It’s probably more worth my time to take a leaf out of Roderic’s book and not post on here but the idea that he coordinates a network of alts being a more reasonable explanation to you than that he has friends is just too ridiculous. Here’s some contrary evidence for you to grapple with:

You can listen to a podcast I’ve done here: https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/8d546709-2b54-498a-a29d-a0bde330a940/id/27767583

You can also watch Roderic on a panel about Losurdo and his book in Stalin here: https://twitter.com/RodericDay/status/1724514720374301034?s=19

Do you really think we are the same person?

My experience as a scientist is that to do good science, you need to be thinking dialectically. I think a lot about why more scientists are not Marxists; people who are good at thinking about the interconnectivity and changing nature of things in their science turn to eclecticism in their political beliefs/philosophy. Part of this is that I think we treat science and politics as such disparate things that must never interact.

A lot of the “business” of science is very undialectical, and that’s where you see the failures of the field manifest. For example, assessment of a scientist’s contributions based on first authorship, journal prestige, etc, encourages bad practices with respect to collaboration and sharing results.

You might enjoy this article by Bernal, a Marxist scientist: https://redsails.org/the-social-function-of-science/

Already we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human action. The task which the scientists have undertaken — the understanding and control of nature and of man himself — is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society. The methods by which this task is attempted, however imperfectly they are realized, are the methods by which humanity is most likely to secure its own future. In its endeavour, science is communism. In science men have learned consciously to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements. Each one knows that his work depends on that of his predecessors and colleagues and that it can only reach its fruition through the work of his successors. In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realize that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal. Not orders, but advice, determine action. Each man knows that only by advice, honestly and disinterestedly given, can his work succeed, because such advice expresses as near as may be the inexorable logic of the material world, stubborn fact. Facts cannot be forced to our desires, and freedom comes by admitting this necessity and not by pretending to ignore it. These things have been learned painfully and incompletely in the pursuit of science. Only in the wider tasks of humanity will their full use be found.

Accusing someone of being “brainwashed” isn’t, as far as I have seen, so rhetorically effective that I think we need a drop-in replacement like “hate-passed.” If “you’re super licensed” sounds silly it’s because “you’re super brainwashed” is also silly.

What about:

“Do you actually believe that nonsense or does it just give you license to discount the incredible social progress China has made?”

I think the post earlier in this thread used it well. They’re not defining the term, they’re explaining the phenomenon. Because it uses a familiar term, it is easy to understand and doesn’t read jargony:

I think this is better understood as licensing American settlers to unleash their preexisting white supremacist worldview onto a politically acceptable target.

Rejecting the term “brainwashing” means not only improving our understanding of how propaganda works but also improving our rhetoric.

What do you think is lacking from the term used in the essay, “licensing”?