FriendOfDeSoto

Set alarms on your phone and pretend it's phone calls from work, a friend in need, etc. Go hide in there bathroom and take a ten minute break.

Do you have allies in the family? Make a pact to take turns. Get them to lure you away on a pretense. Go help clean the kitchen.

If you can't wiggle free, give yourself permission to switch off. You don't have to fight every battle, you don't need to set everything right. It's amazing how long you can keep a conversation going if all you do is repeat the last thing they said to you back at them but you raise your tone at the end to turn it into a question. Make plans on how to compensate yourself for enduring this shit. Pat yourself on the back for maintaining peace in the face of adversity.

Nothing bores people more than showing them "a funny video" on YouTube. Or some really boring vacation pictures. Or have a non-controversial topic of your own and stubbornly steer conversation that way. Tell a story with no point. If you're sitting in something comfy, like an armchair, pretend to fall asleep because you worked so hard. Praise the food and how good it was every time you're biting your tongue and you really want to say fuck you.

It's family, it's the holidays. I'm not saying you should swallow all bullshit. But raise the bar in the interest of family peace. And remember that folks will blame the loudmouths, the ones who raised their voice more than necessary, and not the quiet one for any fracas.

None of these strategies will work by themselves. It's the mix that does it. It's better to go into the situation looking at it like a game you play. Not like: fuck! Uncle Bob is going to annoy me again. You have your armor on and uncle Bob can't do shit.

That release was batshit if you ask me.

BatOS obvs

Yes, because my point is that your point doesn't make sense.

That's a remarkable statement in the context of a hypothetical, counterfactual scenario where we are attempting to interpret the possible thinking of a long deceased man displaced in time for the benefit of said scenario.

You may disagree with me. You haven't changed my mind either. So let's leave it at that.

You're citing my text but cutting off just before the point I was trying to make. I think be would still side with the people who claim to follow his ideology (yes, piss poor efforts objectively speaking but that's irrelevant to him because he would prefer them over the folks entrenched in capitalism on the other side).

Ideologs are a dangerous breed because they are surprisingly flexible under realpolitik conditions when the alternative is having to admit defeat. Or in Marx's case admitting that his ideas didn't work or the fact that they didn't work as intended cost the lives of millions. Surely he wouldn't like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China and well apoortioned crticism thereof (or of the GDR or wherever) would have eventually spent his good will capital (pun intended) with the local leadership and he would end up in a gulag or erased from history. Karl-Marx-Stadt would have been renamed sooner.

Trump doesn't care about peace. Trump cares about Trump. And his mindset is reality television. He wants to be in the headlines. Hero or heel, he does not care.

Obama got the Nobel. That stings. He wants one so he can "equal" if not best the accomplishments of Obama, who openly mocked him during that White House "comedy" press gala. That personal vendetta drives him.

I think if he were honest with himself he would see that what he got wasn't what he had envisioned in any of the countries that claimed to be communist/socialist. But they were his team so he would publicly support them. You can sell his stance as an evolvement of the theory rather than admitting mistakes. Not too dissimilar from the way the PRC sells its version of communism to its people: communism "with Chinese characteristics."

Chances are though that he would have perished in one of the purges happening in whichever communist country he would have chosen to reside in. He would have enough clout to niggle at leadership openly about stuff going wrong and eventually be would deliver the straw that broke his camel's back. He would be mind-holed and his legacy rectified so he wouldn't be the lighthouse of the movement that he could only become because he died early. And he didn't starve millions. And communism would become the thing created by the people through an arduous march and not a system dreamed up by some German philosophers.

I think it would be fair to highlight that this was revolutionary France' brainchild. It is a republic today as well but they've gone back and forth on that one a bit in the last two centuries.

It's a funny coincidence of history that gated communities for the well off folks in capitalism and mass housing for the not well off in communism follow the same design principle: few access points that can be controlled by a single tank each.

Is it possible? Yes. You can see examples in mainland China where foreign channels, including the more liberal channels from Hong Kong, routinely get blacked out when China news come on (unless they are gloriously positive).

Is it likely where you are? No. Especially it happening on broadcast channels you would hear a lot more about it. The socials would be full of it. There would have to be an office full of people censoring broadcast channels as they go out. We know the Chinese are operating such a facility because we heard about it. And we haven't heard anything like that for the US. Ockham's razor points at a buffering issue somewhere along the distribution chain from the news studio to your local antenna. A streaming video, like on YouTube, is just freeze framed when it's buffering also. And I don't think you as an individual consumer are important enough for somebody just doing it for your receiver.

Captcha, but for bots, I imagine. Fits in with the general conspiratorial theme.

There are certain crimes you will never be able to fully eradicate. You can only try to get them down to the bare flawed human minimum. For pretty much as long as there are laws and courts, killing in cold blood has been illegal. But to this day humans kill humans in cold blood. All we can do is make good laws, prosecute perpetrators, and increase awareness. If the latter is what you mean by grassroot change, then sure. If we stay within the hypothetical, I don't think a mass accident (like an accidental gas leak) or mass murder (a gas leak made to look like an accident) of the whole bunch on Epstein island would bring about a cultural change. My personal fear is that this whole exposé of this particular case only served to make the rich fuckers even more careful when they do it, not do it less.

At the root of the Epstein case is money. Billionaires should not exist. The quality of legal representation should not depend on one's bank account. If you want a grassroot cause, tackle that one.