Assuming OP was right, I’d frame it more as his having an obligation to the husband as a human being making the choice correct rather than as a lack of obligation to the wife making the choice indifferent. We should be trying to make the world better, not carefully demarcating the bounds of social contracts so we can find out exactly where we’re allowed to do as much harm as we feel like.
But I also think SadArtemis is right that OP, to put it charitably, got ahead of himself
I’d more say that the military occupation was done for the sake of confrontation (this is similar to the official Chinese line). It was a really senseless invasion, as far as I can tell (and I disagree with the Vietnamese line that the war was expansionist).
It’s also cool in Sorcery
Come on, you’re more well-read than this. You know that military occupation and annexation are not the same thing.
At least Mai is an adult
Just tell them she was designed with underage fanservice in mind (e.g. do a tatsumaki) and they’ll pivot.
If I was just complaining about border skirmishes, then I’d mention India or something. The attack on Vietnam was more than just a “minor border skirmish”.
Yeah, you’re right, my bad
deleted by creator
the map is far more accurate than it is not though
Come on, Yog, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than this. It’d be so easy to just color in Vietnam and then you’d be set, but by posting it in its current form you are actively lying.
deleted by creator
Pokemon Sleep Forever
About diamat: Hmm I guess I never really understood the big deal about it, it just seems like the standard toolkit when trying to understand something.
If both are told to render them in plain language, a lot of the stated beliefs of a Marxist and a highly-secular liberal are going to be similar. From a certain perspective however, the Marxist seeks to take those truisms and push them to their logical extremes rather than just let them sit there as a meaningless token admission. Put a more palatable way, diamat and historical materialism are ways of taking the axioms that both parties (the Marxist and secular liberal) admit as being foundational to reality and systematize them. Vibes are not enough.
If you’re interested in writing on the necessity of this approach, see Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, which isn’t bandied about like a meme in the manner that his three most popular works are, but is very philosophically interesting.
If you want meme texts, this is also covered in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and in Marx’s The German Ideology. As others have noted, these things are fundamental to the nature of Marxism as “scientific socialism”, so a shorter option is the very good essay This Ruthless Criticism of All That Exists: Marxism as Science, which I think also exists in an audio form if you want me to dig that up.
In my opinion, understanding Diamat from the get-go is important
I think it’s best to start with the history of socialist and political-theoretical ideas like Engels does so one can develop a gradual understanding and see how it fits within the landscape of political ideologies.
deleted by creator
I think the main things to understand are, first, that the SU was already mainly controlled by revisionists before Stalin even died, reducing Stalin to a borderline figurehead for revisionists to work under. Secondly, the Secret Speech included extensive deception in its accusations against Stalin and co., with a very long list of supposed crimes that were “not previously known” because they either didn’t happen at all or didn’t happen as Khrushchev depicted them, which contributed to making Stalin look monstrous and therefore make destalinization look appealing. Third, Khrushchev purged high-profile supporters of Stalin, most notably Beria, which really made it less viable and less appealing to oppose destalinization. Lastly he kind of did get pressured out of office eventually, not because of destalinization but for the adjacent reason that he just kind of didn’t know what he was doing, which is only to be expected from someone like him.
guy appears (who signed orders as well, mind you) saying no more purges, you can do whatever ;) and thus cements his power
Except destalinization also included purges
The one is not the other
It’s a completely healthy reaction to not want someone who seemingly destroyed an org in your new org. It would be ridiculous to let them in without, at the very least, serious scrutiny, or to just bar them altogether.
As someone else mentioned, it probably would have been worth giving her an opportunity to give her perspective before deciding if and how to tell the husband. Most likely the final result is just telling him, but there are more marginal possibilities that it is worth accounting for and taking an extra couple of days wouldn’t have harmed you or him (yours was already a dead relationship by virtue of your understandable disapproval of her cheating, so it’s not like you’d be enabling her to cheat for longer unless you think she’s managing to juggle even more guys along with young children and a marriage).