LithoGraphica - User contributions [en]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000

2026-05-02T05:57:30Z

Reversedragon: When The Subject simply is, it compels people to listen

<h2 id="section-5000">5000 [[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000&action=edit edit]]</h2>

Welcome to friendship hell 
(Perfectly okay works about "community", and dubious Existentialist theories that resemble them)

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="5000" class="hue clean reset">
<li class="field_mdem" value="5000" data-dimension="S0">Item representing analogy or mathematical microcosm / Item comparing structure or process of thing A to thing B -> does not necessarily have to be a correct analogy, but this category does exist to hunt for correct analogies
</li><li class="" value="5001" data-dimension="S">comparing anything and everything to friendship / unexpectedly comparing things to friendship / comparing things of larger scales than individual relationships to individual relationships -> note that this is not a bad thing in every case; some MDem entries point out real similarities between individuals and populations which lead to real similarities between large and small relationships. that said, it can create jarring contrasts between stories and real life, or Existentialist theories and real life
</li><li class="" value="5002" data-dimension="S">comparing city-wide phenomena to individual friendships / comparing town-wide phenomena to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5003" data-dimension="S">comparing region-wide phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5004" data-dimension="S">comparing nationwide phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5005" data-dimension="S">comparing global phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5006" data-dimension="S">comparing whole social graphs to individual friendships / comparing whole communities to friendship / comparing fanbases to friendship / comparing platform membership to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5007" data-dimension="S">comparing galactic or cosmic phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5008" data-dimension="S">comparing institutions to individual friendships / comparing workplaces to friendship / comparing government ministries to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5009" data-dimension="S">comparing local community centers to individual friendships / comparing forums to friendship / comparing churches to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5010" data-dimension="S">individual described by common pronouns -> important to define basic categories, but may not be necessary to add except within works where below kinds of characters exist ↓
</li><li class="" value="5011" data-dimension="S">individual described by nonstandard pronouns / character described by pronouns not in common use outside work -> note that "they", "any pronouns", and "it" (background object) are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_grammar common usages], not nonstandard language
</li><li class="" value="5012" data-dimension="S">individual described by neopronouns / individual described by "nonsense" pronouns / individual described by "nounself" pronouns
</li><li class="" value="5013" data-dimension="S">individual described exclusively by pronouns from another language -> Damara Megido. this is a true example of a character with "nonstandard pronouns"
</li><li class="" value="5014" data-dimension="S">individual described by alternating pronouns / individual described by cycling pronouns -> thanks Mangle
</li><li class="" value="5015" data-dimension="S">individual described by pronoun of surrounding physical object / ghost using possessing object's pronoun
</li><li class="" value="5016" data-dimension="S">fictional individual described with insulting pronouns / fictional individual frequently misgendered in-universe / fictional individual frequently called coarse pronouns in Japanese not necessarily related to gender
</li><li class="" value="5017" data-dimension="S">individual described by pronoun of characters from other planet / fictional human described with alien pronouns -> thanks Piccolo, thanks Crystal Gems.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5018" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="" value="5019" data-dimension="S">pronoun not listed as Lexeme (type pronoun in qualifiers) / pronoun listed in external Lexeme (ex.: [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L303625 ey])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5020" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5021" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5022" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5023" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5024" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5025" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5026" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5027" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5028" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5029" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5030" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5031" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5032" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5033" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">individual described by pronoun usages containing ARG clues -> <s>I have never heard of this but I bet it will happen some day</s> 
wait. this technically already exists. people were left using the pronoun "him" to trace tenuous connections between Gaster and Deltarune. so technically. there is already at least one example out there of pronouns being used as ARG clues, although it's simpler than the silly idea I had in my head of some cryptic letter hiding some kind of cipher key in pronouns.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5034" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5035" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5036" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5037" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5038" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5039" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="50,40" value="5040" data-dimension="S">allegory of the cave -> a metaphor for the gap between noumenon and phenomenon. probably greatly exaggerated. the more time goes on and the more science has been done the smaller the gap between "object" and "shadow" seems to get.

</li><li {{IS1/IK/class}} data-qid="50,41" value="5041">noumenon (Kant)

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="50,42" value="5042" data-dimension="S2">I think, therefore I am / The writer cannot be the writer's hallucination / The writer cannot be a proposition inaccurate to reality -> classic, famous proposition used by Descartes as a basic axiom. one good argument against it is that by Gödel's incompleteness theorem no computer or logic book can reason about the actual computer or things outside the computer and certainly be correct. there's always a causal separation between computer, brain, or logic book and reality itself in the sense that one can say physics "is" the separation between objects.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="50,43" value="5043" data-dimension="S2">I am therefore I am / The physical reality of a person's existence and daily life needs no further confirmation than the observation of continuing physical events and consequences with predictable physical logic connecting one to the other; "present materialism" or "today-today-tomorrow materialism" is as operable as historical materialism if not more / Lived experiences are not required to observe the physical phenomenon of someone suffering, and in fact make two people's confirmations of each other suffering more objective / I know the physical process of how I was born, therefore I was born, and I am / weak anthropic principle (statement that people being born and formed out of material objects must be materially possible in some way for people to observe the world and ask the question of if they exist) / Even if we're in a video game we have to play by the rules of that video game (Matt Dillahunty) / Hyper-Materialist proposition (proposition that material reality does not have to justify itself to "reason" as long it can be verified) -> the physical world can sound "circular", but that's because everything is always interacting with everything else. of course it's circular. you wouldn't be born if material processes weren't circular, recycling the same objects and the same rules to form new objects. it is so {{em|stupid}} people think anything material needs to justify itself to "reason", because quite literally, from everything we know, you wouldn't be reasoning if {{em|physically putting you together}} wasn't possible, and that shaped every way in which you reason.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,44" value="5044" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to have political positions without it being a team sport (Liberal-republicanism, Liberalism onto Trotskyism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,44|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=50,45|Q2=5045}}I think therefore I'm trans / Transgender people think therefore transgender people are / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q5045|9k]]) 
"I think, therefore I am" + gender identity = this.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5046" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5047" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5048" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5049" data-dimension="S">??

{{li|I=Z0/LR/STM|tradition=STM onto LR|Q=50,50|Q2=5050}}vote -> a single show of support or non-support
{{li|I=Z0/LR/STM|Q=50,51|Q2=5051}}denial ball / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing black ball] / black cube -> ball used as veto in anonymous ball vote. sometimes balls are the same color and put on opposite sides of the anonymous box.
{{li|I=Z0/LR/STM|Q=50,52|Q2=5052}}approval ball / white ball -> ball used in hopes of collecting a unanimous vote
{{li|I=Z0/LR/STM|Q=50,53|Q2=5053}}ballot

{{li|I=F2/A|Q=50,54|Q2=5054}}Anarchy is not anhierarchy / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,54|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,55" value="5055" data-dimension="S2">Differing ideologies should be resolved with ethics / people having different ideologies should be studied and resolved with ethics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,55|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="50,56" value="5056" data-dimension="S2">Civilization's goal should be to get to the arts and the notion of non-politically depicting abstract moods and emotions as soon as possible / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,56|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="50,57" value="5057" data-dimension="S2">A society that squeezes and neglects its people will watch Subjects' pain turn into The Real and destroy it, therefore it's necessary to help everyone accumulate wealth so the whole population remains non-proletarians and they don't turn into the proletariat / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,56|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,58" value="5058" data-dimension="S2">Science turns The Subject into an object but philosophy doesn't -> I genuinely don't think this is true. I really feel like philosophy does turn Subjects into objects if it's doing its job. what does it mean to turn something into an object? it means studying the pieces or processes that compose it and comprehending it as a physical thing. reductionism in the ontology sense: reducing things into a graph of sign equations, an ontology which is plural and not definitive but may go part of the way to explaining how something works.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="50,59" value="5059" data-dimension="S2">Humanist theories squash The Subject under prejudice / Subject theories are bad because they do too much prejudiced Subject-squashing / Humanist obsession with The Subject is bad because it has too many prejudices -> not making this up, really saw this one. possibly the most Existentialist criticism of Existentialism that I've ever seen. why does nobody ever ever ask if theories centered around prejudice are a prejudice? anyway. I think this highlights some kind of major division inside Existentialism. should I divide Existentialism into humanist periods and... prejudice-obsessed periods?? I still don't quite understand. I study and read and study and read and I still never understand what's going on. trying to understand where the hell these modern prejudice philosophies come from feels like Simon researching the ice crown and turning into [[E:Ice King (Adventure Time)|an idiot]] and being stuck there forever.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,60" value="5060" data-dimension="S0">claimed characteristic of Existentialism / claimed characteristic of Existentialist-Structuralist tradition -> I could start compiling a list of these just like the fascism diagnosis lists, only the thing being diagnosed is technically less harmful, and it's only being diagnosed because it can seem nebulous and hard to describe until you observe it really closely and start making lists like this. a while ago I had an entry about "kinds of Existentialism"; I think this is what that is better framed as or called.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5061" data-dimension="F2">Lived Experience is indisputable -> false on a technicality because it can and will be disputed constantly. this is the problem. the problem is that Lived Experience is already getting disputed, which is part of what made people think up the concept in the first place, but if you propose Lived Experience to solve that problem, it will perpetually be unable to prove itself using itself because the problem {{em|is}} that people can't be forced to consider it proof.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5062" data-dimension="F2">Human beings cannot predict history -> strictly untrue. everyone who says this defines history as any arbitrary series of events. people are obligated to predict small/medium scale series of events just to survive.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5063" data-dimension="S2">If it looks deterministic, it's scientism / If philosophy looks too deterministic, it's scientism -> found this one in an overview of schizoanalyst "geophilosophy". [https://www.protevi.com/john/SEDAAG.pdf] this claim was just barely unsaid but could smell it all over the thing. why are people like this? why is determinism so scary to them? as I say, I swear most people don't even know what determinism is. determinism is the mere ability to describe things as differential equations and manifolds, like Deleuze did. he used determinism to explain Hegel. if there isn't determinism you couldn't describe everything with math. I find almost nothing more baffling than the way psychoanalysts (and schizoanalysis) are absolutely obsessed with math almost more than scientists are and then they also get obsessed with the individual and how you supposedly have to resist anything that could threaten to predetermine The Subject. why does nobody see the terrible contradiction between these two things? I swear we should just abolish the term scientism and make a new term of math-ism when you're over-applying math. that would make Marxism challenging but still possible. it would {{em|kill}} psychoanalysis though 
why I have not marked this false: it could be true {{em|only if}} someone is searching beyond simple "Euclidean" determinism to find [[E:ReTerminismProposition|relativistic determinism]]. if somebody totally hates "determinism" and then discovers dialectical materialism and subscribes to that, or simply gets really really really into special relativity and the search for the real most-accurate general relativity (which in my mind leads to the same place), there's no problem other than that they were using the term determinism in a misleading way.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5064" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to be anticommunist without being racist / It's possible to be anticommunist without being xenophobic against Third World countries -> implicit statement in like, every anticommunist thing ever. no, it's not.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5065" data-dimension="F2">Prejudice is the most obviously-bad thing there is / Not doing prejudice is the most obvious thing there is / Prejudice is the most obvious sin / Prejudice is the ultimate sin (claim about obviousness or senselessness) -> I have always been confused why people think prejudice and microaggressions are the most obvious thing ever to never have done when the literal reason people do them is because it's not obvious. some people admit this, when they admit that prejudice is due to "ignorance". but ignorance is the lack of information about what is right and wrong, making it not obvious that it is better to not have prejudices. I think you can also go a step further and say that merely labeling something "inexcusable" is in practice the same as labeling it "obvious".

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5066" data-dimension="S2">Anarchy isn't about taking things away / "Liberty is the mother of order" (statement that anarchies produce republics rather than republics producing anarchies; Proudhon) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alex-prichard-freedom] / Anarchism is not simply a negative critique [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281006148_Anarchism_the_State_and_the_Role_of_Education] -> funny how in practice basically every anarchist you see just talks about smashing things and taking them away and most people never actually see any "anarchist communities". the [[Term:Social-Philosophical-System|SPSs]] are secret and the [[Term:Social-Philosophical-Material-System|SPMSs]] hardly come to pass for a period of longer than 3 years. but go on 
Anarchy isn't about taking things away + meta-Marxism = stationary combination of heterogeneous elements

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="5067" data-dimension="F2">Unities of opposites never separate / Plural subpopulations are never countable / There can be no totalising unity that contains unities of opposites (totalizing; on Deleuze) / Multiplicities do not have a shared pivot connecting them to the unity (Deleuze) / There are no stable objects, only the metastable results of interacting flows at risk of falling into chaos (on Deleuze) [https://www.nistgeographic.org/post/a-thousand-multiplicities] -> no. I get where he's coming from to say that "multiplicities" always {{em|start out}} never fully possible to differentiate. but they {{em|can}} fully differentiate, even to the point they'll never go back. we wouldn't be talking about the implications of a Soviet Union existing versus there not being a Soviet Union, because they'd be the same republics of people either way. there would be no national independence movements if this claim were fully true. there'd still be a British empire, physically, in 2025. we'd all be arguing about how to represent everyone within the British empire without breaking it up, just because we all "know" civilizations never ever break up. god, like. Deleuze. have you ever been a Trotskyist. that's a silly question to pretty much everyone but genuinely, have you ever had to deal with groups of people breaking apart and not going back together? if you actually did you'd know that things really do differentiate. there's almost an entropy arrow for groups of people just like there is for chemistry, where when a group of people breaks apart there are specific "chemistry" changes that make that tearing apart hard to run backwards. this is part of the definition of history, I feel like. the entropy arrow that makes things like a national independence movement or an organization disintegrating hard to reverse and more of a permanent creation of new conditions, new characteristics for the involved entities.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" value="5068" data-dimension="F">tent of freedom poles (motif) / freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others -> this is inherently contradictory. it's all too easy for somebody to be less free {{em|purely because}} someone else is free. anarchists really want to think this result is impossible but it isn't. say there are 30 Protestants, 20 Catholics, 10 Muslims, and 5 anarchists. the 5 anarchists talk to the 20 Catholics and the 10 Muslims. they don't manage to get them to give up religion, but they do manage to convince them to all agree with each other to become anarchists. the 20 Catholics and 10 Muslims all tolerate each other and agree that freedom for Catholics can only include freedom for Muslims. then the anarchists go talk to the 30 Protestants. 10 of the 30 Protestants are fine with anarchism and agree to coexist with the Catholics and Muslims, while 20 Protestants get upset and become convinced that if there are Catholics and Muslims determining things about the society they live in and making them Catholic or Muslim instead of Protestant in character the 20 Protestants are not free. the 20 Protestants try to make the Catholics and the Muslims leave. the other 10 Protestants don't quite know what to do. the 20 try to make them all concede that policies are tyrannical and having any unified policy on whether Catholic or Muslim traditions can be practiced or anyone can be made to tolerate them is unfair, and only a world where nobody can tell Protestants what to do at all is in anarchy. the Protestants insist that only a world where Protestants are free to be a totally freely-standing nation just as at the same time any other is is actually free, and anything else is a violation of the concept of "freedom for everybody limited by equal freedom for others", which is nearly worthy of a war for independence; they will stop short of killing any Protestants that don't concede or shipping them off to Catholicistan if the anarchists will only drop this entire thing. is anyone free at this point? the Catholics, Muslims, and defector Protestants are all going to be bound together by survival and basically [[Term:herd-of-cats effect|formed into a nation-state]] with [[E:not voting for the Democrats is not allowed|hard rules against leaving it]] because [[E:Vegeta's actions are not a social construct for the people of earth|reality forced them to]]. the Protestant bigots are all bound together around their concept of having to be Protestant-only or you're not free, forced to defend their border so that concept even exists. in a real way, any difference inside countable cultures has the power to create borders and States just because cultures will insist on not being ordered around by each other. and all of this is because the anarchists brought up "the limit of equal freedom for others", but it isn't really possible when the reality of almost all human cultures is to want to realize culture outward and "[[E:I believe that everybody statement|believe that everybody]]" should do some particular culture, not just yourself. sometimes this is much less harmful than other times, like when indigenous populations become mystified by industrial populations and "believe that everybody" should go effect degrowth although in reality they don't understand what causes the undesired patterns or how to stop them. but overall this is the same Lacanian {{censor|bullshit}} as capitalists getting to determine what is good behavior and what is being a real human and what people aren't free-standing producers enough to be real humans. this {{censor|bullshit}} is a component of capitalism. 
I have a deep urge to make this the first F1 Item. maybe I will. I think there should be very stringent criteria for what motifs can become F motifs. they should have to be so utterly logically incoherent it is nearly impossible to understand them at all. like, "God" could be an F motif because it's relatively easy to argue the concept doesn't even make sense. something like "unicorns" or "vampires" isn't an F motif because fantasy books can coherently define what they are. most wrong concepts are still just S motifs, not F motifs, because it's easy to tell the difference between a coherent imaginary world where they do exist and the real world where they don't. only a very select slice of motifs are F motifs, which are referred to in consistent language yet on the inside are utter [[Term:conceptual spaghetti|conceptual spaghetti]] that barely refers to anything at all. some parts of Lacanianism may get marked F1 and then have the decision reversed when it's discovered they actually make some kind of logical sense.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5069" data-dimension="F2">The molding of the free person is the true equality of all [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281006148_Anarchism_the_State_and_the_Role_of_Education] -> it's not, because any capitalist-suck-up Lacanian could say this. also, like, just imagine, you're Stalin's government, and you start believing this. when [[E:Trotskists are the prototypical oppressed group|Trotsky]] is causing trouble for the people of the Soviet Union you tell him that the reason he doesn't understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism yet is he is not a complete free individual and he needs to be a person better, he's just [[E:Trotskyists as stupid idiot garbage trash|terrible at being a free-standing person]] and he ought to go through a ton of training to be human exactly correctly before he is allowed to be human, while other people who are better at being individuals inevitably claim positions of authority and order people around. that's how Lacanians think, that's how capitalists think, that's almost what Lenin said however accidentally. the whole concept of "molding the free person" Leads To Hierarchies, precisely because [[E:survival of the existiest|not all people are equally good at Being Free People]].

