastated and backward small-peasant country (within certain limits, of course), inasmuch as it is capable of hastening the immediate revival of peasant farming. This applies still more to concessions: without denationalising anything, the workers’ state leases certain mines, forest tracts, oilfields, and so forth, to foreign capitalists in order to obtain from them extra equipment and machinery that will enable us to accelerate the restoration of Soviet large-scale industry.”

“The dictatorship of the proletariat does not signify a cessation of the class struggle, but its continuation in a new form and with new weapons. This dictatorship is essential as long as classes exist, as long as the bourgeoisie, overthrown in one country, intensifies tenfold its attacks on socialism on an international scale.”

Engel’s “On Authority”

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."

Because “state capitalism” isn’t a real thing. If capitalists do not control the economy , it’s not capitalism. In capitalist states that isn’t the case, as the state exists first and foremost to serve the interest of capital. So wether capitalists control the economy directly or through the state has negligible impact (Individual interests vs collective class interests).

On the other hand, no one in their right mind would claim that the Chinese state exists to serve the interests of capital.

“We investigated ourselves and found us to be innocent.”

I mean I guess that depends on the medium. The creator’s political positions are generally less present in drawings for example.

Though as a rabid book enjoyer, I must admit that I abandoned quite a few due to their political undertones. A nice example would be World War Z, which despite being well written (at the beginning at least) contains so much american propaganda that I sometimes got the feeling that the author had a checklist. As far as I remember, every enemy of the US is bastardized, except maybe Iran. And of course there’s bootlicking for Israel and the US.

But even then, guessing that the author is a reactionary doesn’t necessarily make their work unreadable, it depends on how much they let their thoughts transpire into their works.

I can’t believe I took this shit seriously. Ultra brainrot has traumatized me.