Ad mid roll:
I trust The Economist magazine for thoughtful analysis and [...]
"Lmao okay I guess not then."
Or they'll be discussing politics and history with an (otherwise) interesting guest when the subject broaches Marxism, and you hear the same old, first-grader, thought-terminating misconceptions about "human nature" or "works in theory". 
Edit: One guy remarked that the Nazis were a result of the October Revolution, which may be technically accurate because some White Russians worked with the Nazis, but he was definitely framing it in a "communism did WWII" way.
I mean, I trust The Economist to have thoughtful analysis from the perspective of the international capitalist class with uncrossable ideological boundaries providing the framing.
I don't often need a reminder of "how these people think" but sometimes I do, like when the administrative state of the US is undergoing a proscribed burn that seems to be getting out of hand. The Economist is probably one of the more salient examples of capitalist logic... the steady hand and voice on the wheel of slave ship that is compartmentalizing leaks by insisting more and more of the workers keeping it afloat must be confined to quarters below and silently drown with honor, dignity and civility.
๐
Isn't it written by 19-year-olds?
i think of them, the "writers", more like monkeys banging on keyboards while Baron Paul Deighton and others on their group boards playing the Mr. Burns role when the monkeys' narratives are too incomprehensibly out of pocket.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
so are my posts but i could probably give a pretty good summary of the war in sudan if i felt like it smh
Fair enough. I guess that's not a reason to dislike them.
I wouldn't mind hearing that summary