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5070" data-dimension="S2">Humans have free will / Humans have Free Will
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5071" data-dimension="S2">Larks have free will / Larks have Free Will -> the claim that songbirds such as larks and sparrows also have the thing called Free Will that humans are said to have.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5072" data-dimension="S2">Ravens have free will / Dolphins have free will -> the claim that non-human animals that have been demonstrated to be highly intelligent possess the thing called Free Will.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5073" data-dimension="F2">The cause-breaking dome has free will / The perfectly round ball sitting on a perfectly round dome that breaks Newtonian causality has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5074" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q50,74|A twenty-sided die has free will]] -> generally accepted not to be true.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5075" data-dimension="F2">A pseudorandom number generator has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5076" data-dimension="S2">Twilight Sparkle has free will / Twilight Sparkle has Free Will within the defined fictional universe of My Little Pony, and this is the process by which characters enact friendship lessons -> often accepted to be true but isn't really necessary to accept.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5077" data-dimension="S2">Free will is the capacity to desire freedom / Free will is the resolve to resist un-freedom -> the only definition of Free Will that makes any sense to me as something that could be real. it's a little bit of a weasel definition to replace something that doesn't make sense with something else that does. it doesn't actually save the claim people can choose not to choose to choose something. instead it's just meant to explain why humans perceive a thing called Free Will and what we might actually be looking at when we see that. I initially got this definition from studying the relationship between center-Liberalism and Trotskyism, which to me was one of the only places that defining freedom or Free Will would ever truly matter. you can say there are other times like periods of slavery where it would matter, but honestly? I think in that case there are ways you can get out of having to talk about free will and just turn it into a matter of preferable or ethical kinds of interactions of whole populations that have material ways of being achieved whether anyone ever experiences free will or freedom or not — constitution, government, laws, just wars, history, etc. some of those invoke morality but morality doesn't even require free will; it's just making people do things.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5078" data-dimension="S2">Populations have free will
</li><li class="field_ML" value="5079" data-dimension="S2">Populations do not have free will -> I am not sure if the core Marxist theorists ever made this claim, but this claim is very helpful for arguing general-sense historical materialism. if you are able to dispel the notion that populations are totally unique individuals, you can then go on to show that populations actually consist of patterns. sidenote: it's so bizarre to me that psychoanalysts are obsessed with unique individuals when quite literally, psychoanalysis and psychohistory don't work if different individual humans don't show the same patterns over and over? psychoanalysis seems like an accidental argument for general-sense historical materialism in and of itself, which simply starts the concept of "historical patterns" at really tiny scales and refuses to look at big scales.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, W, ES" data-qid="50,80" value="5080" data-dimension="F2">To change The System, you must first learn to love / To become capable of resisting capitalism you must first change yourself / Che Guevara said that revolutionaries must have a love of humanity, therefore everyone has to get rid of all prejudices and inability to love themself or others before there can be a workers' movement / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,84|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" data-qid="50,81" value="5081" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are not Western -> I don't really like the word "Western". this set of word definitions is baffling to me. the first thing I think of when anyone says "Western" is whole nation-states in the Eastern Hemisphere, so when people pivot over to it purely meaning other populations in their own country it just feels confusing. it's like, you can have efforts to include subpopulations into the Australia region, but why are they focusing the whole concept of what is "Western" around Australia? are they trying to say Canada is fake and "Westernness" only ever takes place inside Australia? are they accidentally saying they don't care about the existence of any other countries but their own and Australians and Māori should all stand together to oppress Vietnam? the moment they say "Western" it feels as if whatever "Westernness" is they totally haven't gotten rid of the core problem of framing everything as Other to their own industrial population of Australians and have only turned around to pat themselves on the back for supposedly labeling it. to me "Western cultures" had always been this Filament-axis of European countries and North American colonies tied together — a thing that spans multiple continents and ended up needing a special name because it was hard to describe otherwise, unless perhaps you call it "former pieces of the British Empire", covering most of the important "Western" countries though not, say, Spanish or Dutch colonies. (even then it's a little weird Japan is rarely termed part of "Western culture" when it was blatantly allied with the German and Italian empires in WWII and would at times join with the United States against China or Korea. Russia has become Western if you ask me. if it's trying hard to sprout a nazism, and things made inspired by United States Tory beliefs can be shipped right over to Russia, they're both Western.) 
within the United States and I think to some extent in Australia, one of the most common characteristics of "Western culture" now among non-bigots is pivoting over to the imagery of completely different countries and appropriating non-Western cultures. so the word "Western" just isn't applicable and doesn't mean anything any more. that's why I prefer to say "industrial populations" or "First World countries/populations" as opposed to "tribal populations". if a tribal population isn't industrial, that's not an insult. they can live the way they want to live. and if they somehow are industrial at the same time I'd find another word to describe the other populations, I guess. the whole thing of putting together "prejudiced" (as we know, [[E:Prejudice is the most obviously-bad thing there is|the Only way]] of describing that people are doing something bad) and "Western" is just weird to me. I feel like it's quite easy to have the first one without the second one, while the second one doesn't give you any information. 
said another way: I think this proposition is technically true for entirely the wrong reasons: "Western" countries are capable of forming one huge axis they're all part of, while tribal populations wouldn't be part of that.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="50,82" value="5082" data-dimension="S">they killed the buffalo, Josh / White people killed the buffalo, so why do you trust them, Josh? -> I try very hard to never say bad things about indigenous people-groups, and to assume that if stupid ideas appear to be connected to indigenous people they're stupid because White people adopted them and garbled them. and most of the time that assumption seems to bear out. but today... I found an actual instance in youtube comments of a Native American clearly not understanding the concept of history. it's real. the thing I didn't want to believe was real is real. so what now? I guess it's critical we teach everyone what history is, and that it's possible for groups of people to have different numbers of centuries stacked on top of them. some centuries full of a lot of senseless division and fighting, some containing progress. here's the problem with Josh. he's the product of like seven to fifteen centuries. where inside all those generations hundreds and hundreds of people all interacting with each other reterministically caused or forcibly changed each other's behavior. at every step in those centuries people were constantly holding each other in toxic relationships just to prevent crimes and wars. you know, in "The System". the purpose of The System is always to head off violence and make sure it doesn't happen today, so whenever you threaten to escape it people get terrified because they don't understand where crimes come from and they simply want to smash all crimes as fast as possible. next thing you know, a bunch of Christians hopelessly beaten into always following social rules just so people are "nice" and "not violent" have to move out of Europe so they don't commit huge violence against other Christians, but have no power to not commit violence against other groups of people because they don't realize Community is the thing that causes violence, not what stops it. at the same time this is happening, all kinds of other developments occur in society like technology and philosophy and scientific models, all on top of the basic conditions: group divisions, inability to control other chunks of people, adaptation to senseless fierce competition over the same things, and superstition about what crimes and peace and nonviolence and society and growth and internationalism and hope are. 
I guess. there are two valid times to say "I'm not racist but". "I'm not racist but anti-racist movements have bad strategies for combating racism", and "I'm not racist but unfortunately any group of people can be stupid". 
they killed the buffalo, Josh + dragonslayer-slayer = sectarianism/Zinovievism taboo

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="50,83" value="5083" data-dimension="M3">Why did White people choose to live in The System? / Why did White people choose to live in capitalism? / Why did White people choose to live in colonial society? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,84|9k]])

</li><li data-qid="50,84" value="5084" class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ES, DG, Zv, PT" data-dimension="S">The System / systemic (qualifier attributing some sort of social problem to The System, or alternatively attempting to explain problems by treating Niklas Luhmann societal (sub)systems as the only structure of society; anarchism, anti-racist movements, etc.) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,84|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,85" value="5085" data-dimension="F2">We went from tribes to suburbs / Human beings went from tribal populations directly to disconnected suburbs / In the year 400, White people were in tribes, in the year 2020 they were in suburbs, and absolutely nothing happened in between / history denial (motif of people acting like suburbs were suddenly made up yesterday rather than coming from particular cumulative sets of events over generations) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,84|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="50,86" value="5086" data-dimension="S">exceptions are the exceptions to the exceptions -> the concept that any exception not incorporated into "the system" (which is hypothesized to mean the major Social-Philosophical-Material System) can just as easily be the enemy of other exceptions as their ally 
exceptions are the exceptions to the exceptions + You can't contradict Lived Experience = Lived Experience contradicts Lived Experience.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="LR, ES, DG" data-qid="50,87" value="5087" data-dimension="S">exceptions test The System / exceptions test the system -> schizoanalyst concept. the concept that excluded things are some kind of irrefutable evidence that The System must break down into a new state where all the exceptions will be accepted and tolerate each other. 
connected to, but not identical with, the concept that all people are connected through different oppressions by being The Subject and suffering.

{{li|I=S1/Zv|tradition=Zv, ES, A|Q=50,88|Q2=5088}}Them (unspecified antagonist) -> those that don't spend great amounts of time talking about a nebulous "The System" love to instead talk about what "They" recently did.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=50,89|Q2=5089}}The dissolution of the Soviet Union and transition of Soviet nationalities to capitalism shows exactly how White people in North America and Europe came to live in "[[E:Why did White people choose to live in The System?|The System]]" — in general, all major populations on earth are [[E:Nice walnuts don't get cracked|forced]] by people outside their population to operate a certain way or dissolve their population and their very national identity and vacate their land

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=IV, A, LR, PT|Q=50,90|Q2=5090}}"Why are you hitting yourself?" philosophy -> the motif of a material theory or philosophical prescription that blames the victims of a particular process for an external thing that happened to them. common in Trotskyism, common in anarchism. actually, I swear over half of all philosophy practiced in the United States looks like this.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,91" value="5091" data-dimension="S">optimism / determination (adventure narratives)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="50,92" value="5092" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q50,92|entropicism]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,92|9k]]) -> the motif of a philosophy of meaning where individuals are not asked or obligated to look for meaning to their lives [[User:RD/9k/Q50,92|[...]]] reality, history, and the search for happiness in life are generally about outward cause and effect rather than inward choices as they would be within [[E:early-existentialism|existentialism]]
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="50,93" value="5093" data-dimension="S">Signifier Case / signifier case -> the motif of presenting a concept In Capital Letters to defamiliarize it as a commonly-accepted word within the same language and offset it as a strange ontological construct which needs to be investigated, or as a specialized academic usage within some particular philosophy. this concept may be considered identical to practices like quoting terms or putting them in italics, but is not the same thing as putting a term in title case simply because it is the title of a wiki article.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="50,94" value="5094" data-dimension="S2">Tent of freedom poles is the shovel dream of wealth / The concept of "[[E:tent of freedom poles|equal freedoms for all at the limit of equal freedom for others]]" is an [[E:shovel dream|object-having-consciousness-of-self]] prompted by the [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism)|physical arrangement]] of a cloud of people accumulating stacks of wealth by any means necessary in order to obtain as many options or capacities-to-do-otherwise as possible when faced with any given conflict or undesirable situation — making it appear as if ethical and philosophical choices are caused by rational thought while rational thought does not actually provide the initial basis for them to be thought versus not thought -> in a sense, Liberal-republicanism could not construct itself without the right "technology". separate stacks of wealth does this strange thing of making "the limit of equal freedom of others" possible precisely when and if you're willing to run to the ends of the earth and perhaps over the top of other populations to materially obtain "equal freedom for all".

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5095" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DG" data-qid="50,96" value="5096" data-dimension="S2">By Deleuze's logic, {{abbr|tts=Liberal-republicanism|Liberalism}} shouldn't exist -> A) masses of people are an inseparable multiplicity of unknown heterogeneous elements. (primitive [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements|anarchy]] of all populations, basically) B) history is not about creating separate material objects and developing them according to the rules of those objects. C) the development of a population cannot be understood through the decisions of the people inside it, only through its interactions with outside populations. [I don't remember in what sense I meant this, but I {{em|think}} it was in relation to critical theory and preventing prejudices] D) by the logic of Deleuze and Guattari, Trotskyism makes more sense than schizoanalysis, because it takes into account the inseparable multiplicity of all human individuals on earth grouped into interacting populations.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5097" data-dimension="S2">Nothing is more important than free will / No standard can be more important than free will / Every other ethical value is subordinate to free will -> if we assume Rothenberg and Žižek's texts describe anarchism, then I swear this is what they're saying. no squashing The Subject. don't be afraid to act. so, what? you're going to ignore the entire process of Marxism building up a system for making the smallest number of unethical actions that's possible, all to regain the single ethical value of Freedom? what is it even worth at that point? it's even weirder when Rothenberg is like obsessed with voting blocs and the concept that countries can never be a whole and rejects the suggestion that an oppressive government could turn everybody beneath it democratic (which is exactly what happens), but then this whole anarchist secret operation thing is also okay for some reason. nothing about that makes sense. if you can just reason your way out of creating Bolshevism because it's "inherently" oppressive, why wouldn't you do the same thing with anarchist secret operations, or on the other hand, if you recognize that anarchist secret operations are necessary to create Freedom, why wouldn't you say the same thing for workers' states? why wouldn't you just interpret workers' states through your weird Heideggerian framework and say, ok, I don't believe that any of Marxism is correct but I still have to acknowledge that workers' states are legitimate because those groups of people formed them spontaneously out of necessity. I think anarchism is full of special pleading that anarchism is inherently better just because it's anarchism. and I think in a sense you really can't expect anything else, because this is how all ideologies actually work. anarchists cluster together, Communist allies cluster together, Tories cluster together, as if they were ethnicities or some other demographic, then they protect each other and determine their ideology as a group.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" data-qid="50,98" value="5098" data-dimension="S2">categorical imperative (statement about ethics versus goals) / Act to treat people as ends in themselves, and not as means / Act to treat other people as a parallel to yourself, with their own inner lives, needs, and goals / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98|9k]]) 
categorical imperative + ?? = The Subject
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" data-qid="50,99" value="5099" data-dimension="Z">Kantianism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5099|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5100" data-dimension="S">intersubjectivity -> this should be considered a motif to scan texts for. the label can be changed to something more easily recognizable while keeping the internal definition the same thing.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=51,01|Q2=5101}}When The Subject simply {{em|is}}, it compels people to listen / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,43|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=51,02|Q2=5102}}The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / whatsisname the unlikeable guy (Excessive Subject, Žižek) will stop the problem by stoking empathy / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,43|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=51,03|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me") / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,43|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=51,04|Q2=5104}}Wrong ideas can be corrected if you simply cease thinking -> I've been a little wrong when I said everything in Liberalism is about turning everything into metaphysical quality sliders and claiming that artificial excesses of particular adjectives must be solved with "moderation". there's just a little bit more to it than that. some people seem to believe that when people have wrong ideas or prejudices it's possible to simply stop thinking entirely and become able to take in new information that way. I know from experience over a period of five years this is almost wholly false, and only leads to great confusion. I am being very generous by not marking this F2. but, there could be some subset propositions of it that are technically true.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=51,05|Q2=5105}}Distrusting scientists equals stereotyping humans -> the claim that when people don't trust "scientists" they are stereotyping and simply haven't met the good ones, and if they'd only do more [[E:people-gambling|people-gambling]] they'd eventually score, suddenly making the bad aspects of science all irrelevant. 
hate this. facts aren't accurate or inaccurate because people like or don't like people. a reactionary could have a decent point about science being untrustworthy because only a few people can work on it and some people just as smart and dedicated get kicked out and then huge publishers take and own all their papers and industries like pharmaceuticals profit on bleeding everyone else for access to the application of limited knowledge which has been artificially limited further by creating patented variations. meanwhile academics (usually not in physics, to be fair, it's usually in social theories) often have slightly wrong models of things but get very stern when people simply try to question them and ask why they think those are the correct models. "not all scientists" is almost exactly the same situation as "not all men" — a situation where people lack language or ontological models to express what patterns are really happening and point the finger at the broad group of people that the problem thing is happening inside.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="51,06" value="5106" data-dimension="S2">Scientific thinking is a pathology / Scientific thinking is a disease symptom created by such conditions as autism and ADHD that make individuals unable to understand intuition and to solve social situations through individuals intuitively unifying onto the nicest and most friendship-like behaviors that become local culture rather than attempting to characterize patterns in societies sociologically / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]]) 
Anti-racism education is an oxymoron + ?? = this
{{li|I=S2/A|Q=51,07|Q2=5107}}Being born autistic is counter-revolutionary to anarchism because autistic people have a defect in performing Rhizome, but everyone performing Rhizome on the basis of cultures and lived experiences automatically going together in a strictly subjective space is more important than anything else including autistic people / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="51,08" value="5108" data-dimension="S">autistic people appropriating Liberalism / autistic people spontaneously trying to appropriate "traditional" or "White" disciplines due to not being included in original prejudiced circles and diving into existing body of information as special interest -> this is me in a nutshell. I get way into reading about the history of Marxism or atheist anti-religious philosophy just because it's interesting, and people assume those things are inherently {{em|community identities}} for a specific group of White people and think that if you're interested in something you must be a monster, while in reality I just want to explore the idea of different possible worlds and how to know what's real and imagine all the possible afterlives or lack thereof, and worldbuild 50 possible versions of Trotskyism. 
it's this kind of treatment that has really turned me against the entire concept of "community", and made me flinch whenever I hear that word. people seem to have this concept that there's not actually any such thing as knowledge or art or things that are invented or created, and somehow, there are only countable cultures that magically manifest art or philosophy while fans are socially linked and there, and also some countable cultures are inherently Good all the way through and some are inherently Evil all the way through just because they contain one particular individual (Richard Dawkins, etc). while in practice, if you try to believe that model, countable cultures easily just abuse each other for existing and based on stereotypes about each other, trying to eliminate each other, trying to change each other. I don't want to be part of a Community, not if it means that. [[E:Asocialism (meta-Marxism)|I just want the objects]] the so-called "community" is about, like the books or the programming languages or the creative exercises (fan fiction and theories etc). the single exception is Marxism. I do Marxism in the attempt to be part of a socially-linked group of people, because the entire purpose of it is to understand and create societies, usually in the form of union republics or national populations. 
what's the point of getting into a book or game or whatever if I'm just going to have to hide that I like that thing from other people the moment I like something else and start interacting with people that are part of its "community", where every "community" gets suspicious of you for ever getting too far away from the specific narrow obsession that defines it? the more I see of "communities", fandom or demographic identity, the more I feel like Community itself prevents "communities" from naturally going together in [[E:Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome]] and becoming a bigger Community. community itself can be a kind of lesser imperializing force just because it's Community. when people believe anarchism or post-Marxism (which is functionally blue anarchism), they believe this critical-theory concept that individuals being part of society can give them Power, but because that doesn't actually exist at the levels of society they think it does and only at other levels, it becomes this pain point where individuals are just kind of beating everyone up everywhere they go, metaphorically, until Somehow after you've become Goku and grinded up your RPG level by knocking people over that results in you having agency. nobody is actually happy with this. anarchism is highly traumatizing.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5109" data-dimension="S2">Men are safe, including Bryan the misogynist / Not all men are bad, including Bryan the misogynist / Not All Men -> this is what building every theory of negative interactions around attacking "stereotypes" gets you. when people push back on it through the language of "men" it's because they don't have the language to properly describe the highly complicated thing that is actually going on, so their animal instincts (trauma) go back to the last visual image associated with every negative experience to try to avoid environmental danger as an individual. this is natural, not a learned cultural process of "stereotypes". the human brain must be able to accurately predict the source of danger to stop looking for danger everywhere and narrow it down to the limited set of situations where danger actually occurs. this requires nothing less than predicting society, and predicting the likely level of risk implied by every single individual's behavior, knowing their future patterns of behavior to great accuracy. nothing else allows people to be themselves without becoming a false-positive threat to someone. you can't reduce it down to an individual recommendation of "good communication" or "don't be threatening" because that will involve telling a Black person somewhere not to speak in dialect just so somebody doesn't somehow pull "danger" out of that; it will involve squashing entire language-games and countable cultures that don't overlap with another population's set of common and known-nonthreatening signifiers. people really do have to know about the relationships between entire populations and how to predict individuals' behavior based on what population they really actually belong to in practice, or you will get antagonistic interactions whenever people meet each other and a lot of people afraid to even talk to anyone at all because they have no idea where the danger is and all they know is there is a lot more danger than they thought.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5110" data-dimension="S">language game / language which is not post-language (locally-used version of a language which has not been forcibly standardized and can be basically anything; meta-Marxism) / plural language (alternate version of the same language inside a national language; meta-Marxism) -> a language game is essentially a plural instance of language which is used by some particular group of people toward some particular end. two different language games used by different people do not need to overlap whatsoever even as they use the same words. I have complicated feelings about this concept. on one hand I do think that the way people construct language is relatively arbitrary. on the other hand, I find it strange that, at least the way people use these works — maybe we're getting a bit of a Gramsci situation here where everyone misuses them — people think Wittgenstein was out to eliminate language games and standardize language within the realm of philosophy. but if language games exist, which they probably do, you aren't really going to be able to achieve that. language games suggest that the most basic role of language is something other than communication. so I feel like the best you can realistically do is make sure people use ontology consistently even though the language games that point to ontology are never the same

