Youtube comments of Gergana Koleva (@gerganakoleva4137).
-
262
-
107
-
67
-
61
-
28
-
26
-
24
-
17
-
12
-
11
-
You are so right about the big division workers/capitalist. But sadly it is not so simple, because there is such a big difference between, for example, a part-time minimum wage worker and a tenure-track professor in MIT. They are in fact both working class, since the moment something happens - for example the professor get seriously ill, they will end up in the same circumstances, since both have to work for their money. But still, the live one can afford, as long as nothing major happens, is so much better than the other, that they cannot feel belonging to the same side. My husband is a professor (not MIT), he forever feels that he is a working class member and one time he mentioned that to friends of ours. The friends were almost outraged that he wanted to "insert" himself in the working class, as they were at that time working in a factory and it was apparently awful experience. It was so funny and sad at the same time. But that made me see why this question is so complicated. All that said, I love the way you simplify and explain the matter.
10
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
I am very happy that people notice the power misbalance. She was only 17 when he marries her, that is not sweet, that is creepy . He was in love wit her, OK, but was She? And the narrator mentioning her "stipend"all the time - was she his wife after all, or simply a supported woman? Who gives "stipend" to his wife, do people do that? He was talking to his mother about "saving those girls" - well, saving by marrying her and making right away couple of kids while the girl is only 17, instead of sending her first to school, does not look like saving to me. But what do I know, being a woman in an 3-rd world country.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Listening to her brings so much of my own mother talking. I mean the way she does it, you are so correct, that woman does not want to see the reality, she lives in her own world where what the truth is does not matter. The same with my mother. I have tried couple of times to bring her to seeing some things, but to no avail, it does not work. But with such a mother I could see how things could go wrong, thank god I am not buying it. Also, due to her delusions, this mother could be very critical even toward her own son (we do not see it here, but believe me, it happens) in a very passive-aggressive kind of way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not convinced she is the one to kill the girl. May be they needed to investigate more, instead of pressuring her into nonsense talking. If you never seen a police interview you will be sure she is guilty, because of the 4 different versions she gave. Well, tell you what - go sit in that room for more than 10 hours, listen to people saying something like" "You got angry, I understand, its normal. May be you slapped her once, two days ago..." - you will be amazed how many people at the end will "confess". She was probably mistreating the girl, but that is not killing her. Were there old bruises, could they have been from both of them, why did they believe one of the doctors and not the other... all good questions. Dr. Grande, I think here you are underestimating the state to which a person could be driven in interrogation and also how his words could be taken out of context. The case is about did she kill the girl, not did she hit her a week ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I totally understand your point. That said, movies should not be taken as an historical truth and what an actress said about history should not be paid so much attention. You have very good points here, but I would like to ask is that the first time this series misrepresent history? I personally watched Vikings (the original TV show depicting Ragnar) and my question is: How realistically you find that an 8th century viking king will be made addicted to opium, brought by one of his asian slaves (as if back then they had the destilling technology that will produce a concentrate to be easily transported and potent enough to feed the habit for months). Yes, theoretically it could happen, no it is not likely at all. Is that not as unbelievable as a black woman earl? For me is worse, since it destroyed Ragnar's character, he would never abandon his family, if not a drug addict, and they needed an age gap for some reason (I was so angry, that I started a fanfiction to "right the wrong"). My point being, writers always do that, but when it is about something else than the race/gender people seems to not notice. The stories we tell, even the historical ones, are saying much more about our time, than the times long past. Focusing on this particular misrepresentation (by both sides) shows that we have invested interest in that question nowadays, in today's society. If the argument was not actually about today's society, we would simply wave a hand and allow it as "a writer's choice", same as we allow that in one of the Shakespeare's very famous plays.
1
-
1
-
Do not get discouraged, Trump is digging his own grave. Promises are great, and for now he gets the benefit of the doubt, but he cannot deliver. I have fate in the American people. They are not like the Russians, they will never accept to endure poverty and hard times in the name of the state and for "building the future" (popular slogan in the USRR). He and his cohort do not know how the real world works, any single policy they make - from cutting USAID (an agency USA farmers relied to buy their production) to imposing tariffs to everyone (you can use tariffs sparingly, for some strategic things, but not like "mass tariffing" he does), to the new order for ship exports (do not ask me why I now know how things are transported overseas).... everything is going down. In other words, not need for the Democrats to do anything, he will destroy himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I lived under a dictatorship (former communist country), so I do know that although nothing is leaked officially, there is an unstoppable spreading of rumours: people connected to the camps (guards, cooks, drivers,...) would talk to family, may be sometimes friends, although they have to be very careful, and those to other people and so on... although the regime tried to control it, it cannot be stopped. The funny thing is how different people would react to those stories: some would not believe the extent of the tortures, some would even approve of, since the prisoners are deemed "enemies of the people". And above all is the fear that some night they will knock at your door, so people are very careful to whom and what they say. But the knowledge is there. Probably it was the same in Germany. I cannot even describe to people never lived under such conditions how much everything is under censorship. My father was a journalist back then, so I do know how every printed word has to be approved "from above" and if you fear they will not allow something to be printed, you have to go look for personal connections, talk to the party functionary on many level to try and convince them to back your story up. So I am convinced they knew, at least the grown ups, and also they were simultaneously under oppression and denial. I quite see how the German nation could look at the defeat of the Nazi not as a defeat, but liberation of Germany (at least right after the end of the war).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1