> Her political ideas are still nuts though. Ugh, there are no "political ideas" here. Why does western culture always insist on viewing everything through pol

> Her political ideas are still nuts though. Ugh, there are no "political ideas" here. Why does western culture always insist on viewing everything through political or ideological lens? You realise that you are literally the only ones who does that? No one else is that bothered with proper virtue signalling at the expense of objectivity. > apologetics for evil You're reasoning in childish categories. It's not what is going on here. > I wouldn't have minded so much if she just uses her own website for this kind of drivel, but she uses Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub IS her own website, deal with it. > I'm pretty sure people's responses would be different with s/Stalin/Hitler/. I don't see why it's all that different; both were genocidal mass-murderers. Why do "people's responses" even matter here? Objective reality exists in the synergy of cause-effect relations. I don't know that your "knowledge of Stalin Russia" (which in itself is a factual error, it's "Stalin's USSR") is, but denying the historical fact that he had a personality cult (which just by definition imples enough love) is just as dishonest as denying that Hitler was loved and supported in Europe and in the US for a long time, not in the least for his antagonism towards the above-mentioned USSR. The fact that they were genocidal mass-murdurers does not eject them from history and context directly into the vacuum. Even if it upsets some people who love to pinpoint all the blame to "a single evil person", despite that history would have just as well produced someone similar given the circumstance if the above-mentioned evil person didn't exist. It's just an assessment of a historical process, nothing more.