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, LGBT, MX" value="5111" data-dimension="S2">Terms gain meaning from relationships to other terms / Signifiers gain meaning from their relationship to other signifiers -> Saussure. solid hit, home run. should be part of Marxism. what people don't realize is this is because language comes from physics. physics has relationships between things first and then language has them because it is trying to model and mirror and explain physics — or whatever material process it is trying to explain. networks of objects come first, then language and perception come second. this is Hyper-Materialism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="51,12" value="5112" data-dimension="S2">The only way to learn language is in the doing -> this is a nasty slope. it's one of the many ways philosophers smuggle in Lived Experience and positivism. this is why I refuse to refer to all exercises in ontology as "language" just because dictionaries contain definitions. no. ontology is not a matter of Lived Experience, as humanity has unfortunately learned by building machines that do ontology. a machine that doesn't seriously experience anything can now build an ontology which can be looked at two levels removed from subjective experience.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="51,12" value="5112" data-dimension="S2">Human language is rooted in Lived Experiences / "language is rooted in human experience and relationships" -> no. no. human language is rooted in the fact humans belong to social networks. graphs. language has networks and humans have networks and when you are part of a sea of free-floating entities you must physically obtain information about that system while inside it. that is Einstein's theory of relativity. a camera can do relativity just by being physical and being part of the world as it takes a picture. it doesn't have much to do with human "experience". we could all be philosophical zombies [[E:LLMs are philosophical zombies|and still have language]]. in certain limited senses, The Subject is a machine and relativity is a piece of the machine.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5113" data-dimension="S2">Logic probes ontology / Logic probes the connected graphs of words inside words inside words that we call language -> stop, Wittgenstein. stop calling ontology language. ...you know, there's a certain irony here. he said the whole purpose of philosophy is to untangle language. but you can't even do that if you think ontology is language and you don't eventually untangle them.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5114" data-dimension="F2">Language cannot be private -> the clam that language must refer to something outside each individual mind in order to be able to communicate. I think this is technically false. this assumes the goal of language is to communicate, rather than purely to describe the ontological relationships between things. I feel like if you go in assuming language is for communicating you could pick up a stack of academic papers and think they aren't really language because most people don't understand any of those words. but if you worked in that field you'd know that what the jargon terms contain is particular ontologies of things connected to each other. it only really takes one isolated mind to come up with that, not even two. the fact another human being can interpret a heap of jargon is almost incidental to its original purpose, a thing that happens in parallel rather than in a neat causal line from jargon to interpretability.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5115" data-dimension="S2">Language can be private -> I really don't think it's impossible for individuals to have a private language referring to only their own thoughts and perceptions. it's certainly inadvisable, but inadvisable things are not impossible. here's why I think this is true. a group of Egyptian priests can all agree on a language, but other people could come back to an inscription hundreds of years later and have no idea what it says. the inscription created by the priests wasn't in reference to anything that was public to the whole world of all humans. it was only public to everyone in the group of priests. which is to say, it was private to all European archaeologists, not public. the hard barrier between ancient cultures and modern-day countable cultures shows that nothing has to be truly shared between minds, all perceptions are potentially localized and individual until the moment that they are communicated in a way that another person really truly understands. this is a different statement than saying that people don't live in or perceive the same reality, which they do. the problem is that all minds are separated by the Last Unicorn effect, where everyone starts from the same world but constructs their own "fantasy" version of the world complete with both realistic models that come very close to how real objects behave and unreal mirages we can call "unicorns". everyone has the same reality, but everyone has their own unicorns. and this difference in unicorns means that some words refer to unicorns other people don't have at the moment, at least until they very closely examine what on earth another person is assuming and successfully reconstruct the missing unicorns.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5116" data-dimension="S2">Every language contains a plurality of languages / Languages are always plural, even when they're singular / language versus post-language proposition -> yeah, this is what bothered me about the overview I listened to of Wittgenstein's theory of language. the overview did not go into the concept that "the way philosophers use language" could represent multiple Englishes rather than one English, multiple versions of German, and so forth. if such a thing is the case, telling people it's important to use the same terms and concepts won't even work, because people will just rebel to defend their right to have their own local languages. when people are all converted to the same "cultural language", such as German, it doesn't mean they all actually speak the same language, because they then just speak different versions of German based on the different ideologies they believe. serious Christians in Germany might have one version of German, nonbelievers might have another. West Germans might have one version of German full of anticommunism, East Germans might have another full of definitions friendly to Bolshevism. in other words, ideologies are the new languages. ideologies are countable cultures; countable cultures have languages; countable cultures rebel when not given self-determination. even if the people in them are Evil. national independence and Freedom don't care if people are Evil, they just thrash around to realize themselves.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="5117" data-dimension="S">Dawkinsian language usage / Matt Dillahunty language usage -> the type of language usage that does not prescribe required meanings for each word but does prescribe underlying ontological distinctions which should be used in defining all words: Dawkins says Einsteinian religiousness is not religion and means precisely that whatever words people use should preserve that distinction, whether the words are "the spiritual" and "religion", "Einsteinian religion" and "religion", etc. 
I would censor this to demote "Dawkins", but that doesn't actually work on normal people because they'll always say the person you claim to be better than Dawkins is just as bad and practically an Arab- and Jew-hater purely for not letting people believe religion. so I've given up on trying to make any statement about religion sound "sensitive", because why even try that if it's the abstract concept that makes people angry? I guess angry concepts just have to have angry words.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="5118" data-dimension="S">Wittgensteinian language usage -> the type of language usage that fails to separate words from ontological constructs (signifier equations) that lie inside language and that large language models trace in a superficial way. this doesn't have a precise definition yet but one thing it could mean is insisting that every term applied to things is really literal instead of a figurative way to refer to something which could practically be the same thing depending on the circumstance — that Einstein can't refer to awe as religion as a way of defanging religion and showing that it was only another name for awe.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="5119" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5120" data-dimension="S2">Language is just a bunch of math -> sounds ridiculous at first unless you've already come to understand language is a bunch of signifier equations, and then you're like, oh, yeah, it really is just a bunch of things inside of other things that we only assign arbitrary names to, it's not too big of a leap from that to saying it's literally just math.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5121" data-dimension="S2">Language is about intensional set definitions / Language is about intensional set definitions, not intuition -> you can separately claim that intensional set definitions are based on intuition, but I think it's critical to make this separation between studying language and studying intensional non-well-formed set theory so that we show that language is more mechanical and less intrinsically poetic than people think. (replace "mechanical" with "[[Term:reterminism|reterministic]]" if that word sounds too anti-dialectics to you. I tend to use the words mechanical and mechanism very colloquially so that even dialectical things are called machines; I think everyone constantly bringing up [[Term:machine|Deleuze and Guattari]] is what helped corrupt me there.) if you show that much, it's easier to tear people away from the concept that everything social is about Lived Experience versus dialectical materialism and repeated historical processes.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5122" data-dimension="S2">Language is actually lambda calculus / Signifier equations can be conceptualized as lambda calculus functions, which means that the meaning of any sentence amounts to one big lambda calculus calculation -> it sounds like a joke until you really think about what it means for a language model to hypothetically truly know what an apple is and what it can do with an apple. an apple is an edible round object that can be cut with a knife. this is a signifier equation saying that three kinds of physics apply to the object arbitrarily called an apple.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5123" data-dimension="S2">Unicorns are abstract math / Unicorns are just unrealistic math / Unicorns, the mirages which appear under the Last Unicorn effect, are simply lambda calculus constructs which make hypotheses about some defined reality and then do not predict that reality; in concept they may predict some other defined reality, even if that reality is fictional

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5124" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5125" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5126" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5127" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="51,28" value="5128" data-dimension="S">I took the initiative to create internet / I took the initiative in creating the internet [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q51,29|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="linguistics" data-qid="51,29" value="5129" data-dimension="S">let's eat grandpa / the first Undertale ever received / please workers only (sign installed in public place which appears to be an instruction to only obey workers) / Trotsky helped lay the foundations of the Third International galvanizing parties around the world / ([[User:RD/9k/Q51,29|RD/9k/Q51,29]])

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="HAS" value="5130" data-dimension="S">root-word mirage / root word mirage (searchable) / name-element mirage / ([[User:RD/9k/Q51,30|9k]])
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="51,31" value="5131" data-dimension="F2">Directional words end in -ward, therefore Squidward is a direction, and so are its original counterparts Edward, Hayward, and Siegward / ([[User:RD/9k/Q51,30|9k]])
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="51,32" value="5132" data-dimension="S2">"Hogwarts" is a direction / ([[User:RD/9k/Q51,30|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5133" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5134" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5135" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5136" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5137" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5138" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto poststructuralism (ES)" data-qid="51,39" value="5139" data-dimension="S2">Anti-racism education is an oxymoron / The concepts of "anti-racism" and "education" are in contradiction because the purpose of education is to teach ontologies and methods for testing ontologies but every ontology potentially contains errors relative to the real world and thus any attempt to educate people on anything can potentially be taken as a malicious prejudice if it is not specifically educating people as unique human individuals in how to socially connect and make friends with particular real people that exist and learn particular real people's exact Lived Experiences that exist independent of history books and cannot be taught through any history book or classroom -> the shocking but entirely logical conclusion you reach if you try to believe poststructuralism instead of calling it stupid, and try to believe that poststructuralism is compatible with the general concept of anti-racism. I have to say. I can't hate this when I simply look at how unbelievably coherent it is, but at the same time it's a headache because if it was true, how the {{censor|hell}} would you actually fix education besides abolishing education for anything but immediately useful skills, and general Existentialist principles for being nice to people? I can't help but feel like poststructuralism is anti-education. and that hurts my non-neurotypical brain because making snap decisions correctly in a small period of time, like you have to if you're going to apply Existentialist Principles Of Being Nice To Everybody, is one of the things I'm almost totally incapable of doing. I constantly forget every action I did less than 5 minutes ago unless I deliberately think about it many times over the course of several hours. I have no idea where I put my keys unless I can see them on the table and suddenly remember why I put them there. I have to check the empty washing machine "for safety" just to know I didn't leave my clothes in there. (typing that made me panic and check the washing machine.) I function a lot better if I can actually read up on countries or populations as material objects and try to get a genuine understanding of what bigger processes are going on. the notion that everything can be solved by calling out supposedly correct and incorrect behaviors of individuals against individuals, in a world where there are often multiple contradictory pressures on individuals to regard the "right" thing to do as both totally mandatory and totally unacceptable, is alien to me. is anybody going to care about intuitively, empathetically understanding the Lived Experience of {{em|my}} {{censor|shit}} brain that can't guess the right decisions for {{censor|shit}}? no.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="51,40" value="5140" data-dimension="S">a regular Arab, not an evil one / a regular Russian, not an evil one (in reference to reactionary ideologies in modern Russia) / attempting to teach isolated reactionary populations about anti-essentialism through misguided inclusions of their existing stereotypes in the definition / ([[User:RD/9k/Q691|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5141" data-dimension="S2">Humans perceive random behavior as malicious / Humans perceive random behavior as inconsiderate
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5142" data-dimension="S2">Behaving compassionately requires cultural conditioning / Behaving compassionately requires education on specific material facts about reality -> this is to be contrasted with the notion that just not thinking and expecting absolutely nothing or erasing stereotypes is enough to turn people into good people. no. they really have to go through the phase of learning about and constructing "a regular Arab, not an evil one". 
this has some very serious implications for things like Gramscianism. say that every minority person gets into industry and academia and they all ban outward acts of prejudice. the surrounding population of Unqualified Bigots will never learn anything or become better just by sitting there. every bit of education costs them something. money, time socializing with others instead of being all alone watching Black history videos, etc. and if they aren't in positions of everyday power where they have the ability to earn a lot of money it just becomes more costly to bother learning anything and more cost-effective to stay uneducated. which will leave them in a base prejudiced state they pass down to their children for generations and generations. it's kind of the same problem people complain about with the Soviet Union where supposedly "they didn't educate everyone into French Revolution college students and it was their downfall!". you absolutely do not get rid of that by getting rid of Bolshevism, because the real problem is that education always comes with a cost to the point it flat-out requires a certain greedy hoarding instinct such the most modest, non-greedy people won't get educated. if you doubt this, how easy would it be for you to get an introductory textbook on every college major, store all of them, and read all of them to the point of having a couple pages of notes? you'd quickly realize that education is almost as specialized an activity as running a retail store, not something everybody does — at the very least everyone makes priority decisions on several kinds of education to ignore. and unfortunately, education about the simple existence of other groups of people doing any of the things in any of the other books is one of the easiest things to leave behind.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5143" data-dimension="S2">Smashing signs turns behavior random / Smashing signs leads to random behavior / Poststructuralism is a terrible idea
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5144" data-dimension="M3">Does anti-essentialism apply to Trotskyists? / Is it possible to identify "a regular Trotskyist, not an evil one"? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q51,44|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5145" data-dimension="S2">Many acts of marketing perform education / Consumerism is inseparable from media representation -> it sometimes makes me nervous when people talk about "consumerism" or "overconsumption" without it being in the context of Marxism and the inability to control the shape that capitalism grows into so {{em|businesses}} don't waste money on things. it's not hard for someone to argue, however spuriously, that buying stacks of Media Representation is an overconsumption process either on the part of corporations or readers or the reviewers who keep saying people should buy it. a lot of art has a partial purpose of making people buy new books at full price instead of used ones in order to make money; in one sense the purpose of a lot of art is to be expensive. at the same time, look at something like Japanese anime and manga. publishers can support a seemingly endless churn of manga, a lot of which are similar to each other, and yet, every one of these that is translated for another country does a little bit to counteract prejudices against the country of Japan. capitalism is a very social process of going from no relationship to building bonds through exchanging goods, and in some senses, it's the process of us being more and more wasteful every day in order to better know each other. 
I'd like to see Trotskyists get a satisfactory model of world economic transition out of {{em|that}}

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5146" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5147" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5148" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5149" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5150" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5151" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5152" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5153" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5154" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5155" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5156" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5157" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5158" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5159" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5160" data-dimension="M3">why do US people say "inside thoughts" in public -> there are multiple causes
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5161" data-dimension="S2">privacy is the separation of individuals from society
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5162" data-dimension="S2">private is a smaller scale than public
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5163" data-dimension="S2">town squares are public spaces
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5164" data-dimension="S2">social platforms are public spaces
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5165" data-dimension="M3">why are social platforms regarded like houses when they are public spaces?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5166" data-dimension="S2">social platforms are capitalists parceling up the smallest scales of society
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5167" data-dimension="S2">social platforms operate on Filamentism -> the very smallest competing unit is two connected people, not one. either one creator and one commenter/viewer, or a team of creators
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5168" data-dimension="S2">The easiest way to resolve contradictions is to entirely walk away from them and prevent all the parts from developing -> explains why Liberal-republicanism over time develops fewer and fewer policies, or why people see two major corporations and walk away from them thinking it's a profound statement but practically it's not
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5169" data-dimension="S2">The easiest way to obey a constitution is not to have a society

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=51,70|Q2=5170}}All political ideologies can be defined in terms of how they define the concept of freedom (meta-Marxism) / freedom and existential-materialist prediction (motif) -> I hate that this is how real-world politics always seems to work but the closer I look at it the more it's hard to deny this is technically true
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=51,71|Q2=5171}}Liberty is freedom from constraint / Liberty is the ability to choose the means and ends of one's activities; this is to imply that liberty is individual self-determination in which individuals can choose their own path without constraint; this is to imply that liberty is disposing of one particular protected domain independent of all else (property) as long as it does not violate the law (Hayek) -> Q51,71 implies but does not state Q51,73
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=51,72|Q2=5172}}Liberty must be restricted to not impede on other people's liberty -> this one really gives me pause. I feel like this conclusion is doing a lot of heavy lifting. doesn't it inherently require the creation of a class of people that all live the same way? there's no other way to regulate people if you don't first make them predictable by proposing a particular way for every single person to have Freedom without treading over other people's Freedom, which you can then require them to do in order for them to control themselves without external regulation. I feel like this creates petty production all by itself even without capitalism already existing
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=51,73|Q2=5173}}Political and social liberty depend on economic liberty -> wait this is backhandedly true. it defines both the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. beautiful

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=51,74|Q2=5174}}positive freedom
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=51,75|Q2=5175}}negative freedom / liberty (the absence of restriction)
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=ES, LR|Q=51,76|Q2=5176}}Liberty is the foundation of all else (John Locke)

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, LR|Q=51,77|Q2=5177}}The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution 
The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution + ?? = color revolution.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5178" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5179" data-dimension="S">??

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, ES onto ES, ES onto LR|Q=51,80|Q2=5180}}post-structuralist philosophy (field) / post-structuralism (when not constrained to the scope of linguistics; field)

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=51,81|Q2=5181}}Money is useful because people chose it / You can know currency is the best choice when it is the one people naturally aligned onto (Austrian school of economics) -> deeply misleading. even if people make an adequate choice, the fact they made the choice isn't the inner logic that actually {{em|makes}} it a satisfactory choice. this is the kind of economic theory that reduces the meaningful reasoning ability of human beings to people being [[E:as smart as a glass of water|exactly as smart as a glass of water]].

