1. No one here claims to be a revolutionary. We are an instance for memes and theory, we don’t even do organising like a union or a communist party, and we are certainly not a revolutionary cell.

2. The “stop participating” argument is the most worn card in the deck of the anti-communist debater. Participation in the system is not like seal fur or tropical woods, you cannot live your life in a way that avoids it. Capitalism’s total commodification of basic human rights means you cannot even obtain food and shelter or receive life-saving care without taking part in it. Telling someone to “stop participating in the system” amounts to promoting suicide.

Communist parties do not “await” revolution. When you only wait for revolution, you will keep doing that forever. Communist parties work towards forcing a revolution (to the best of their abilities), by bringing about the conditions under which revolutions are successful, and this means organising, building a public presence, teaching theory, and supporting the actions of the revolutionary element of society, such as unionised labour, student groups, and the proletariat in industry and service economy.

They also protest against the police state and the war machine, engage in antifascist activism, and try mitigating the most immediate environmental and psychological effects of capitalism while they are unfolding.

Liberals have excess valence Hitler particles, which makes them unstable and highly reactive

Freud was one weird motherfucker

Functioning under capitalism is the highest form of lying. You must put nice words in white print on your resume or else a bot will reject it. You must brazenly invent years of experience in interviews for an entry-level job or else they won’t hire you. You must wear a grinning mask when dealing with a customer under all circumstances or else the deal might fail. You must act like your dearest and most interesting things in the world are spreadsheets and sales pitches, or else you’ll be reprimanded and then fired. The whole thing is a hologram of paper-mache painted to look like marble, one facade after another, there is no place for humans, only for their images. Nothing in this economic system is about truth, or justice, or even basic respect. It’s all about appearances.

The question is a bit misleading, since it is not about relative acceleration but relative velocity. The relative velocity of the 4-year-old man is key to determine his momentum, and hence the kinetic energy of his impact upon the bullet.

With that out of the way, we first note that adulthood starts at 18, which must be due to a significant time dilation in the reference frame of the man. We have the formula for the time dilation t’ = γt, with the Lorentzian gamma factor γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), thus 1/γ² = 1 - v²/c², and we get v = sqrt(1 - 1/γ²)c for the velocity. If the man is four years old in one reference frame and 18 in another, then γ = 18/4 = 4.5, and after plugging in the value, it follows that v = 0.975c. Therefore, the man had an incredible speed of about 292500 m/s when he and the bullet mutually obliterated one another.

I sometimes read nothing for months and then binge a 2000-page novel over a single week

Even if you ignore the unplastered brick wall with the trident hastily slapped on, the uncomfortably tiny glass table without a cloth, the main course being served on a saucer, and the fact that they brought the emissary of their most powerful ally water in plastic bottles and then just left it there, it really speaks to the post-Soviet rebirth of Ukraine’s cultural identity that senior diplomats on state visits are served Italian food

Dialectical materialism is a model for a particular relationship that exists between certain subjects of the natural and social sciences. It is not falsifiable in the sense that mathematical definitions are not falsifiable - you just cannot encounter a circle containing two points that are not equidistant from its centre. But though cannot falsify dialectical materialism itself, you can enquire whether different entities have a dialectical relationship among each other. If that is the case, you can predict, with some degree of certainty, their future co-evolution. If the prediction turns out to be false, well, then that relationship likely wasn’t subject to dialectical materialism.

If you want an analogy, think of the circle again. Despite no scientific inquiry being possible over whether perfect circles actually exist anywhere in nature, they have proven useful for modelling physical objects. By assuming them as circles, we can come to conclusions that are very useful and workable, almost bafflingly so. If an object that we have previously modelled as a circle later turns out to exhibit properties we did not expect, like planetary orbits, then it is likely not a circle, but rather from a broader, related class of shapes - ellipses. However, the geometric theory we derived about circles still holds, it is just this particular object that has an issue being modelled as one.