GarbageShoot

I don't think Trump will get the W treatment, but not for the reasons you describe. There was still Afghanistan in W's case, but W was only different from the typical politician in the sense that he leaned into the idea of being a dope to avoid looking like a carpetbagger. Beyond that, W very much comported with what was expected of a typical Republican. Trump is too offensive to liberal sensibilities on a much more visceral level. I really struggle to imagine them ever warming up to him on that basis alone.

It actually gets really ghoulish:

1/ First, the Soviet Union included, not only russia, but another 14 countries. Ukraine alone lost over 8 million people in WW2. As a percentage of population, Belorussia lost 25% and Ukraine 16% of its population, while russia only 12%.

I think he got those numbers by including civilian genocide victims.

2/ Second, just because the Soviet Union had the most causalities, doesn’t mean that they won the war. The reason Soviets had such large casualties is because they used people as cannon folder. Something russia is still doing today.

And doing more apologia for literal Nazi genocide of Slavs to own the ruskies

3/ Third, the Red Army was poorly equipped and heavily relied on the US support. Through the lendlease, the US has provided over 400,000 trucks, 14,000 airplanes, 13,000 tanks, and more.

Now list total tanks, and maybe who drove them.

If dumping military equipment was a magic spell to make the side with the richest sponsors win, then what's going on in Ukraine?

4/ Forth, Nazis were defeated only after the second front was open. Nazis had to fight against the US, UK, and all their allies.

So, it is plain stupid to attribute victory over Hitler to russia.

The front that never would have opened were it not for Molotov-Ribbentrop, which I'm sure this same prick will call Nazi collaboration (unlike Bandera, who was just doing what he had to in order to own the ruskies)

Such a fucking waste of space

I wonder if organized prostitution will be replaced by sex workers paying coders to make them bots like these in order to reel in new customers.

I want you to just spend another couple of minutes thinking this through. Let's imagine counterfactually that it had any basis in reality (and wasn't, like, credit card scams, chaturbate-style sites, and so on) and that these were individually operating people who wanted to do prostitution or something. That's a bunch of small businesses. What does capital do over time? It centralizes. Soon, it would be overrun by enterprises at scale that pushed independent prostitutes to the margins (this happens with traditional prostitution in most contexts as well, though there are legal countermeasures for it in some societies) because fewer centralized businesses are going to be better at repeatedly accomplishing an extremely repetitive task over and over. The same thing has also played out with scams, with a trend towards "businesses" running telephone farms and eventually bot farms, etc. Eventually, and by that I mean within the span of less than a decade, you would just get more digital pimping than we already have, not some ancap utopia of freelance girlbosses like you're imagining.

There are aspects of the transition to new(ish) means of production that can temporarily serve to better human conditions, but any sort of development in productive capacity (which is all this amounts to) is just going to be "disruption" bullshit, i.e. the replacing of one monopoly with another. It is only by changing the relations of production that society can take a fundamentally better shape, here or in any other facet of life. A more advanced computer in the hands of the same master (or in reach of the same master) is just a more sophisticated means of oppression in the long run, and nowhere is that truer than under capitalism, where the pressure to expand pushes everyone towards monopoly in all markets.

It's a little illegible, though not for lack of effort

how do they know you swiped on them

This information is sold on some apps, though matching is a good enough proxy on tindr-likes if I follow how they work (I've only used one and, uh, never really understood it)

how do they automatically change their profiles to include an instagram that links to their only fans after a certain amount of time

I think they usually link through DMs, usually about 5 rounds in

I think this is a mystifying explanation compared even to "the internet is a botted lobby"

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to attack you for using it or anything, I'm just taking the question "Is MBFC useful to a communist?" at face value and trying to answer it. Maybe you have fluency with it (my condolences) that makes the relation of effort I mentioned before not hold. I get a little focused on conversation topics like that sometimes . . .

Well, I don't think it's even all that great for that because it has a weird affect of anti-Ukraine being "right bias", left-of-Bibi-Zionism being "left bias," and so on. If it actually just said "how much of a Marxist [derogatory] is this source?" then it might be more useful, but going to MBFC piecing through why it rates something the way it does is genuinely more effort than just looking at the article and making a determination from that.

A vote for Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler. I don't give a shit what the Dems have to say so long as the only offer they have to stop this is "vote blue forever". Promising that they won't personally end democracy while doing nothing to stop those who will isn't defending democracy, it's using liberal democracy's inevitable death to boost their career via a hostage situation. Wake me up when they promise to put Jack in jail or better yet Hell.

Which, critical support and all for destroying America, but millions of kids are absolutely fucked by no fault of their own

Personally speaking, I'll reserve my critical support for adventurists and religious zealots who happen to pick good targets, rather than the masters of the state fucking themselves over in a long-term fashion for medium-term profit.

I don't see what use you could have for it other than "If we put this on a spectrum from Breitbart to Cumtown, where would it go?" which is usually not that useful of a metric. That is then made much worse by the fact that it equates being "unbiased" with being nearer the center, which is arguably even worse than the usual "fact checking" assholes who merely imply that massively correlate the two without necessarily linking them.

Ultimately it just tells you "How much does a centrist Democrat profess to dislike this source relative to other sources?" with a left/right flourish.

Case in point: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cuba-media-profile/

It gives Cuba a Freedom rating of "Total Oppression" with a media bias somewhere between "Left" and "Extreme Left". As an aside, notice the spectrum displaying the center as the "least biased". You can fish some helpful bits of information out of the rest of the report, but nothing you couldn't get elsewhere.

I know some people really hate Grayzone because one of its main writers became a complete crank (I don't really follow that stuff) but what I have read from it I have only ever seen to be highly substantiated. I can pick things out for you, but I think if you just look at it yourself you'll see that the article is as desperate to give it the lowest rating that it can manage, citing things like "anti-corporate bias" and literally Radio Free Asia

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-grayzone/

"Alright, but what about them being deceptive? How is it substantiated?"

Failed Fact Checks

A third-party fact-checker has not directly fact-checked them.

Overall, we rate The Grayzone Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and consistent one-sided reporting. (D. Van Zandt 9/25/2021)

Nothing except this citation with no link. Wonderful. Let me know if you can find where this Van Zandt person's report is, because I sure can't find it.

Edit 53: They do ding the Editor-in-Chief for appearing on another show and saying Gates people ran Covid simulations prior to the pandemic (which it says is false, I don't care to investigate so let's just go with that), though the media is broken and, again, that is not a Grayzone publication.

lmao, RadioFreeAsia has a rating of "HIGH" Factuality and a "Center-Left" bias. Fucking clowns. In case you are wondering, it does not hunt down the people in charge and look for the "most biased" things they are ever recorded as having said, which really makes you think.

Edit 72: Alright, I had to check MoonOfAlabama, who I have mixed feelings on, but I wanted to share this gem, bold mine:

Moon of Alabama utilizes questionable sources such as RT News, Fox News, as well as credible sources such as Bloomberg, NY Times, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Politico, cisac.fsi.stanford.edu, and blogs such as johnhelmer.org.

Glad to see Zionism isn't too biased