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=51,82|Q2=5182}}as smart as a glass of water -> appears in: {{book|MDem}} 5.3.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=51,83|Q2=5183}}Post-structuralism makes democratic representatives impossible / In a fully post-structuralist civilization democratic representatives are impossible because people can always decide not to align with them or let them do anything 
<nowiki>#</nowiki>NotMyPresident + duplexed a million times = Post-structuralism makes democratic representatives impossible

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=51,84|Q2=5184}}post-structuralist civilization / post-structuralist society -> the motif of a physical, material group of people which has no outer shape or form and whose only definitive structure is links between individuals constantly changing. the Existentialist-(Post)Structuralist tradition is the shovel dream of this kind of physical society, which to some extent already exists beneath Liberal-republicanism as the "shape" that capitalism has.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5185" data-dimension="S">??
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=51,86|Q2=5186}}Post-structuralism runs on prejudice (existential materialism) / In a post-structuralist society, where the shape of civilization is shapeless or formless and the only definitive structure is links between individuals constantly changing, it must be accepted that prejudice is natural and not something anyone can actually get rid of -> I've said this phrased many other ways (one way I've said it is "Gramscian approaches to media") but I may as well add one that specifically gets the term "post-structuralist" in there because that's more precise to who actually endorses this stuff 
post-structuralist civilization + ?? = Post-structuralism runs on prejudice.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES, MX onto PT|Q=51,87|Q2=5187}}Post-structuralist anarchy is indistinguishable from Toryism / Because she is willing to adapt to new situations and coast through science academia and critical theory getting defunded, Sabine Hossenfelder is not just a Tory but a post-structuralist anarchist -> this is one of those things you only arrive at after thinking about a whole lot of things to derive an ontology of different Bauplans; if the proposition is confusing to you, you just haven't been following along with meta-Marxism. anyway. recently I was revisiting the video where Sabine Hossenfelder talks about how defunding academia and letting it fall to a bunch of private organizations is basically just the same thing as having government programs and it doesn't matter to her; having a philosophy where she literally just adapts to anything, she was fine with the idea of taking a flawed structure, smashing it to pieces, and letting a diffuse cloud of individuals including academics and capitalists just sort of stochastically assemble through their individual motions and individualized judgement back into something functional. by some people's rubrics, she is an average Tory, not a [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|blue anarchist]] or anything. but as far as I can tell, the way she goes about her day is indistinguishable from "poststructuralist anarchy". [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/13n1te1/regarding_postmodernism_and_post_structuralist/] the whole thing seems to leave a giant loophole for Toryism to fester wildly and spawn nazisms. I can see how it isn't identical with individualist anarchism because it has that sort of "pseudo MDem" character of localized countable objects (individuals) interacting and assembling into larger countable objects. but even so it seems like garbage. no matter how much [[E:chaos magic|chaos magic]] you invoke, every "changeable structure in flux" will be made of eating, space-occupying organisms which can kill each other, and due to that, the more things are open and in flux the more killing can happen.

</li><li class="field_exstruct field_LGBT" data-qid="51,88" value="5188" data-dimension="S">Billy Herrington condoning Japanese war crimes {{YouTube|Doc4cbqB-_s}} -> an incident which I think reveals a lot about normal human psychology. people want to believe that "society" or "humanity" is separable from populational boundaries, wars, and politics, and that they can simply form a connection to something <s>(yes, in this case edits of a gay porn tape.)</s> and that people who always seem nice are nice, while in reality that isn't necessarily true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=51,89|Q2=5189}}Post-structuralism is something to overthrow

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=51,90|Q2=5190}}Post-structuralist anarchism led to the YouTube algorithm -> when you think about it, "Algorithms" are almost tailor-made to mess with post-structuralist anarchists. they let you act individually. they let you withdraw from people with awful views that you don't like. they let you sort around and reward people who supposedly are free from "domination" (like "colonialism", I'm starting to hate that word for how much a typical use of it vulgarizes the concept it's talking about). they let you withdraw from the rest of society as much as you want.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=51,91|Q2=5191}}Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=51,92|Q2=5192}}The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat post-structuralism / The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat Blobonomics -> so often it's not the owners that are actually causing the problems, it's everyone's commitment to the notion of structures being temporary and constantly being fixed not by any sort of knowledge or analysis but by breakages, swapping, "lines of flight" to other structures. physical post-structuralism has the power to take anyone who desires to form an organization and turn that person into an isolated shop. it's bad news.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5193" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5194" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5195" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5196" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5197" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5198" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5199" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5200" data-dimension="S">microdistrict / walkable neighborhood / car-free neighborhood
</li><li class="field_ML" value="5201" data-dimension="S">microdistrict (Soviet Union)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="5202" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="5203" data-dimension="S2">mass-produced building
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5204" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyists could have created microdistricts -> I have been looking for so long for one possible policy that Trotskyists would not be too stupid / too tiny of a group of somewhat smart people to figure out. I have finally found one example. in the weird in-between period between the death of Stalin and the overall erosion of the CPSU was exactly when the country created cheap mass-produced buildings. it would seem that the cause of this is more that from 1920-1960 there were constant wars and right after this things were calmer than that the anti-Stalinists truly showed up with all the only good ideas. that said, this stuff certainly happened without Stalin, and microdistricts are one of those things where as soon as someone invents them they're almost harder to screw up than to do correctly. in my mind, this means that if Trotsky had not been lying to people, he could have gotten people together to build some microdistricts in Kazakhstan before everybody migrated out of there, and it would have at least been something. if you put up a number of sensibly-structured towns you don't have to go complaining that the bureaucrats took them over and there's no way you can restore the soviets. whatever a soviet is going to look like in your mind you have a better chance if everything is well-structured rather than strung out. right? why is it that Trotsky believed he could change the whole world and yet he seemed to get hopelessly frustrated with changing a single meeting. why is it that it's easy for me to think of ways Trotskyism could have proved it wasn't one big lie but it was so hard for the actual 1930s Trotskyites that think it's their critically-important duty to keep the country going and save the country from Stalin to think of any of this

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5205" data-dimension="S2">Microdistricts are a Filamentist deception / Walkable cities are practically speaking a creation by linked circles of small businesses who will continue to have all society's agency and education -> the depressing reality that set in after I saw a mini-documentary about capitalist developers "kindly" building walkable neighborhoods in Arizona. {{YouTube|4UAZMEpOKTI}} they reacted with surprise that people actually wanted to lease business spaces. they had to build a parking lot at the edge of the thing to support businesses actually getting income from outside. realistically, this is going to be pitched as a real place to live but then the people who draw in commerce from other cities to the parking lots are going to be the people who control the rest of the people living in the town. because where is the income that causes your walkable neighborhood to exist? is everyone going to take a bus to a factory or what? quite honestly, this makes me nervous about the whole concept of microdistricts. do you accidentally bake in reversion to bourgeois control by building those? capitalism fundamentally comes from the chunking up of society into separate islands where particular people are responsible for holding the island together (capitalists, investors, Filaments of First-World banks, etc.). I'm now having a crisis wondering if microdistricts actually sunk the Soviet Union because they accidentally created isolated chunks of people.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="5206" data-dimension="S2">Microdistricts have terrible parking -> the more prosaic claim that microdistricts are badly designed to accommodate expansion, such that when anything else is added it results in people driving significant distances to shopping malls. this came with the implication that apartment complexes always need a churning business layer at the bottom. I have no idea if that's really true. it sounds... okay. it's not very different from deliberately placing things inside the microdistrict, and it makes them more "repeatable". the one thing I'm pretty sure of is that without a small-scale class-based model of society there's no properly understanding microdistricts and how to fix them. all of the issues connected to a microdistrict are directly connected to population growth and the active growth of cities out of nothing as well as the conflict between individuals for slots in things. you'd have to have an active model of people being added to a population one by one in various patterns and creating businesses in various patterns to get things right over time and not make mistakes. suburbs are the error of not knowing what comes after the core of a city (which the bourgeoisie always get to make the first move building), while "microdistrict parking disasters" are what you get if you start at the houses and people's right to live there and hit a wall of not knowing the edges of the thing beginning there. there's like this fundamental error in predicting the result of the city as it builds itself into reality where you can't just bring in an expert to make a good city on day one and you genuinely have to fix the predictions of where the city is going each year to plan it correctly.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="5207" data-dimension="S">Soviet lawn nightmare -> so apparently, microdistricts led to huge areas of lawn between buildings that were annoying to keep mowed. that's kind of a funny anecdote subject. I wonder how much anarchists would hate this when they're always going on about lawns and the "colonialism" of lawns. would they think this was just as bad? I have no idea.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="Soviet Union" value="5208" data-dimension="S">housing queue -> one of the consequences of microdistricts or more specifically of building housing on demand. people still have to interact with the availability of slots in a city and see if they actually get in.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5209" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5210" data-dimension="M3">Are you building a neighborhood for retired people? -> a question everybody trying to fix capitalism through "urban planning" needs to contemplate. for a lot of existing United States housing developments the answer is "yes". they're built for people to retire into but not for anybody to actually be able to go to work.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5211" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5212" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5213" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5214" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5215" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5216" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5217" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5218" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5219" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="5220" data-dimension="S">collective farm
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5221" data-dimension="S">single large farm with government tractors
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5222" data-dimension="S">collection of small farms
</li><li class="field_ML" value="5223" data-dimension="S2">Collective farms brought the Soviet people together -> surprisingly true for a period of about 10 years or so. I think there was a moment it stopped being true, which had happened by 1953-1960, but I don't know what year it would have happened.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5224" data-dimension="S2">Joining small farms did not succeed / Stalin's government joining small farms into a corporate entity did not succeed -> I'm willing to accept that this might be true, but for utterly the wrong reasons. Existentialists really want to think that collective farms fail because Bolshevism is bad and joining things together is bad... but what if collective farms failed because small farms are bad and fundamentally will never be as good as big farms even when you connect them? that's a scary thought, because it means a whole lot of anarchist rhetoric that supposedly "helps" social-democracy has to be thrown out. but something being scary doesn't mean it isn't true.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5225" data-dimension="S2">Amazon is one big "collective farm" / Amazon is an entity joining many separate small entities to the same pitfalls as a collection of small farms -> I can't figure out, under capitalist logic, why collective farms are so "bad" we recreated the same thing on a gigantic scale. my best answer is that this structure is totally undesigned and arose by historical necessity when the structures people actually wanted didn't work.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5226" data-dimension="S2">Private equity is a modern form of collectivization (collectivisation; meta-Marxist claim)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5227" data-dimension="S2">Private equity isn't the problem / Small businesses blame private equity for businesses failing and getting gutted but it's really small businesses' fault -> the trap of small businesses being supposedly innocent is so hard to see through it took me weeks to realize this was a possibility.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5228" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5229" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5230" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5231" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5232" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5233" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5234" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5235" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5236" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5237" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5238" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5239" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5240" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5241" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5242" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5243" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5244" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5245" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5246" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5247" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5248" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5249" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5250" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5251" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5252" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5253" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5254" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5255" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5256" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5257" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5258" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5259" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5260" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5261" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5262" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5263" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5264" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5265" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5266" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5267" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5268" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5269" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5270" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5271" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5272" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5273" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5274" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5275" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5276" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5277" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5278" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5279" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li data-qid="52,80" value="5280" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">adventure (fictional event) 
adventure + Jungian psychoanalysis = adventure narrative / monomyth (description of literary genre claiming to be description of most stories)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,81" value="5281" data-dimension="S">kingdom (<cite>Adventure Time</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,82" value="5282" data-dimension="S">adventure vs daily life / quest of discovery and growth versus daily life / ordinary world versus special world (near-synonym but not precisely the same; Joseph Campbell?, Writer's Journey) -> in AT, weirdly. s8 e27

</li><li data-qid="52,83" value="5283" data-remark="total episodes" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Adventure Time</cite> -> great series. has a bunch of themes of character growth and maturity, between coming of age stories and Simon, Jermaine, etc. makes me think about Existentialism. not really a problem with the show in any way. the show actually makes a number of jokes about how it could try to complicate things with philosophy and then is like, I don't know if this actually means much of anything to be honest, I mean maybe it could but dunno. I think that's very respectable. I wish all the Existentialist writers like Sartre and whoever had that much humility.
</li><li data-qid="52,84" value="5284" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Candy Kingdom
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,85" value="5285" data-dimension="S">Ice Kingdom
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,86" value="5286" data-dimension="S">Fire Kingdom
</li><li data-qid="52,87" value="5287" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Evergreen's wishing crown (<cite>Adventure Time</cite>) -> hypothetically, I may or may not be coding this in order to compare it to fanmade universes.
</li><li data-qid="52,88" value="5288" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q5288|Princess Bubblegum]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,89" value="5289" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q5289|Ice King]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,90" value="5290" data-dimension="S">Flame Princess
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,91" value="5291" data-dimension="S">apocalyptic event (<cite>Adventure Time</cite>) -> there are at least two on the core timeline, not just one.
</li><li data-qid="52,92" value="5292" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">history (Adventure Time)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,93" value="5293" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Fionna and Cake</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,94" value="5294" data-dimension="S">Cake the cat
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,95" value="5295" data-dimension="S">Fionna the human
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,96" value="5296" data-dimension="S">Jake the dog
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,97" value="5297" data-dimension="S">Finn the human
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,98" value="5298" data-dimension="S">Shermy
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,99" value="5299" data-dimension="S">Beth
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5300" data-dimension="S">GOLB
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,01" value="5301" data-dimension="S">Simon Petrikov
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="52,02" value="5302" data-dimension="S">Betty

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5303" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5304" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5305" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5306" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5307" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5308" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5309" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="53,10" value="5310" data-dimension="M3">Why isn't BMO a crab? ({{film|Adventure Time}}) / "In what way isn't a crab a robot? ... I don't understand why BMO's not a crab" -> finally, we get to the real meat of a philosophy encyclopedia: the totally useless questions that still might somehow teach you something. (Adventure Time season 8 episode 22)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5311" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5312" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5313" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5314" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5315" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5316" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5317" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5318" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5319" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5320" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5321" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5322" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5323" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5324" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5325" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5326" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5327" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5328" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5329" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,30" value="5330" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Chronicles of Narnia</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,31" value="5331" data-dimension="S">wardrobe (<cite>Chronicles of Narnia</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,32" value="5332" data-dimension="S">Narnia
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="53,33" value="5333" data-dimension="S">Everything moral comes from God / God is the source of everything moral / The nature of God informs everything we observe which is moral, which means the nature of everything we observe which is moral is an example of the nature of God -> religious claims are boring until you start logically combining them with other things that overlap onto the same topics, and then they become way too funny. 1) God is the source of everything moral. 2) Trotskyists believe the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy was moral. 3) If you're a Trotskyist, God is the source of Trotskyism. 3b) If you're a Stalin follower God is the source of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. 3c) If you're Ronald Reagan, God is the source of the Cold War and will be the source of Donald Trump. 4) Which thing is actually God?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,34" value="5334" data-dimension="S">Aslan
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,35" value="5335" data-dimension="S2">International war is similar to friendships / World War I is similar to friendships -> Wings of Fire
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,36" value="5336" data-dimension="S2">Monotheism is similar to friendships (fiction) -> more or less seen in real-world religion, but that should be a separate item
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,37" value="5337" data-dimension="S2">Escaping reality is similar to friendships / Detaching from reality is similar to friendships / Fantastical adventures in another world are similar to friendships / Escapism is similar to friendships -> see also Deltarune; connects friendship to schizoanalytic Escape
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="53,38" value="5338" data-dimension="S2">Preventing global empire is similar to friendships / Preventing imperialism is similar to family relationships -> Steven Universe, Wings of Fire. for the longest time I didn't understand this one at all until I realized it was basically a depiction of intersubjectivity theories and the problem was that it was based on theories about real life which were false.
</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="53,39" value="5339" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5340" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5341" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5342" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5343" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5344" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5345" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5346" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5347" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5348" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5349" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR, MX onto ES, MX onto W" data-qid="53,50" value="5350" data-dimension="S">mandate of competence / meritocracy (center-Liberalism; Liberal-republicanism which is not Toryism) / cultural leaders taking the helm of a better culture (Gramscianism) 
microhierarchy + general-sense psychoanalyst = mandate of competence

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5351" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5352" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5353" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5354" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5355" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5356" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="53,57" value="5357" data-remark="7 as number of power; 5315" data-dimension="S2">Progressives deserve the mandate of competence because they "refuse violence" / Progressives are better than reactionaries specifically because they do not practice "violence" -> thanks Giggleland. [[redlink - reactionaries are Voldemort|evil sorcerer]] who [[redlink - defunding education|shut down our schools]]? while the game narrative is said to have been written by a kid in some version of "the real world"? could be a coincidence, but if it isn't, is kind of transparent.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5358" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5359" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR, MX onto IV, MX onto Zv, MX onto PT, MX onto A" data-qid="53,60" value="5360" data-dimension="S">radial conservatism (meta-Marxism) / all-directional conservatism (relativistic; duplexed; meta-Marxism) / sectarianism (refusal to accept a new ideology with a specific connotation of clinging to one's current ideology because among some group of people it's "traditional") / dogmatism (refusal to consider a new ideology or acknowledge an ideology with a specific connotation that ideologies that have technically existed before it or without it are better) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q53,60|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5361" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5362" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5363" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5364" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5365" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5366" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5367" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5368" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5369" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="53,70" value="5370" data-dimension="F2">Speedrunning is for cheaters / ([[User:RD/9k/Q53,73|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5371" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML, MX onto Aa" data-qid="53,72" value="5372" data-dimension="S2">Difficulty is the lack of being able to pay for something to be done by someone else (outsourcing; "farming" people; meta-Marxism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q53,73|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="53,73" value="5373" data-dimension="S">Soviet Union as challenge run / ([[User:RD/9k/Q53,73|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5374" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5375" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5376" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5377" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="53,78" value="5378" data-dimension="F2">The bourgeoisie invented polyamory

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Aa, W" data-qid="53,79" value="5379" data-dimension="S2">Jung's model of psychological repression describes part of the inner process of creating dialectical reversals (Jungian repression describes; psychoanalysis) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,80" value="5380" data-dimension="S">seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis (seeing Bolshevism; Jungian psychoanalysis) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5383|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,81" value="5381" data-dimension="F2">Outlawing gay marriage is obviously wrong / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5383|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,82" value="5382" data-dimension="S2">We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5383|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="53,83" value="5383" data-dimension="S2">Gay movements are against the proletariat ({{TTS|tts=Soviet Union|USSR}}) / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5383|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,84" value="5384" data-dimension="F2">Freudian repression identifies Marxist errors / Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,85" value="5385" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Capitalist Unconscious</cite> (Tomšič 2015) {{YouTube|U4OMoXWtVT8}} -> part of a certain localized underground effort to attempt to explain away all Marxism and Liberalism through molecularized or atomized Lacanianism. I cannot stand this {{censor|bullcrap}}. I have so much other stuff to read that's actually good in some way and you throw this {{censor|shit}} at me. <s>deliberate Existentialism gets more swearwords out of me than almost anything because there are almost no words in human language for how stupid this is, there is basically nothing else to say.</s> anyway. this is not really a conspiracy or anything, it's just a very very stupid trend that has been slowly hatching itself as everything in First World countries resembling Marxism has squashed and degraded into these bizarre attempts to construe everything through themes of "free will" and "prejudice". like, when I say everything I mean {{em|everything}}. I don't mean people saying "racism is more prominent than capitalist abuse, you ought to think about prejudice". I mean "resistance to questioning capitalism is literally a prejudice", "resistance to Menshevism is literally a prejudice against empathy for the poor", and Lacanians in particular trying to conceptualize every case of somebody not taking an action and not supporting a progressive movement as a prejudice, like every single thing wrong in the world ever is just [[E:Every single wrong choice an individual has ever made is due to prejudice|another variety of prejudice]]. I cannot stand this. things have to be physical at some point. there has to be some physical object we are or process we are doing that we aren't conscious of the workings of, and some other process whose workings we could replicate instead, or else we'll never become conscious we're doing things wrong. if every wrong thing in the world is a prejudice including capitalism and imperialism, then none of us have human rights just because we're The Subject, because anything about our existence and identity and expression could contain prejudices that have to be smashed away, and thus existence doesn't equal freedom, existence equals inherent un-freedom and mutual exclusion between some identities and localized "cultures". Lacanians can't even agree with themselves, because some of them seem to believe in intersubjectivity / the Shenlong effect and some of them believe Subjects are uncontrollable, which would mean that calling things prejudices or using psychoanalysis on them is useless because the separation or joining between people or groups controls everything and history is all about populational structure. which ironically is almost getting back to historical materialism. so, I've come to halfway like the [[E:Vegeta effect|uncontrollable Subject model]] because if you're not a Lacanian it does seem fixable.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5386" data-dimension="S2">Profit is basically Muten Rōshi (Master Roshi; Lacanian psychoanalysis) / Profit is an act of {{censor|groping across}} some form of human psychological boundary -> I gotta admit I don't fully understand Lacanianism, thanks to all the absolute spaghetti every book or talk on it hits you with and makes you decode, but what {{em|is this}}. they make such strange models of things. we're beginning with symbolic castration or Lacanian discipline, where people in incomplete stages of growth form incorrect ideas about being an adult/Father and when people interact with others the incorrect ideas have to be cut off. also known as "desire", also known as {{TTS|tts=small-A|"a"}}. then we are throwing in {{i|jouissance}} or climax. the point of that is that to cross people's boundaries you have to do it the right way, and if people try to get there without going the right way, without seeking to know and understand the workings of the person, they get in trouble, and people forcefully teach them the rules of engagement with either that person or society. many kinds of addictions can be taken as crossing boundaries in a different sense, trying to skip to satisfaction without going through the material route that actually produces it. but the Lacanians say that profit is some kind of improper crossing of boundaries or something. {{em|whose}} boundaries? the boundaries of perfectly-shaped "degrowth" growth? the worker's boundaries? the figurative boundary between doing "real" things that are satisfying and becoming obsessed with profit?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="53,87" value="5387" data-dimension="S2">Addiction results when we misplace the journey and skip to the end / Addiction results when we skip over discovering the correct path through something and skip to the end / ([[User:RD/9k/Q53,73|9k]])

