fedeee

The first season could attract attention, the second one a bit more, but then it totally declined, so I only followed the third season at the beginning! Out of curiosity, I saw the last lines of the final episode on YouTube some time ago (SPOOOOILER): Ryan becomes an architect and walks out of his construction site... aaaah, damn it!! When I was watching the show, I was annoyed for three reasons: 1) they lived in the native places of some of my hardcore heroes 2) that damned Ryan was studying architecture at Berkeley, another beloved place for musical and historical reasons 3) that cool guy Adam Brody was dating that redeemed goose Summer. xD Anyway, to return to the "work," I would say it absolutely did not make history, unlike Dawson's Creek (with all the annoying stuff it served up). Since I’m a fan of TV drama, I’d say Schwartz is not someone who knows how to craft stories well, considering the other things he does. My idol remains Mark Schwahn, therefore ahahah!

BUT I KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW MY DAY WILL COMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! I KNOW SAMEDAYYYYYYYYYYY I'LL BE THE ONLY ONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! I always hum it when things go wrong (most of the time eheh), I've been thinking for a while about printing a t-shirt with it! When I have some time I'll get on Illustrator and creooo!!! No more controversies!!!

hahaha I also thought it was Boldi! We are in treee!

of course "adjusting the aim" is a euphemism ahahah

uhmmm..maybe I didn’t get it because it didn’t seem random to me >.<!:D anyway, yes, my conclusion was simply naive because I like to wrap things up like that ahahah (like a little flower at the end) when there’s no solution. In the comment above yours, I said that we can only adjust our approach a bit to do better! Honestly, I’ve stopped searching for a utopia that becomes reality, because in the end I now give this word, utopia, a negative connotation! If an idea can’t be properly put into practice, then it's not good, because it's not functional, and maybe humanity doesn’t have the means to carry it out, so why bother trying to be what we will never be?

Ah, one more thing! Don't you think that the utopias brought into reality exactly as conceived might not be much better than what we have? I make a comparison with architecture (bear with me) where all the utopian constructions (very few) built as imagined are, uh, ridiculous! This is because, in my opinion, an idea can never become concrete while maintaining its complete essence! So, we can only adjust the aim in this society; democracy, in my view, could be a solution if regulated by ethics (maybe it doesn't make much sense, but that's how I see it).

@Alexander, the message is clear (usually I tell this to myself when it isn’t), in summary it was my response to those who give a 5 and those who give a 1 to the work. Anyway, in points: 1) Thinkers don’t invent anything that you can’t understand by observing reality, like: it’s not that you can’t think of them as if Marx and Engels had come down to earth (this is a response to those who give a 5 and threaten death to others who don’t). 2) What is written in the manifesto, if seen from the perspective of “let’s improve the human condition,” is not worth a 1 just for the effort made to reason about society! We must not confuse the damages of communism with this book as DeLorenzo did! Because when ideas are put into practice, they may turn out to be different from how they were in theory. 3) If the Manifesto had been written for non-improving purposes, then I would give it a 1 (for example, Satanism, etc.), not based on the demonstrations brought by DeLorenzo which are more about the instrumentalized practice of these principles than the principles themselves. 4) To the ideas in the book, I would give a 3 because they are still reasoned arguments with a certain logic; in short, I appreciate the idea and some points for contemplation, but they need to be surpassed (I mostly agree with the Hetzer you praised and many others on the utopia proposed by the Manifesto, and I've explained that for me Marx doesn’t realize that humans, as they are made, could never live in the way he described, etc. and I would have to write another lengthy comment, but I don’t have time). 5) I’ll close by saying that all these thinkers are frustrated people who will never see their ideas accepted by everyone, but I hope that one day a way to "get everyone in agreement" is found, because otherwise, it’s a big waste :D haha! Anyway, the post made everything clear, so maybe reread it because this one is worse in my opinion.

Well, I'll say something general about what I think. During my school years, I was fortunate enough to come across subjects like history and philosophy; I've always had many opinions about the world, even as a teenager, because I have always been someone dedicated to the sacred art of overthinking. When I came into contact with the ideas of great thinkers, I realized that many of my solutions had already been found by people far more knowledgeable than me. However, I must say that even today, no one truly encapsulates what I really think (maybe I just don't know them). That said, I want to say that in theory, in pure speculation, one can do whatever they please; after all, it’s all still out there in the hyperuranium, eheh. The problem arises when these ideas try to be put into practice! It's very difficult to do this, and there are many interpretations, as well as various manipulations. Therefore, I understand those who are outraged by the big book of Marx and Engels because DeLorenzo has mixed saying and doing! But it is also true that if the intentions of Marx and his associates weren’t to improve humanity, I would have given him a nice one as well. In short, let's assume that what was mentioned by Fiquata is true, meaning that it was connected to satanic cults and that everything he did was just to bring the world down; then yes, I would have given him one, not so much because he advocates for the end of a system—after all, imperfect and petty (= we've never been at the top)—but because he would have done it for something terribly sad and would have absolutely denied what he himself said (because if religion is the opium of the people, then so is satanism). Ultimately, I must say that I share some aspects of Marx's thought, but let’s also say that I can agree with at least 5% of any set of ideas as long as they are not against human rights, so in the end, he's not someone I feel particularly empathetic towards. It’s also true that I haven’t read the Manifesto, so I can't vote, but since I know the ideas it contains, I would give it a 3, with all due respect. I would especially give this score because I believe that Marx did not grasp the true inclinations of man (something that, of course, the Catholic Church mentioned by some hasn’t done either); therefore, even in the best conditions, I think his thinking would be flawed in reality. I believe that if someone reasons about society in a way that wouldn’t yield a good outcome a priori, then I can at most appreciate them for their good will and maybe for the fact that they led others to surpass that very thinking. After all, I've always believed that all ideas in general, not just those of Marx, serve not so much to be accepted in their entirety but as a stimulus to form one’s own opinions. I understand that these thinkers develop their ideas hoping that everyone will embrace their way of seeing things and that the world will finally improve, but for now, I don’t believe that’s possible. In fact, I believe that human beings, as egocentric as they are, could never fully accept something like that. That’s why I've undertaken other studies, so as not to be frustrated in this brief life :D However, I'm not a pessimist, and I hope that someone succeeds in the endeavor! Good luck! Whoever you are!!! :D

beeeneee, I understand.

fallen, your now-topical phrase about stripping and beating a man to understand how he is, sounds great to the ears of a little fascist, but to someone who isn’t, it seems a bit stereotypical! For example, I don’t really understand it unless in a negative sense! Now, I don’t know if you actually mean to allude to something more spiritual, like: strip a man of his superstructures, put him to the test with a series of discussions, and you will understand how he is. If that’s the case, it would already be more acceptable. In short, I would like an explanation. Regarding all this discussion about communism, Marxism, Christianity, Catholicism, etc... it would require a lengthy commentary, but I don’t have the energy for that right now, maybe one day.