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ML, IV" data-qid="53,88" value="5388" data-dimension="S">Marxism failing to predict trans people -> this is one of the greatest thorns for Marxism. any number of issues can come up that affect only a small number of people and yet have not been predicted at all in anything Marx or Lenin said about transition out of class society and make Marxist methods of "understanding societal development and the future" simply look really stupid. outside of deliberate attempts by capital to discredit Marxism, this leads to people merely trying to understand the concept of "the future" gravitating to weird notions that the future is immune to science and can't be understood through Materialism because reality is truly unreachable and all human beings [[User:RD/9k/Q34,99|cram the universe into their heads]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="53,89" value="5389" data-dimension="S2">If addiction results from skipping over boundaries to get to the end, then historical materialism is the opposite of addiction / ([[User:RD/9k/Q53,73|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="53,90" value="5390" data-dimension="F2">If repression is the problem, Trotsky only needs to tell Stalin his vision of Bolshevism is terrible -> Rothenberg seemed to be claiming (hey now, I literally recommended the book to someone else and neither of us were able to follow all the way through it, so I'm not just lazy) that repression is causing all our problems and that's why "conversations" can supposedly solve everything. but if you apply the Trotsky model that makes no sense. historically, if all the Trotskyites were perfectly honest everyone would laugh them out of the room because of the perception they don't know anything. best case scenario you've got two totally different would-be countries that want to do things totally differently leading one to marginalize the other because people just want to get on with their lives and don't want the other group of people building and living the wrong way over the top of them. worst case scenario one of the countries is [[E:multicapitalism|many tiny countries]] of bourgeoisie and it's a blatant lie. on the other hand sometimes people are blatantly racist and think they have an impossible equation to find the superior ethnicity to produce on a given plot of land. you never know if people are doing that thing, from a different angle, to the Trotskyites.

</li><li data-qid="53,91" value="5391" class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" data-dimension="S2">Stalin vs Trotsky = Jung vs Lacan / Stalin versus Trotsky equals Jung versus Lacan -> this is most likely how psychoanalysts would take all my thought experiments about Stalin and Trotsky: strain everything through psychoanalysis and insist that everybody is only a different kind of psychoanalyst. the dumb thing is that somehow, while inside the United States, this might be a totally appropriate model of what discourse looks like. not one of other countries, but probably of the United States. sometimes it's baffling how it happened. sometimes I realize that capitalism being the only real structure that exists it stands to reason this would have happened. the only thing left to say is: where's the psychoanalysis that is much better than either Jung or Lacan so I don't have to simply throw away both of them?
</li><li data-qid="53,92" value="5392" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">Freud against Lenin is really Freud against Freud -> I wouldn't have caught this until I saw somebody not against the Soviet Union try to use Freud. it was a bad idea, but it was illuminating. what I realized was that there is one "Jungian" way to use psychoanalysis which ostensibly uses it in service of freedom, and one "Lacanian" way to use psychoanalysis which blatantly uses it in service of creating repression. almost every argument against the Soviet Union has actually been "Jungians" fighting "Lacanians" while claiming Lacanianism is the essence of Leninism. which makes it so very ironic Lacanians try to argue basically that repression is good after they claim Bolshevism is bad. that is totally incoherent; you might as well be Stalin.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5393" data-dimension="S2">Alchemy is a metaphor for the individuation process (Jung) -> well that's a claim. I feel like people have been saying this kind of thing about alchemy since alchemy was first invented, and they've tried to fit it to several different ideologies according to what ideology they believe. I've even had some fun with this myself. is alchemy a metaphor for Marxism? the point of alchemy is to look into the deep workings of the universe and apply them in order to create changes in it. you could say, "natural philosophers had only interpreted the world in various ways"... I think there's a much better case for comparing alchemy to Marxism than for comparing it to religion or whatever mystical system of self-discovery educated people believed back then. but by the time you get to that point it's like, are metaphors like this actually useful or are they just not adding any information in any of the cases? different thought: why do psychoanalysts believe in comparing alchemy to individuation if they adamantly don't believe in comparing chemistry and quantum mechanics to a scientific theory of society. those should be contradictory beliefs. but I think the answer always ties back to the conflict between historical materialism and historical "FreeWillIsm".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5398" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q53,98|Freudian psychoanalysis]] (early 1900s)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5399" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q53,99|Jungian psychoanalysis (mid 1900s)]] / analytical psychology (Jung's term) -> so apparently Jung spoke of government as "slavery" in that it was capturing individuals and forcing on them a kind of fake identity. this is the kind of guy that is trying not to be racist (?) but unlike Marx doesn't realize that [[Ontology:Q1844|uniting people into a population which is not based on religion is a critical step to not exterminating other religions]]. this kind of view of individuals and Freedom as being totally autonomous from a national population is why I think early-existentialism and psychoanalysis are part of the same connected thing.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5400" data-dimension="Z" data-tradition="Aa">[[Ontology:Q5400|Lacanian psychoanalysis]] / Lacanianism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5401" data-dimension="S" data-tradition="Aa">Subject who is supposed to know -> broadly correct but misleading. people assume that experts and celebrities have the answers? yes. nobody is actually an expert? no. groups of people actually have to make decisions that affect the group, which means somebody will always be nominated to explain them. tasks actually require experts to draw up plans of action and mobilize people. people really do depend on other people to supply their needs, they don't just go to experts to feel better than if they were alone as this framework implies.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5402" data-dimension="S2">If it's bad to trust the "Subject who is supposed to know", then "[[Ontology:Q4236|stale rat bread]]" arguments are bad -> derived Lacanian proposition. Žižek acts like he's as good as Trotsky (as low of a bar as that should be) because he doesn't like capitalists making the wrong decisions. but he also says that people "falsely" trust experts and therapists to have the answers when they don't. do you see the problem with putting those together? I'd think that if you put any value on the "Subject who's supposed to know" concept you wouldn't be able to argue that capitalists can be held responsible right now and you'd have to argue that every individual has an obligation to understand exactly how society works well enough to take it away from capitalists as the only way to ensure that anyone would run corporations responsibly.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5403" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5404" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5405" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5406" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5407" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5408" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5409" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5410" data-dimension="S2">People are not constantly open to sex / Human beings are not constantly open to sex -> the first claim in Freudian psychoanalysis. technically true. hard to dispute this one.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5411" data-dimension="S2">People have boundaries / Human beings have boundaries around any particular thing that another person asks them to do and can always reject it -> the ultimate point of Q54,10 is precisely that it proves this.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5412" data-dimension="S2">Children learn boundaries from parents / People learn the concept of boundaries from their parents / oedipus stage (Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian; psychoanalysis) / symbolic castration (connection of personal boundaries to language; psychoanalysis)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5413" data-dimension="S2">
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5414" data-dimension="S2">
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5415" data-dimension="S2">

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="54,16" value="5416" data-dimension="S">the right step in the wrong direction / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]])

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5417" data-dimension="S2">There exist Political Acts / Even though Lacanianism does not believe in the abolition of Liberal-republicanism there still exist "political acts" that can empower the individual -> this confused me to no end the first time I saw it until I started combining it with other propositions from Žižek's interviews and in anarchism and early Trotskyism, and then I finally started to get a vague idea what it really was. so in Rothenberg's book Žizek says these three things: A) Communists and fascists are paranoid dictators. B) History cannot be predicted; theories are dictatorial. C) There exist political acts. I got so confused by the contradiction between B and C given that it is a clear case of "[[E:Idealism forbids itself|Idealism forbids itself]]"; why did you write a book then? when I got into the history of poststructuralism, structuralist linguistics, phenomenology, and [[E:early-existentialism|existentialism]], I started to see how it wasn't a contradiction; yeah, there could be political theories without theory if they were solely about The Subject and the notion of Free Will somehow being more important than any theory. I had never even really heard of this before in my life or from any internet blogger or encyclopedia so I scrambled to give it a name and called the overall thing "Existentialism" with a capital E. inside Existentialism, the reasoning is this: acts of Free Will by either one person or many connected people are units of history, and they can theoretically create "democracy", defined as something like the construction of countries out of Free Will and freedom, but these acts of Free Will cannot be predicted by any group of theorists at least as long as they are not explicitly Existentialists and embedded into a particular group of Existentialists aiming for a particular act of Free Will. if Existentialists were smart but still believed in Existentialism, then they wouldn't actually say theories were impossible, they would simply say that nothing except Existentialism can predict Existentialism. they would also say if they were smart that Existentialism isn't impossible to racialize and it could totally form a race-based movement or an LGBT+black&brown movement as long as the thing contains no predictions and revolves around shouting Free Will and freedom as loudly as possible. all this is to say, almost all United States progressivism for the past 10 years or so has been Existentialism. Existentialism is on a basic level nonviolent and against anarchist violence, even when this limits its ability to actually enforce anything on anyone faced with a whole population of socially-linked people that isn't on board with Existentialism and sends in all its cops. Existentialism is like, this weird artifact of the United States tearing into two totally distinct nationality subpopulations of people joined together by but separated by politics in these almost purely culturally-defined ways where you get absolutely forced out of a political milieu as strongly as if you were a different class or a Tory stole your passport, the two populations locked in stalemate in every material way, and yet these two nations of people that utterly hate each other as much as they hate Cubans or Russians are both the bourgeoisie. so those are the basics of Existentialism. but Žižek has his own weird twist on it. he seems to have appropriated the concept in anarchism and the Trotskyite conspiracy that although a movement of Trotskyite conspirators will never be popular, once it sets its sights on an intolerable "[[E:stale rat bread|stale rat bread]]" regime, culture, or general experience of living on a population, when it makes the right kind of precision cut into the heart of the problem it cannot actually be stopped. [[E:Zinovievism|Žižek's Communism is Zinoviev's Communism]]. he believes that although some things [[E:Anarchism is definitionally Evil|can never be justified in any sense that is meaningful]], they will still happen in a particular necessary way when people are pushed enough. which is.... very strange when he doesn't believe in specific-sense historical materialism. he doesn't believe in historical materialism and yet he made a [[E:determinism in physics|deterministic]] statement [[E:statement of historical necessity|of historical necessity]]. this is part of why I place Žižek within the awful run-down edges of Trotskyism. he accidentally speaks of historical necessity much like a Trotskyist organization giving a talk about dialectical materialism within early Marxism and claiming to understand it, but he's against Stalin's government and he conceives of revolution as a special activity instead of something that is connected to class analysis and greater patterns in history. a very archaic philosophy. pre-Leninist in every meaningful way and yet he's totally a "Communist".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5418" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5419" data-dimension="F2">Property is as natural as not having sex / Because boundaries are natural, the Property boundary around business territories is natural -> the secret fallacy hiding inside most attempts to use psychoanalysis to "fix democracy". they inherently start from this concept of a "golden mean" that because everyone is a human individual [[E:natural law|the definition of boundaries and Evil conspiratorial acts of malice must be obvious]]. but if this is true, the best bad outcome that it results in is that Dave the sovereign citizen who hates Black people and wants to chill out in his cabin not following any of the laws of the United States is totally justified. and it only gets worse from there. is building Palestine a [[E:natural crime|natural crime]]? is separating Ukraine out of Russia a natural crime? if you begin with the concept that the world is fundamentally made of individuals and individuals' reactions to others' behavior, it's quite easy to end up there. related: every event that occurs around an individual while a particular individual is alive is called "Life".

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="54,20" value="5420" data-dimension="S">Alphys was India; do me / machine translations turning sexual for no reason / ([[User:RD/9k/Q54,21|9k]])
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="54,21" value="5421" data-dimension="S">red shatter effect / shattering red thing (Deltarune) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q54,21|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5422" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5423" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5424" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5425" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5426" data-dimension="S">??

{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|Q=54,27|Q2=5427}}Inequalities in the amount each individual can donate do not exist / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|Q=54,28|Q2=5428}}Inequalities in the amount each individual can pay in taxes do not exist / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|Q=54,29|Q2=5429}}Inequalities in the number of people each person knows do not exist / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|Q=54,30|Q2=5430}}You only need to affect 150 people to change a whole country {{YouTube|66wen6C4UNw}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5431" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5432" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5434" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5435" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5436" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5437" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5438" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5439" data-dimension="S">the culture / The Culture (written reference to "the culture" of a national population such as the United States, making no attempt to analyze where it comes from and yet making the bold assumption there is only one) / Our Culture (written reference to "the culture" of [[E:Our Democracy (Liberal-republicanism)|"our"]] national population or belonging to a single ostensibly undivided "we") -> the motif of the entire United States population or everyone in some specific region of the United States being an arbitrary series of cultural events in time, or supposedly being a single countable culture when in reality [[E:plurality|it might not be]]. 
example: "the culture had changed". how do you know culture is a "The"?

</li><li value="5440" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q5440|When two people have information, everybody has it]] / When two people know something, everybody knows it / printing press fallacy / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])
</li><li value="5441" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q5441|Knowledge cannot teleport]] / Knowledge cannot travel faster than a photon / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])
</li><li value="5442" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">Random individual Bob Stills is critical to all movements / Random individual Bobbie Stills is critically important to movements / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])

</li><li value="5443" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q5443|Ghost of Individualities Future]] / Ghost of Possibilities Future -> SCP-8000, <cite>It's a Wonderful Life</cite>, <cite>A Christmas Carol</cite>.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto IV" data-qid="54,44" value="5444" data-dimension="S">Trotsky as worker / Trotsky but as worker / timeline where Trotsky is integrated into Soviet Union as worker or non-political Careerist -> I think about this all the time. the concept of a timeline where the most important instances of Trotskyites whining about the Soviet Union didn't exist because they actually took Trotsky and Zinoviev etc seriously and were like, okay, you deserve to live in the Second World, we'll let you be part of this country if you would only stop being so {{censor|goddamn}} annoying. here is how the country works. we'll explain it thirty times if you need us to. just don't organize the kulaks. just don't commit spontaneous violence on the central party. we'll explain it {{em|fifty}} times until you get it. there are a million things you can do that aren't harmful, and you could be doing any of them. don't go to Mexico. if you don't know how to build Bolshevism here you won't succeed there — no offense, it's just true. 
and when you look at things from this angle you really start to see what some of the actual issues were as opposed to the sensationalized picture of things each named variation of Marxism remembers. when you boot someone out of a political arena they believe they're good at, maybe falsely believe, and make them try to successfully become useful to society can that be hard on someone? when you think of this as just what the workers go through, for the average Soviet citizen things could be pretty tough. it's bad enough living in the crumbling First World where people are like, go get an education, go through training, and you have no idea whether it will be useful or if you can live anywhere, but if you're in the Third World the stakes can be higher in that the country is suffering if you don't magically figure out how to spend your life the right way to end up in exactly the right position in society that people need and you can do without anyone telling you. so you can see, in a way, why somebody who is on the verge of getting kicked into that would be afraid. with the whole thing of the central party moving people around and making structures hire people it's a little less bad but they can only do so much. existing can be scary. you never know if you're doing it right. 
Black Panther Party and rehabilitation of criminals + 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy = Trotsky as worker

</li><li data-qid="54,45" value="5445" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">Random individual Bob Stills can puppet four million people / Random individual Bobbie Stills can change the behavior of four million people / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, PT, W" data-qid="54,46" value="5446" data-dimension="S2">Calling something "culture" stops it / The best way to call attention to a social problem is to label it "culture" (cancel culture; woke culture; purity culture; hustle culture; rape culture) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5447" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5448" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="54,49" value="5449" data-dimension="M3">Can Bob Stills choose who is president? / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5450" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:InstructionsUnclear|instructions unclear]] -> the motif of some statement being cast down that sounds good and necessary but which has a totally different effect on reality than expected.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5451" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5452" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="54,53" value="5453" data-dimension="S">Existentialist math errors / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,18|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5454" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5455" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5456" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5457" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5458" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5459" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5460" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5465" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5469" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5470" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5471" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5472" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5473" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy, ES, A" value="5474" data-dimension="S">the four elements lived in harmony / The four elements lived in harmony until the fire nation attacked / ([[User:RD/9k/Q54,96|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5475" data-dimension="S2">The four elements were never in harmony / ([[User:RD/9k/Q54,96|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5476" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5477" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5478" data-dimension="S">??

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=54,79|Q2=5479}}Philosophers' stones empower global empire / ([[User:RD/9k/Q54,96|9k]])

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=54,80|Q2=5480}}social contract -> I feel like this concept has been generally wrong for a while. it presupposes that republics have always existed, when in reality, social contracts have always been signed directly to nobility or the sheer border between populations that would otherwise try to kill each other, and not to "community" or "culture" or bodies of individuals actually joined together around values, because whenever social contracts would be violated in situations like wars or spontaneous murders society itself is fractured and violated entirely and just ceases to exist. the "contract" is only a side effect of the society already existing, a piece of paper, and as soon as the society breaks apart it's powerless to enforce itself.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5481" data-dimension="S2">Societies are made of values / Societies are made of values such as hard work and perseverance, which can then be exploited by bad actors resulting in the undoing of the society {{YouTube|eWuuZZdDrvQ}} -> this is Idealism. I think the realisitic interpretation is that it was never guaranteed from the beginning that any of these things would lead to a "social fabric" or "social contract" in and of themselves. you never have control over what a boss does. you're closer to having control if you look at the corporation as its own runaway entity that exploits workers itself and just "happens" to be owned by the boss and try to contemplate control of that. 
if you are paying very keen attention to everything I wrote on this page, you might ask, well, but aren't societies made of Social-Philosophical Systems, and don't those contain ideas? and yes, they often are. but the Social-Philosophical Systems succeed on the basis of actually containing predictive material models of a society, not on the basis of containing abstract concepts. even in the case of a simple Social-Graph System which is a tribal population, there is material structure to the tribe whose descriptions are baked into culture that acts as the true social fabric of the tribe.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="5482" data-dimension="S2"><cite>The Shuteyes</cite> -> my favorite World War II era metaphor which is the only anticommunist fable or "wartime fable" I like totally unironically. like basically no other book I have ever seen, this story didn't take an ideological side against Communism, and genuinely stood on the fence. the entire premise is that instead of there being buffer states that nazis and Communists are fighting over, some people get whisked away to a mysterious realm called Alert where nobody is ever allowed to sleep and arbitrary groups of people compete in team sports as The Reds and The Browns. the really genius thing about it is that as a kid I didn't even have any idea what these names were referring to. this book managed to have enough of a backbone that unlike most "dystopian fiction" I never figured out what it was talking about purely by virtue of its themes until after I was a lot older and knew a bunch more history.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="5483" data-dimension="S">world of Alert / the world of Alert -> the motif of a world where people cannot rest because there are constant disruptions from some kind of larger outside civilization which behaves similarly to one of the great powers of World War II or the Cold War. the disruptor can be portrayed very metaphorically and poetically to where it appears to come from inside or doesn't look anything like its inspiration, as long as the story is clearly a metaphor for large civilizations fighting over buffer states. this motif may also be used to code real-world scenarios that closely mirror fictional "worlds of Alert".

</li><li class="field_horror" value="5484" data-dimension="M3">What are dystopias trying to teach us?
</li><li class="field_horror" value="5485" data-dimension="S2">"It's your responsibility to help these misguided Hiders" (Adventure Time season 8 episode 24 "Hide and Seek") -> in just 11 minutes, this episode has so many accidental things to say about dystopian literature and anticommunist fables. one, anomalous societies are bad because they don't allow arbitrary individuals to split off and form another Culture. there is a notion created here of Culture-monopoly. two, some anomalous societies are formed as a matter of group cohesion to make sure everyone survives. this.... is one of the most accurate things a dystopian narrative has ever said, because it's the only anticommunist accusation that's actually just a true fact said in the wrong tone. yes, it is true that North Korea, early China, the Soviet Union, and kinda most workers' states really, formed to make sure people survived, and captured people into party-nations for that purpose. that's actually true. you usually have to read a bunch of Marxist texts to find that out, because most accounts of Third World countries are so stupid they don't even mention that. three. there is such a strange notion in fiction of populational creationism where populations really are made out of culture and they just culture culture culture every day to produce people, rather than people producing culture. thus, the anomalous society made out of one big blob of culture with a bunch of people skewered on top has to capture people back into culture. it's like a parasite, it's gotta get its hosts back. which leads to.... four. if culture shouldn't be capturing people, then Rhizome has inherent potential for oppression. you can't tell me Rhizome is a model of movements and it models this special movement thing people do for a moment and then stop doing. people are physical things and if Rhizome is actually going to change their minds then there's a form of Rhizome when it's expanding and flipping people over and another resting form when it's done. that resting form is the Social-Philosophical System, the loosely-linked network of people that in their daily lives all support anti-racism or whatever the movement is. that's what has to form for people to actually go vote and get other people to vote. but according to this Adventure Time episode resting Rhizome is bad, because all humans have times where they want to break out of an SPS even if its ideas are correct. this episode seems to think that all populations are Cultures and all populations can be bad anomalous Cultures from somebody's point of view leading them to break out of the population and call it dystopian. we'd better think about that kind of thing when we're trying to ask what creates Tories.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="5486" data-dimension="S2">"sit tight like a windowpane, and you'll be back to normal" (Adventure Time s9 e2) -> dystopian setting where there is no particular kind of oppression, everything is simply off and everyone acts like it's normal. this is one of the only kinds of civilizational horror stories I actually like. because it never actually brings in any kind of underlying assertion of the way things should be that you have to tease out to figure out how to interpret it, and which can take a long time to interpret properly. instead it's just like, everyone is much too cool with this and we have absolutely no idea what to do. there is a certain kind of created awe within it which by itself makes it compelling, akin to a good fae story, cosmic horror, etc. Adventure Time s9 e2, <cite>The Shuteyes</cite>
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5487" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="5488" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Wasp Swarm|Wasp swarm]] -> I'm increasingly convinced this model is accurate enough to reality to code as a Z Item; through more observations of real-world history the precise, predictive definition can be refined later. (also, the need to say this word all the time without a perfectly-convenient template for TTS-friendly writing is getting annoying.) A {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} is when any number of capitalists — it could be just one or two — gains control over the population by rounding up a bunch of people of any class who all share a demographic identity, such as White people or White Christians. the people in question don't actually have to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, despite that being the etymology. the {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} operates on the sheer power of capitalists to control Liberal republics and the whole process of "democracy" just because they are capitalists. this is the proposed material-historical process inside "fascism". fascism is the [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] of one capitalist and one countable culture of Tories which is linked together and joined to the capitalist almost purely on the basis of culture. this definition does imply that some {{Term:Wasp Swarm}}s could be broken just by disconnecting the capitalist, but I would caution against believing that when some of them are bound to be more like the Afrikaner period where all the Afrikaners linked together while all similarly having sufficient Property to have power. taking this too naïvely might be one of the fallacies inside that one Trotskyist video.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="54,89" value="5489" data-dimension="F2">Trotskyists in Britain didn't understand anti-racism, therefore Trotskyism will never be realized / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]])

</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="logicbro/sciencebro" value="5490" data-dimension="S">Wow, I've never heard of Schrödinger's cat! -> this became notable the moment I saw it twice. first on <cite>Big Bang Theory</cite>, then on a discussion of the TV Tropes page for <cite>Echo Chamber</cite>. I feel like in both cases it has to be the same thing. there is like, a certain section of people. the Berdlys. that become obsessed with intelligence because they don't know anything, and then they portray the "intelligent" characters they worship as knowing really average things they managed not to know.

</li><li value="5491" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">Wow, I've never heard of France before! / I've never heard of France (motif) -> a really dumb pattern you see in basically every Pokémon facts video. there is a certain genre of "Pokémon fact" which consists of acting astounded that a Pokémon actually references the history of a real-world country, and going into detail about that history or country-based folklore. this would not even be much of a problem by itself except that the more of these videos stack up the more you start to see the hidden pattern that all of them are subtly implying that it's normal not to know anything whatsoever about other countries. Pokémon is the highest-grossing media franchise! okay, cool, so that means the great majority of all people who live in industrial countries have watched it or played it. did you know Emboar is a reference to <cite>Romance of the Three Kingdoms</cite>? did you know Serperior is a reference to the manga <cite>Rose of Versailles</cite>? hmm, so a great number of kids and probably also adults haven't heard of historical fiction from other countries. did you know AZ is a reference to Louis XIV? hmm... that honestly seems like something people should already know about if they speak English or French. <s>(I half thought I remembered him as being in a Shakespeare play but I guess I was thinking of Henry V. funny enough he does appear in <cite>As you like it</cite>?)</s> did you know about Yggdrasil, the mythical tree that since 1995 every thirteen-year-old with access to Wikipedia knows about? did you know about carnival? did you know about kapu and tapu? did you know that Jynx had to be changed because of accidental similarities to blackface? the more these "fun facts" stack up the more you start to ask questions about which things people actually do and don't know and what this says about us. you start to ask if the purpose of Pokémon games is for game developers to go visit other places and learn about the history or traditions of other "cultures" on expensive tours while the rest of us get to stay uniquely isolated and for the propagation of Pokémon games to actually normalize not knowing about the rest of the world until a capitalist does the whole task inside a self-contained corporation and sells it to you as opposed to knowing things. this may sound crazy at first, but I certainly know that when I was a kid I was baffled to hear the fact Jynx had to be censored because not a single person around me knew anything about racism or the lives of people who make any kind of noise about the existence of racism and it took until after I was 25 for huge protests to break out and it to actually become remotely normal for hearing about racism to actually cause anyone to want to learn anything about what causes racism or how to prevent it. Existentialists really want to believe that just seeing diversity and seeing "other cultures" on-screen causes people to have any kind of empathy for other populations or countries, but it really doesn't. it feels more like what's true is that Media Representation works a bit like carbon credits and people buy Media Representation so they can give other demographics a bit of money and then go back to work and go back to their ignorant families and keep being racist. every product is something that you delegate, and you are not doing. if products can sell people "other cultures".... I think you can see where this is going. products easily become a way to self-contain national culture (or self-contain it within a second country well-off enough for tourism) and push it away from home.
</li><li value="5492" data-remark="Spanish global empire" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">Wow, it's so cool Pokémon includes imperial colonies! -> one of the most egregious subsets of "I've never heard of France". I am very much not making this up: I saw a video where somebody remarked on "how cool it was" that a past region was included in a newer one (I think it was Galar in Paldea) because that area had been a territory of another global empire. they said this with a totally straight face like learning that somewhere had been a British territory was truly interesting, and it was wonderful to have British Empire representation in Pokémon games. to the credit of Pokémon company itself, the actual games were careful about the concept of the Spanish empire and tried to avoid the concept of multi-continent empires and instead place down the notion of explorers inside the regional history of Spain. I... would hate to see how fans think an African region should be constructed. are you going to put Galar all over Africa too? even if Pokémon has a rather metaphysical approach to avoiding world wars, and there's a lot to say about that, it's more remarkable fans don't even go that far.

</li><li data-qid="54,93" value="5493" data-remark="arceus" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">To be good is to live in harmony with metaphysics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])
</li><li data-qid="54,94" value="5494" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">People attack metaphysics because they don't see each other as equals / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])
</li><li data-qid="54,95" value="5495" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">To seek greater life is to take life / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5496" data-dimension="Z">{{article|The Divine Truth: Arceus and Our Sins Against It}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="54,97" value="5497" data-dimension="S2">Alchemy failed because it is an offense to metaphysics / Alchemy failed to become a science because it is an offense to the metaphysical order / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])
</li><li data-qid="54,98" value="5498" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">Science without metaphysics is a tool of domination / Scientifically analyzing The Subject is an offense to metaphysics / Studying identity is an offense to metaphysics / Scientifically studying culture is an offense to metaphysics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])
</li><li data-qid="54,99" value="5499" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q5499|Discoveries come from violating metaphysics]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5500" data-dimension="S2">Media Representations are the new carbon credits -> this is a bold one but I think it can be argued at least in some cases. the claim that while many people believe Representation in Media is making people less prejudiced, in reality it's unintentionally leading to a kind of segregation as one of two things happens: A) all the people who don't already know the lessons that are supposed to be learned continue to constantly bury themselves in bad media and avoid Media Representation B) people actually buy Media Representation but check out of making anything better in their own lives because minority demographics have already represented themselves and they have nothing to add to that but a shred of money.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="55,01" value="5501" data-dimension="S">Arceism (motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5496|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="55,02" value="5502" data-dimension="F2">Community is a historical process / Community is a material-historical process in which individuals form into society but society is totally uncountable and national borders have nothing to do with society / the community delusion (proposition, fallacy, or model; meta-Marxist framing) -> I think this is one of the big propositions that's lurking inside Existentialism. and I think it's totally wrong.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5503" data-dimension="S2">Di-community is a historical process -> the minimum correction that is required to make anarchism and Existentialism make any sense. individuals form into "community" but for every individual that forms into Community one way some other individual simultaneously forms into a separate plural Community somewhere else, which may in fact be a toxic group of people rather than a good one, and which the "good" instances of Community have no control over. or more likely, neither instance of Community is inherently toxic but they can end up meshing so badly and being so incompatible with each other they absolutely hate each other and find each other terrifying and basically Evil based on outward behavior. the very worst instances of abuse come precisely from the fact that individuals have no control over another individual or a relationship.

</li><li value="5504" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="5505" class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-dimension="S2">Di-avarice is a historical process / Avarice as a historical process works as follows: if the people of earth are all being nice and non-greedily forming a peaceful community, Freeza or Vegeta IV will still spontaneously appear from space to wipe them all out and take their planet unless they can fight back -> minimum correction. if you stop avarice in North America, it's gonna come hit you from England or Spain because if you're standing in North America you don't control England and Spain. just like if you stop empire per se in China it's gonna come hit you from the United States because no matter how nice people are in China you don't control the United States.
</li><li value="5506" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="F2">Avarice is a historical process / Greed is a historical process -> sort of true in that [[E:dragon process|dragon processes]] are real, but not true in that avarice "processes" are associated with population growth and after the time feudalism goes away basically come from it. if you become committed to this proposition you'll very easily accidentally end up at the proposition that Black people having too many babies is inherently greedy and the way to reduce racism is to have less sex, fewer dates, fewer babies, fewer random instances of theft and crime, and more [[E:no of The Father|Lacanian discipline]] telling everybody how to behave good and study and study and train and train and make money because that will surely result in fewer attacks between populations. that is a known Tory proposition that constantly appears on Fox News, so it's worth thinking about exactly how you ended up spewing real actual right-wing talking points. there's almost a direct line to Fox News from the simple statement that greed is a historical process. 
Avarice is a historical process + All set arrangements of people are called hierarchies = the Peter principle.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="LR, W, Zv, A" value="5507" data-dimension="S">anarchist historical materialism (motif) / historical materialism is when nobility and capitalists Freely Choose to manufacture a bunch of poverty and hire soldiers and construct culture to tell everybody it's natural rather than, perhaps, that they can all spontaneously grow a Free Will and socially construct something different -> it took me like a day for this to hit me after seeing it in a video before I woke up the next day and said.... this is anarchism. practically speaking this is anarchism. I have a very specific reason for concluding this: the anarchist proposition that anarchy comes from individuals or small groups of people all choosing to come together into a supportive Community. this motif sounds like the opposite of that definition. I don't think this is a rock-solid argument but it will do for simply giving the Item a name. 
I think I need a special name for this definition of anarchism just so it doesn't get confused with anything else more specific like Bookchinism, Bakuninism, etc. we'll go with.... I'm tempted to pick a name from Pokémon, the anarchist bible. Arceusism? I guess in Latin [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declension_of_Greek_nouns_in_Latin that declines] to "Arceism". I don't know if it's funny or dumb to imagine actually calling people out as Arceists — I'm leaning toward "dumb". well, I've got a name for the Item at least, we'll see if it gets a better name later.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="5508" data-dimension="S2">Freud is one of the people who "only interpreted the world in various ways" -> every time I think about Freud, Jung, or Lacan this is exactly how psychoanalysis feels to me. what set me off remembering this is a search result that claimed that "despite attempted refutations of Freud's work its spell remained powerful". [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sigmund-Freud] if the theory is based on observations instead of detached logic of course it will come across as real. what trips people up is that they don't realize this doesn't guarantee it's useful or possible to apply to further real situations. 
the difference between Freud and Lenin is the difference between a large language model and a physics equation. anticommunism is, more or less, what resulted in the world slowly being taken over by language models

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5509" data-dimension="S">post-psychoanalytic Existentialism -> a philosophy which is aligned with the [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist-Structuralist tradition]] (ideally one which is part of it, but there's always a chance for Items to be misapplied) but has rejected many of the concepts core to psychoanalysis. versus all the fake divisions I've come up with to try to classify and describe Existentialisms, I think this one might actually be real. right now you might genuinely be able to support this one with a bunch of citations, assuming you can first come up with some working definition of Existentialisms that manages to skirt by under people's current understandings and definitions of things.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5510" data-dimension="S">general-sense psychoanalyst / stable property-having equates to moral decisions and "good character" (being a capitalist, being a White homeowner; meta-Marxism) -> the motif of someone who happens to have the same model of society as psychoanalysts without thinking about it or possibly even knowing at all what psychoanalysis is. a general-sense psychoanalyst believes that crimes are something that exists ontologically and almost cosmically outside of all societies even as they are inevitably invented as categories by particular societies. and also that bad behaviors due to trauma (or botched acculturation into the obvious universal intuitive mandatory culture everybody is supposed to have) are similar; bad behaviors just ontologically exist in the sky rather than being defined by the actual negative reception of behaviors by real people. this is marginally different from natural law in that we are not describing any pattern that is ecological or biological or that could possibly have existed without being logically made up by self-aware entities — although to be fair, if you were to make up a second kind of natural law that says there is a sort of perfectly ur- government which is the most ecologically natural to all human individuals regardless of separate populations and drastically different cultural environments, then it would be the same thing.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="5511" data-dimension="S2">Freudian discipline can be maladaptive / Lacanian discipline can be maladaptive -> every abusive parent performs discipline and teaches lessons. every father and every father figure is [[Term:maladaptive discipline|capable of]] raising children so badly-adapted [[E:My Story (Dave Peltzer)|they avoid all authority figures and steal things and get into fights]], and this is inseparable from the process of discipline itself, not simply "an absence" of it. it's possible to get out of this and tentatively save Lacanianism by claiming that "discipline" can come in the form of love and acceptance rather than the prohibition or cutting-off of incorrect behaviors until potentially people become afraid to do behaviors that would be correct.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5512" data-dimension="S2">Freudian discipline is plural -> the claim that whenever you observe a Lacanian discipline process in the real world it is inseparable from culture which then means that plural cultures carry out plural Lacanian discipline processes, disciplining their children to function within their own countable culture but to be non-functional in other countable cultures. Lacanians typically assume that Lacanian discipline could not be maladaptive because there couldn't be multiple countable cultures. invisible-committee anarchists make this error too. but in the real world it's quite easy to have one population of people disciplining people one way and one population of people disciplining people another way and the big problems with "culture" to come from people disciplined into one culture being released into the other and promptly getting disciplined again for wrong behavior and whenever they interact with either culture and accidentally fail to totally switch over and pretend to be part of it they just get battered and battered and battered endlessly like nothing is correct and nothing is okay. let me tell you, if you grew up in the United States, the Trotskyite conspiracy period where you could just not believe in the Trotskyite conspiracy or be their friends and simply side with Stalin sounds like a dream. the world has fallen so far from that. Liberal-republicanism has become such a farce where it's literally like nobody is allowed to have beliefs. nobody can have principles, nobody can have identity, nobody can have culture, if you're Black you have to pretend to be White, if you're White you have to pretend to be Lacanian or anarchist when you meet progressives and pretend to be a Protestant racist transphobe when you meet Tories. you have to pretend to understand Native American culture even if you'd never meet any and they wouldn't really want you talking about it but you can't go talking about an overseas country like Japan or India unless you meet a Tory when now you can talk about Japan and medieval empires but not about the existence of minorities or sometimes women. I couldn't juggle all that. I had to just give up one day and say, I'm going to take everything everyone has "taught" me and reassemble it to where it's actually logical and sound, and then I'm going to believe that. and thus I ended up at meta-Marxism: medieval empires and warring states periods and imperial colonies at the beginning, religious confusion and the Enlightenment in the middle, minorities at the present, Communism and anarchism and pluralities and superpositions in the future. religion in the past, science in the future, and countable cultures and historical processes in the present.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5513" data-dimension="S2">Systems come from experiences growing up [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax7YPEFIO1U] / Systems of consistent behavior come from Subject formation -> this is a form of psychohistory. that is what this is, whether it knows it or not. it's using a roughly Lacanian model that it's all about The Subject and early development in an individual and you can reduce all of society down to that. I can't help but feel like psychohistory is terribly reductive. in a world where it is super forbidden to ask why people have identities, psychohistory would probe the whole existence of culture in a mechanical way and ask why people are German. people should know by now that populational identity is a circular thing where being it is having membership in it. a big reason anyone is in religion any more in the United States is they perform the behaviors to have a group of people to be in. the same goes doubly true for Trump fans. they're all just performing those behaviors to form a group, which falls apart and leaves them isolated as soon as they stop; worse, if they fail to perform the set of arbitrary behaviors the Democrats want they'll be thrown out of that and left wholly confused.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="5514" data-dimension="S2">The Trotskyite conspiracy was a case of maladaptive discipline -> I think the notion of maladaptive discipline is a [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|blue]] proposition, but the difference is that psychoanalysis doesn't necessarily acknowledge it, depending, and schizoanalysis always does. this is the claim, based in a corrected version of Lacanian psychoanalysis, that the Trotskyite conspiracy is loosely comparable to a highly abusive parent instilling an all-around set of wrong behaviors instead of compliance with the abuse, through creating fear of authority and society. this isn't my favorite way to analyze societal structures but I do think it can be argued. if you have "the good version of Lacanianism", what you argue is that Marxism is just fine and the good outcome is that Trotsky stays in the Soviet Union or maybe Europe and builds a form of Leninism which does not run against mainstream Marxism-Leninism, and this good outcome is more likely to be achieved if mainstream Marxism-Leninism clearly communicates how to get Trotskyites integrated into the structures of mainstream Marxism-Leninism rather than only constantly accusing them of malice and saying bad things about them whenever they make a mistake. this harsh treatment should have been replaced with not exactly excusing bad approaches and understandings but simply with a more neutral treatment where is recognized that science corrects itself, Marxism is hard, and anyone can make mistakes, although you will probably be demoted in the overall structure if there is someone who makes far fewer mistakes; as bad as the demotion outcome sounds, Bolshevism can make it less painful than it is under capitalism where it also happens all the time. I feel like if you do this you would have eliminated the emergence of Marcuseanism. Marcuseanism really seems like a way to launder resistance to Stalin into something that seems like it would have obviously happened with or without Stalin existing. it's like, if you were only less mean to Trotskyites such that instead of being crushed under the weight of two countries they had a significant support in the Soviet Union as well as their natural inclination to form everywhere else, people would just be one big population of Trotskyists. they wouldn't need to invent a second or third new Marxism, aside from their own internal fractures at least. Trotskyism is plagued by this cognitive dissonance between thinking everyone in the world who isn't a capitalist ally should immediately be unified and the material reality that Trotskyists have a hard time unifying with anything and Stalin is quick to kick their entire Marxism out. this makes me think there would be a lot fewer variants of Marxism if only people had noticed that pattern faster. of course, maybe I'm now just making excuses for people having non-Materialist understandings of the world and all internally believing in general-sense psychoanalysis uniting all human individuals when they shouldn't. I don't know. I did start this proposition by saying I was arguing Lacanianism. I feel like "Trotskyists secretly believe in general-sense psychoanalysis" is a weird place for that to end up but I couldn't give an immediate reason off the top of my head that's not true.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5515" data-dimension="S2">??

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=MX onto DG|Q=55,16|Q2=5516}}Moderation is a form of extremism / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q12,1,18|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5517" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5518" data-dimension="S2">Differences between species are not culture -> the book I was reading kept referring to biological differences between human beings and chimpanzees as animal "culture". I don't think I like that usage because... it sounds a bit racist. a couple centuries ago, there were a lot of people who wanted to draw biological distinctions between North Americans and Africans which accounted for differences in culture; these days every single racist remark hides behind "culture" when it's unclear if in actuality people are still thinking of South Africans in the same phrenology-styled physiological terms. so, I don't think I like that link being drawn again even if the direction is reversed, because it's inadvertently training Tories to think that the concept of countable cultures could be connected to "primitive minds" or "primitive physiology" rather than existing solely on its own layer. monkeys having different behaviors from White people is not culture. that said, I think it's a more up-in-the-air question whether differences between neurotypical people and autistic people can be categorized as culture or not. it's very common for people to go labeling every single difference between populations as culture, and to just say that there exists autistic culture and disabled culture. I feel like, on the surface, this is not harmful in the particular sense that referring to animal ecology as culture is. sometimes this usage is meant to refer to methods of inclusion and retaining people as these subpopulations form communities. I don't think I have any strong thoughts on that right now.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="animal ecology" value="5519" data-dimension="S2">Chimps do not have discipline / Chimpanzees do not perform individualized discipline in the Freudian sense of isolated aristocratic or Artisanal households teaching children mandatory behaviors to also carry to the rest of a population -> every time they tried to discourage a behavior the chimp took it as a fight and sometimes bit people. it's crazy how much confidence they had in their own way.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5520" data-dimension="S2">Poor people are created to make you work {{YouTube|tOm_aF_SB-k}} -> this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't entirely malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. money enables merchants to test out the tiniest experiment in global capitalism before settling back into local small-capitalism because going around the world is hard. but what money is doing there is proving that people can connect one city to another city. the merchants actually succeed on the basis of creating connections. then when they create banks, again the bank is creating the connections between the nobility and the armies or the royal ministries later. with the development of capitalism-proper the local states lose control and the chunks become the businesses, which have to expand to accommodate population growth, but they succeed or fail based on how effectively they link to various other businesses in the world. particular rings of success take slots in society away from people who don't become inherently compatible with strengthening either individual business territories or the arrangement of connections. those are the poor people. so, the reason it's hard to end poverty is all the other individuals are actively working against all the individuals below them. they wouldn't have to be if they could just see the business lattice and realize that everybody has to be fit into it, and if everyone would just get a little smarter about arranging people nobody would have to waste work or arbitrarily take someone else's slot in the structure only to make the world a little worse. at this point they can kick out the capitalists. the issue is, capitalism keeps totally falling apart and leaving people unable to build up the business lattice fast enough to be able to remain united instead of necessarily having to fight each other and the outside "poor people" or Refuse layer.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5521" data-dimension="S2">Wars prolong artificial scarcity / Wars aim to destroy wealth {{YouTube|tOm_aF_SB-k}} -> true and also not true? it's undialectical but if you duplexed it it would then be true.

{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=52,22|Q2=5522}}{{book|Get Fuzzy}}
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5523" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="5524" data-dimension="S">physically slaying one's inner child -> Giggleland ep 2, Fatum Betula. I think there's something to be said about the vague analogy between cartoon furries slaying their inner child in Giggleland and the myth of the lion turning against the lamb in Pitch haven / other works like Kimba, Beastars, and Zootopia

</li><li value="5525" data-remark="6525" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">wolf slaying lamb as Original Sin / lion slaying lamb as Original Sin / eating animals as forbidden fruit -> alternate version of book of Genesis that crops up frequently in fiction, sometimes quite literally as in Pitch haven mythos, sometimes much more figuratively in things like <cite>Zootopia</cite> or <cite>Kimba</cite>. runs narratively parallel to: Buddhist imagery of the existence of individuals being harmful

</li><li value="5526" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Zootopia</cite> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zootopia] / <cite>Zootropolis</cite> (UK / AU) -> animated movie about the concept of intelligent animals getting along or not. clearly wasn't originally designed to be a metaphor for humans, but somewhere in the middle of writing got "corrected" to be a bad metaphor for anti-Black racism. I prefer to ignore that when analyzing the work and pretend it's only about the concept of animals trying to live in society. I do this so it becomes easier to compare this movie to things like <cite>Kimba the White Lion</cite> or <cite>Warriors</cite>, which clearly were designed on that more literal level, and <cite>Beastars</cite>, which kind of falls in the middle between the two categories.

</li><li value="5527" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">heaven is a place on earth -> the motif of a story presenting a superstructural heaven, god-world, or supernatural world that existed at some primordial time, but treating it as if it still very much exists.
</li><li value="5528" class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="HAS" data-remark="album is a kind of audio romance novel" data-dimension="Z">{{article|Heaven Is a Place on Earth}} (Belinda Carlisle, 1987) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_a_Place_on_Earth]

</li><li value="5529" class="field_ML" data-dimension="S2">The garden of Eden is basically a Narnia book / The garden of Eden is a superstructural fantasy world -> the claim that the purpose of the garden of Eden myth is to show the difference between the Social-Philosophical Systems of culture people process the world while embedded in (sociophilosophy, socio-culture), versus the problem of being a material object living in material reality. in one sense all human culture is a fairy tale, whether secular or religious. we always tell ourselves assumptions about reality in order to make living in reality less scary. but those assumptions, such as "in the reality that was supposed to exist, all the animals lived in harmony without any growth or change", can amount to a made-up fantasy book that doesn't do anything to affect or change reality itself. technically, Marx briefly touched on this idea in <cite>The German Ideology</cite>. in that first part that may have been scrapped (?). 
this turns contentious if you get too far into it because people start asking things like whether Confederate slavery is the reality of what people are doing or whether it's culture. it should be a quick thing to dispel most of those questions: it's culture. it's part of the inner ontology of the Social-Philosophical System of The South, which is made up to reassure people they don't have to fight with The North as long as they mind their own business and buy enough people. it's the notion that whatever set of connected concepts people have come up with, just setting them down and letting them do them will always be fine, that leads to slavery. unfortunately this creates a huge paradox for progressive anthropology because the foundation of the modern study of countable Cultures is that you have to first accept whatever are people's cultural constructs before you do absolutely anything else. but this is not realistically possible because all forms of bigotry are culture in a way that is indistinguishable from "benign" forms of culture. after 200 years Liberal-republicanism grinds to a halt because within its Existentialist origins it is fundamentally about creating Freedom by obligating all countable Cultures to tolerate other countable Cultures, but if you obligate a whole Culture of people to do anything before it internally determines itself, some bigoted Cultures will inevitably feel discriminated against in a very real way and like their freedom has been taken away in a very real way to the point they will become utterly intolerant of democracy and label it tyranny. all republics have a "Trotsky point" where under certain conditions a Culture will try to tear out of them and you'll never be able to get through it intact if you don't truly understand the micro-level structure of society and how Cultures are generated.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5530" data-dimension="S2">God can make animals be anything / If God created the world, He could make animals be anything -> in creationism there's no particular logic for what animals can and can't exist. dragons could exist if only God had made different choices. I'm surprised creationists haven't tried to rationalize fossils as early ideas that never made it out of the garden of Eden instead of trying to act like they just don't exist, or were buried by The Flood. the smartest creationist tries to tell you that ecology and maybe evolution were invented by The Fall, before which they didn't exist. but that doesn't rule out nearly anything you can imagine being possible before The Fall. which means The Fall only actually takes things down a peg. 
isn't there a talking donkey at one point in the bible. yeah, like, there's at least a bit of textual evidence for this, that when God interferes anything is possible and when God fades away things become more realistic
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5531" data-dimension="S2">The Fall brings semi-realism / The Fall only forces realism / The Fall only takes things down a peg / The Fall only forces things into science fiction style realism and not strictly into the single possible way that nonbelieving scientists observe things to be -> maybe this is just a derived theological proposition I made up. but it makes everything make vastly more internal sense. it's much better fictional-story lore for the bible to have.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5532" data-dimension="S2">God could make storks bring babies / If God created the world, He could make storks bring babies -> every so often I think about how if you take Genesis literally then everything about biology and ecology would be half arbitrary. Adam has to pick a helper, so logically speaking, if he picked a different one then we would be living in an entirely different world where all family units consist of one man and one horse, or one man and one rhino, or one man and one flamingo, and somehow that would make perfect logical sense, that wouldn't hurt anybody and wouldn't be an abomination because God would have the power to make it make perfect sense. God would have created all the animals so he could just have created animal bodies that did make sense for this different scenario, eerily as intelligent and self-aware as humans or whatever, or more likely, ways of creating more human individuals which don't bring up disturbing questions. here's the thing about Christian lore. nothing starts actually having to make sense until The Fall. so if you set everything up perfectly in place before The Fall, you logically get to keep at least some of it before the "reality" of it sets in, and you'd get the "realistic" version of whatever God declared was true, not the single way things are today. Pitch Haven was really wired because quite honestly, I'm pretty sure that the bible is set up almost exactly such that if God created a world of intelligent vertebrates who are accidentally able to do flesh magic, that is exactly what you'd get and where The Fall would proceed from. of course, none of this applies if you don't take Genesis literally. but where's the fun in that? 
this is also my general theory on how {{book|Pokémon}} works. it's a very sophisticated form of creationism where all the gaps have to be filled in. Pokémon species are created by Arceus and individuals are magically created by their parents, not physically born. that's this proposition, basically.

</li><li value="5533" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5534" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5535" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5536" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5537" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5538" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5539" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Pokémon</cite> is an afterlife / <cite>Pokémon</cite> takes place in its universe's afterlife -> joke theory. this mainly stems from the idea that Pokémon is similar to the Garden of Eden and religious theories that it will in some senses be restored at the end of the world. evidence: A) parts of nature stay in perfect balance, unlike in real life B) healing Pokémon is no problem, as if once again, energy is literally not a zero-sum process any more C) everyone is nice and there is hardly any prejudice D) wars became less common over history rather than violence escalating and escalating across modern history as more people are born E) gods are tangible 
the best counterargument to this is that it is stating that all fantasy books are imaginary afterlives. which is subjective in how true it is, but is much easier to believe than this model.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="5540" data-dimension="F2">Digimon is the Deltarune of Pokémon / Digimon takes place in a non-magical part of the Pokémon world / Digimon takes place in a non-magical version of the Pokémon world -> definitely not true but a really cool idea. the concept that Digimon are similar to Darkners, just imaginary creatures that people made up because they live in an ordinary town within a mostly-non-magical version of the Pokémon world containing no Pokémon. Digimon are just the darkness in your mind when you're trying to come to terms with high school and the pain of real life, of living in a "fallen" world where things have to eat and sleep and kill each other rather than immediately all getting along.

</li><li value="5541" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5542" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5543" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5544" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5545" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5546" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5547" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5548" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5549" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5550" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5551" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5552" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5553" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5554" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5555" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">golden mean [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)]
</li><li value="5556" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5557" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5558" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5559" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li value="5560" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">prejudiced animals
</li><li value="5561" class="field_exstruct field_LGBT" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Zootopia</cite> is a metaphor for gender -> I remember seeing this before the more obvious racism metaphor that was intentionally put in there. I looked at the central plot thread of Judy having to prove herself among the big animals that judge her, and then I saw the line about "biology?!" and I thought about debates people were having about "men in women's restrooms!" clearly <cite>Zootopia</cite> is not a story about trans people, but at the same time, people do like to throw around the concept of biology as if they have any idea what it is when trying to tell people various {{censor|bullshit}} arguments about gender.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5562" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Zootopia</cite> is a bad racism metaphor / <cite>Zootopia</cite> is a bad metaphor for racism -> it doesn't take long to notice this. I think the most striking thing is when Nick is actively exploiting all the systems meant to help animals coexist. that's one of the most common talking points by racists
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5563" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Zootopia</cite> is a good class metaphor -> usually it takes a long time to explain the concept that below classes there is a continuous spatial slot hierarchy of individuals competing against individuals for slots to get to be part of a class-structure and be in a class and oppress people and then White people oppress Black people (Detroit people) for not being workers yet or not producing enough because there's actually a continuum from peasant to worker to Careerist to owner and whenever struggle doesn't succeed people proceed up the continuum and become owners or leave the country while either way the population splits apart and wildly scrambles itself such that nobody can trust anybody and every sale or interaction between individuals carries antagonism but capitalists are the only ones that get to have democracy as normal. it's a much shorter explanation to point out animals in nature eat each other and have random violent conflicts over particular things and Zootopia artificially created a government to stop them. anarchists won't like this, because they often like to pretend that animals aren't inherently violent and hazardous as they simply live and expand, but if you stop comprehending animals that way and also comprehend humans as animals everything makes more sense.

</li><li value="5564" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="5565" data-dimension="F2">Zootopia is doomed because when you remove predators populations boom out of control and begin killing each other [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo6aWtAPfKA] -> this is just Malthusianism. if it were true it would apply to humans! so like, even though we don't know everything about the Zootopia world this is false because it's false in real life

</li><li class="field_nations" value="5566" data-dimension="F2">Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor / The [https://zootopia.fandom.com/wiki/Lynxley_family Lynxleys] are a good representation of the process of forming classes (Zootopia 2) / Lynxley fallacy (statement said in attempt to analyze Zootopia 2) -> from the limited slice of the movie I've been seeing from reviewers, absolutely not. it conceptualizes evil as individual households racking up money numbers before you do. which is a very nazi way of thinking. people everywhere of all ideologies like to believe they aren't about "making people the same", but in practice almost all Liberal-republicans and anarchists get mad when people aren't the same and only Lenin and Mao truly believe that it's okay for some people to get paid more under certain conditions. and yet when you think that way, that problems are due to "Elites" hoarding all the money numbers as individuals and using them to do evil as individuals, it's really easy, almost trivial to lead you down a [[E:unintentionally appropriate metaphor|nazi rabbit hole]]. a great number of modern conspiracy theories start with "why isn't it obvious to people that Elites are bad and fostering corruption". and then they posit some supernatural or metaphysical evil force that corrupts us, like demons or Reptilians. and a great number of people don't see the problem with religions "period", they'll leave Christianity but they won't question small religions enough to not be open to the idea of demons. and from there it's easy to convince people that some people aren't real people and are actually just monsters. and then you start giving external characteristics that predict someone harboring demons, such as "having a gender studies degree" or "being supportive of people who committed crimes". and then before you know it you're just spreading around veiled racism. only your racism is uniquely "moral" because you didn't start with DNA, you only appealed to niceness and meanness and demons. 
[[E:Identitarian fascism|especially now]], nazis don't start at "racial ancestry". at the beginning they generally start at "network of wealthy families" and then ask what race they are so normal people can be artificially separated from The Billionaires based on what morality group of people they're socially connected to. 
Zootopia 1 had this a lot closer to the truth. it's chunks of foxes and chunks of rabbits. it doesn't matter who's leading them. 
Nazis are only bad because they're wealthy, greedy elites + Zootopia = Lynxley fallacy.

</li><li value="5567" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" data-qid="55,68" value="5568" data-dimension="S2">Toryism merely defends chunks / A basic nationalism consists almost solely of the statement that the only purpose of a national population is winning chunk competition; many other suggested core characteristics of nationalism including various prejudices are actually just consequences of the imperative to keep a chunk of connected people functioning together to fight off other chunks, and perhaps continuously growing

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5569" data-dimension="Z">SCP-8000 - example of: Careerism in fiction; references the 001 proposal with the mallet guy. features signifier: Ghost of Individualities Future

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5570" data-dimension="S">friendship is teamwork
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5571" data-dimension="S">there's no "I" in team -> a proposition everyone has heard, and yet if they heard it out of Stalin or Mao they'd be terrified. even though in practice it wouldn't be any different. 
this + Would this have a worse connotation coming out of Stalin's government? = bad in blue or orange, good in red
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5572" data-dimension="S">you can't spell team without "me" -> occasional comeback. 
this is supposedly a proposition that Marxists believe except that it isn't. and I am still trying to untangle that contradiction. some days I'm more confused by Marxism than I am by anarchism. I'm glad there aren't many of them.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="5573" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Animal Farm}} is backhandedly true / Animal Farm was a good metaphor for the wrong reasons
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="5574" data-dimension="S2">Animal Farm tells Trotsky's story / "Trotsky was expelled from Bolshevik society" is the only accurate historical statement made by {{book|Animal Farm}}, not excluding other tiny "accuracies", but not taking away from all the inaccuracies -> even that one is on thin ice, but I have to grant it because the graphic novel version of the book was all right and through all its omissions kind of accidentally focused on the struggles of the animals more. it's funny how often people misremember the book as being positive toward the farm animals and their struggle to be free, and it seems like a little of that sneaks into every single adaptation. I might have hated this book if I only had the prose. but the more I see people "misinterpret" it and accidentally make it more historically accurate, the more I'm willing to meet it in the middle and use it as a teaching tool about how Trotsky found the Soviet Union terribly disorienting, but he didn't have the answers on how to fix it, but you can sympathize with his suffering if you want to.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5575" data-dimension="S">corporations as people-farms / all corporations as people farms / all corporate products as people-farm milk or people-farm eggs / soylent green is people (meta-Marxism) -> the motif of casting every case of corporate owners (Tory allies) herding people into microhierarchy to "prevent crimes" or "create order" as an act of farming people like cattle; an act of replacing violent wild packs of animals that snarl at each other for challenging the patriarchs or stick each other with their antlers with a peaceful herd of animals that is exploited and consumed by the farmer, occasionally kicked or stuffed into one cramped building, and all of the animals are human beings. 
corporations as people-farms + {{book|Animal Farm}} = {{book|Animal Farm}} is backhandedly true.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES onto LR" data-qid="55,76" value="5576" data-dimension="S">liberal democracy (motif) / democratization of human life through becoming more modern and getting good modern values that cause people within some country to build constitutions and codify long lists of human rights and throw out ideas such as the idea of attempting to rule people as a king, the idea of government acting as an organ for Catholics or Protestants to ban each other's representatives or churches or publications, and the idea of codifying chattel slavery instead of giving everyone the right to have legislators and cast a ballot for president / ([[User:RD/9k/Q55,76|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="55,77" value="5577" data-dimension="S">forced free choice / forcing someone to freely choose something / forcing consent -> this + misogyny = Ella Enchanted
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="55,78" value="5578" data-dimension="S">If XYZ is freedom, then rape is love / If a forced free choice is freedom, then rape is consent / a forced free choice is not consent (motif) -> generic proposition that a "free" free choice is equivalent to consent and a forced free choice is not consent
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="55,79" value="5579" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Ella Enchanted</cite>

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="55,80" value="5580" data-dimension="F">non-peacer / all crimes, wars, and conflicts as premeditated attacks by Evil Aggressive Non-Peacers (Signifier Case; meta-Marxism) -> what it says. one of the most core concepts to Toryism, Christianity, Buddhism, Liberal-republicanism, and only really occasionally Stalin's Marxism. if Stalin's Marxism hadn't singled out Trotskyites as Non-Peacers and had actually recognized them as a population developing organic two-way conflicts outside class lines and splitting in two, then it might have succeeded.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" value="5881" data-dimension="S2">Tyranny is better than individuals killing each other / Monarchy is better than the state of nature (sic, in reference to patterns a few levels above "nature"; Hobbes) / ... state of nature (censored title) -> one of the only reasonable things Tories have ever said... back in the time there were nearly no republics and only monarchies. so yeah, arguing that monarchy was better than warring states periods is the only good thing Tory types have ever done for the past 200-300 years. 
significance of this proposition: it might be used to argue that a lot of instances of [[Term:democulture|democulture]] or "Lacanianism" are actually Toryism and not center-Existentialism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, PT, Fy" value="5882" data-dimension="S2">Monarchism never ended -> the claim that because monarchism was not actually about installing a designated ruler, and was really about unifying multiple populations into one population, Liberal-republicanism did not abolish monarchism, and only elaborated on it. 
this sounds absolutely nuts if you have not been way deep in trying to figure out the real relationship between Communism, anarchism, Liberal-republicanism, and imperialism. but this propositions has its reasons for being. it's things like... who was it, Heidegger [[E:Twentieth-Century Continental Philosophy|I think]]? I don't remember exactly. claiming that a Communist International couldn't solve countries' problems because they were based on nationalism and "internationalism wasn't creating a better nationalism". that shouldn't matter, because the goal of "internationalism" isn't to do what nationalism already did! but now let's say that {{em|was}} true. if Communist Internationals can only create a better nationalism, then it's logically true that Liberal-republicanism never stopped being monarchism and everything it does can only create a better monarchism. I think George Washington did think like this a little bit. he genuinely thought the United States was just one population instead of multiple populations, split at least along state lines into 50 discrete populations with material antagonisms against each other, maybe split into two politically-defined populations uniting it into a civil war. 
so, this statement is weird. it's not true of material reality but it may be baked into Liberal-republicanism and some anarchisms, as operating assumptions that are true specifically of those ideologies and the social-graph-objects (Social-Philosophical-Material Systems) they create.

</li><li value="5583" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">microhierarchy / networkism (spatial hierarchy of potentially very small size characterized by leaders that sort people into different separate physical chunks of people; meta-Marxist term) / {{TTS|tts=Commu-nity|Community}} as series of tiny processes of individuals banding together in friendship and then each island of friends competing against each other, nominating leaders to protect their shared territory and shared standards and freedom, and ultimately turning into microscopic "feudal orders" or "kingdoms" that become about oppressing their people just to make sure the people of each island don't fight or kill each other or spontaneously snatch each other's stuff 
<ins>[edit:]</ins> ah. about a year ago I used to file this under "networkism". microhierarchy and networkism are approximately the same concept. the new term just makes it a little clearer what it actually is. 
microhierarchy + Deng Xiaoping Thought = herd-of-cats effect. microhierarchy + nation-state = kingdom. microhierarchy + natural crime = non-peacer. microhierarchy + republicanization = Molecular Marxism.

</li><li value="5584" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z">"dumbacabra" (Aster/Aubepine)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5585" data-dimension="S2">Preventing revolution is similar to friendships / Stopping Maoism is similar to friendships

</li><li class="field_nations" value="5586" data-dimension="S2">Palworld is an act of war {{YouTube|R2Ok10fXTFs}} -> this is the kind of mush that comes out of you when you believe in [[E:natural crime|natural crimes]]. you start believing every act of apparent antagonism is outright evil and malicious purely when it isn't obeying some specific imagined concept of what is "being nice". 
the strange thing to me is that this seems to be going on on every side of social issues. nintendo's faction will say Palworld is attacking them by making a game, but whenever anybody wants to stop nintendo from abusing patents, once again the exact same principles come up of all conflicts supposedly being premeditated attacks by Evil Aggressive Non-Peacers rather than the messy back-and-forths over unsolvable questions they actually are. the myth of Non-Peacers is really pernicious because it basically tears society apart into tiny shreds as people segregate just to avoid getting into conflicts and being declared Evil aggressors. I think there's a case to be made that Lacanianism is brown. it's distinct from ancient "Toryisms" (monarchisms, theocracies) by actually being part of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and attempting a mathematical small-scale theory of society instead of pure intuition, and yet it's one of the possible minimal first principles to ultimately arrive at brown. the concept that Non-Peacers exist, and imperial territories of kings or nobility somehow solve the purported problem of Non-Peacers. connected to the related concept that a Non-Peacer control squad is more natural than nature and tyrannosaurs eating sauropods perpetuated The Fall rather than being actually the natural state of things that is being forcibly controlled by the artificial but unorganized creation of Society. 
you know what I hate about the concept of non-peacers. if it was true, then workers' states would be okay and necessary. if there was really such a thing as non-peacers then workers' states would be sufficient to get rid of them at a country-behavior level and First-World countries would be required to like them rather than hate them. First World countries would be required to say "we need the CPC, without that China would have to silently invade us on the neocolonial scale and try to own our businesses, but while we have the CPC we can keep Chinese people locked up in factories and urbanization limits, so the CPC is actually pretty good". but humanity is too stupid to even stabilize conservatism by taking that straightforward interpretation of Communism or Dengism as necessary oppression. we're all just a bunch of utterly stupid idiots, and we really prefer to believe that the ideal state of humanity is individuals constantly whacking each other over the head for not being what each individual subjectively believes as perfect until we all whack each other into a single global kingdom mandating itself to be a single giant ethnic group. nothing else is Freedom. that's the only {{censor|fucking}} thing this idiotic species can understand.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="5587" data-dimension="S2">Tormenting William Afton makes you a non-peacer / Tormenting William Afton only adds more pain to the world, so it isn't worth it -> a uniquely Christian thing to say, in a bad sense. like. hell was invented by Catholic Christians. so if Christians think it's bad for anybody to be in hell then how does anybody ever get any afterlife justice. God isn't allowed to be Evil. but putting people in hell is Evil. so logically the victims of all non-peacer attacks are guilty, because the attackers will never actually be stopped from doing whatever they want.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="STM, MX" value="5588" data-dimension="S">cyanobacteria exterminating Archaea / Oxygen Holocaust (colloquial term) -> brought up in MDem entries "[[Philosophical_Research:MDem/5.1r/1112_not-cell|not-cell]]", "[[Philosophical_Research:MDem/5.2/1655Br_and-it-was-good|and-it-was-good]]"

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="5589" data-dimension="S">stopping wars with psychoanalysis -> I do not like how this is similar to real actual psychoanalytic theories. it's like. sometimes I sit back and ask myself, am I imagining this whole Existentialist-Structuralist tradition thing? could it be that Lacanianism isn't actually the same thing as early-existentialism? and then I see this garbage. and I'm like. oh god.... Lacanianism says we cause trouble for each other because we individually have fake ideas about reality that need to be cut off. symbolic castration / discipline. schizoanalysis basically says that democulture is the mechanism that cuts off fake ideas and is the rationale for Liberal republics. postcolonial theories say everything is due to prejudices. Lacanianism is talking about prejudices too. it's saying all our fake ideas about reality and refusals to compromise are prejudices. that's what it's really doing. and I hate it. because it diminishes the reality of beliefs and philosophies as actual matters of identity and experience that people truly live their lives by, kinda treating people as mere instruments in a way, mere instruments of building an empire of people who miraculously guess the correct way to behave for people to get along, and haven't even thought it through to figure it out, who have all just been beaten into place like cattle. all the individuals or countable Cultures or ideologies are the instruments and the Liberal republic experts just own them all, like a capitalist owns a group of workers and makes them behave a certain way for their place of work to exist. if the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition were true then Liberalism would be a scam, and it would be a scam. it's a lot better for everyone in it if it's not true, because then nobody can come label them an evil conspiracy to turn countries into oligarchy. when you think about it, there's a fine line between scams and incorrect theories of society. if people don't know they can be forgiven, but if they do know they're labeled conspirators, con men, or any number of uglier names. (adventure time season 10 episode 13-16)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto PT" data-qid="55,90" value="5590" data-dimension="S2">The furry fandom is a religion / If religion is defined as a cultural identity which controls human behavior through allowing people to be part of a supportive "community" but only allows them to do that in exchange for imposing arbitrary rules around sex or foods such as shellfish, then the furry fandom is a religion / If the furry fandom exists to provide the carrot of uniting people into a socially-linked group of people around specific identities and narratives (fursonas, furry media) in return for providing the stick of aggressively prohibiting them from being zoophiles or doing any number of other harmful acts, the furry fandom is a religion -> jamming proposition. there should be something wrong with this statement, but it's hard for me to say what it would be. 
appears in: MDem 5.1-5.3 scrap "scenario" "zone 621". (furries are 'expelled' into their own afterlife with some kind of implied moral code, though not specifically this one)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="55,91" value="5591" data-dimension="F2">{{TTS|html=abbr|tts=Liberal-republicanism|Liberalism}} requires no revolution / Creating Liberal-republicanism didn't require a revolution (Hannah Arendt) -> this is flat out false twice over and yet a lot of people still repeat versions of it. in the United States, there was the "American Revolution". it did have consequences. it did "mess things up for the next 200 years". it eventually birthed Andrew Jackson. in Europe, there was a really clear change between the era where there had to be a bunch of freemasons and alchemist philosophers and the era where there didn't. now people with money just do whatever "helpful" things they want to in the open. but there was a time where they absolutely couldn't do that, and they had to meet in secret so some greater authority wouldn't notice their power and start calling them a threat. there was a time where small owners, Artisan types, and Careerists were oppressed. Galileo. like, I can show why Arendt's proposition is wrong in a sentence one word long. Galileo. and there was an overall revolution that happened in however many steps to create a Europe where that particular thing wasn't an issue. this overall series of steps is a Liberal-republican revolution. in the same sense of the word. 
there is so much thick illusion going on for people to think that isn't true. what is it? is it people trying to act like "the Galileo days" were a [[E:bad fake historical period|bad fake historical period]] that wasn't a Real period of history, just a fake totalitarian invented fabrication made up by [[E:generalized dictator|bad evil meanies]]? do people believe that only a certain class of people that assembles into certain physical structures {{em|is actually human}} and all other possible Bauplans are an outright deviation from humanity. I guess that would explain why they hate Bolshevism so much. but that aside, I don't even understand why this is so scary by itself and what denying that Liberal-republicanism has a revolution actually gets you. like, maybe my brain has been corrupted by Trotsky but I don't see why someone can't believe in one kind of republic that's created by a revolution and hate another kind of republic anyway. Marxists do it all the time so why can't you. why do they lie about this? it's many times stupider than Trotskyism. it makes Trotskyism look smart

</li><li value="5592" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" data-qid="55,93" value="5593" data-dimension="S">synonyms for anarchist: terrorist ... / "anarchist" has horrendously inaccurate thesaurus page -> I was genuinely just looking for some synonyms of what anarchists would call themselves to try not to be identified and judged, and oh boy the thesaurus pages only contained terms of judgement. these are some pretty killer insults to throw at early Trotskyism though. I never knew "recreant" was a word. 
non-peacer + ?? = synonyms for anarchist: terrorist.

</li><li value="5594" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5595" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5596" class="number_empty">??

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=55,97|Q2=5597}}Society comes from conformance (rules; obeying; obedience; conformity; worship; {{abbr|MX|tts=existential materialism}} onto {{abbr|HAS|tts=theology}}) / Society comes from following a bunch of rules / Society originates from deliberately following a bunch of methodologically-individualistic rules that individuals could have chosen to follow or chosen not to follow / Society is orthogonal to {{abbr|reason|title=Kantian reason}} (counter-claim) -> my mind drifted to thinking about {{book|Journey to the West}} and what its fundamental assumptions about religion and society are. I think this is one of the first assumptions. and I think it's fundamentally wrong. because society can form on an intuitive level without anybody truly choosing to do it in any rational or deliberate way. if you doubt this... is a flock of birds using rationalism to form? flocks of birds and herds of zebras are some of the most basic transitional forms of society; they serve many of the basic functions society is supposed to perform. but none of what Kant or Hobbes say applies to them because from our point of view they are formed based on intuition, not logic, not reasoning, not theology, not justifications. if forming into tribes is human nature within a natural environment, then it should be possible for people to form into tribes intuitively rather than logically, based on the same processes as nonhuman animals. which means everything Kant and Rosseau and even Hobbes say is all bullshit. people don't form into tribes (etc) based on Free Will at all, not any more than a hawk chooses to be a hawk or a zebra chooses to be a zebra. the creation of society is matter in motion. the creation of society is animal instinct. the creation of society is the natural response of a repeatable animal belonging to a species behaving the way it behaves, repeated many times. and every single ideology, no, let me be clear, every single {{em|philosophy}} that tries to explain the creation of society {{em|even in tribal societies}}, {{em|at all}}, as an individual or intelligent choice is just a mythology we tell ourselves that doesn't get at the actual causes.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=55,97|Q2=5597}}They who will not be obedient to [= choose to conform to] the law of love, shall bow down [= as a result] under the law of physical force (Adin Ballou) -> I can't help but wonder if this man was misquoted and he was actually saying the abolitionist movement will defend itself when necessary. out of context there are two ways to read this statement

</li><li value="5598" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5599" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5600" data-dimension="S">Grandpa Ralph who doesn't watch cartoons -> the motif of a person who is out of touch with modern media but not necessarily averse to it, who enthusiastically tries to get into a recent show or game, etc, but doesn't really have any idea what's going on and makes funny claims about it (or more likely questions) based on limited knowledge about other things that from a big picture view are theoretically similar 
Grandpa Ralph who doesn't watch cartoons + ?? = spurious canonicity claim

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5601" data-remark="5600" data-dimension="S"><cite>The Owl House</cite> -> a lot of people liked this show and I'm just like... hmm no. it looks like it's a good show? but. gosh, why does it prompt so many video essays about Existentialism that even reference early-existentialism by name. I don't think this show was aimed at me.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5602" data-dimension="F2">If everyone wanted someone to choose them, no one would achieve anything -> nah. this isn't inspiring. when there's capitalism a great many people's life stories are about searching all over to get chosen by someone and how inspirational it is to hear about someone getting chosen. what is going to a university and getting hired for an exclusive "opportunity" as one of the brightest experts if it isn't being a chosen one? our fantasy books reflect our societies and class structures. 
edit: gosh. this is false. this is actually false, because if you duplex it, capitalists are waiting for employees to choose them and employees are waiting for capitalists to choose them. everyone is. it's more like if nobody wanted somebody to pick them out as the chosen one nobody would achieve anything.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5603" data-dimension="S2">People created monarchies because they believe in predetermination -> whoa whoa whoa. this isn't simply the truth, this is an Existentialist statement. many versions of Christianity see the Christian god as a Subject that actually responds to the overall state of earth, so no, even the divine right of kings isn't equal to predetermination. it only equals doing the thing the smartest or most capable person ever to exist would do in people's opinion. you can begin to see where all the anti-science propositions come from: that anyone trying to exert control over anyone else OR trying to claim more expertise than anyone else is preaching predetermination. this is a dangerous proposition, because it's exactly what gets science defunded by reactionaries, and climate change scenarios rejected, and disabled people stuck in their houses when people wouldn't get COVID vaccines. all of that ties directly back to Existentialism and how the notions of choices and freedom are absorbed by reactionaries.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5604" data-dimension="S2">making a choice is the opposite of predetermination -> this one is fairer. it seems probably untrue — you've got relaterminism going on in your head retermining your actions — but is more difficult to decide as clearly true or false.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5605" data-dimension="S2">early-existentialism is the opposite of predetermination -> some people distinctly seem to treat (early-)existentialism as a single proposition rather than a field of philosophers. the funny thing is that everyone explains the contents of the proposition a little differently. thus making the single proposition back into a field of philosophy containing many propositions. in an act of pettiness, I'll label this statement false in the strict binary logic sense, purely because it can be demonstrated to be a category error.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5606" data-dimension="S2">Choices are identical with character development (fiction) / Choices are identical with Subject formation (real-life psychology)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5607" data-dimension="S2">Individuals express themselves through the people around them -> one of the sharpest things I heard in an Existentialist video. you really have to pick this apart and look at it though. at first glance it looks like an acknowledgement of [[Term:reterminism|relaterminism]]: people don't choose everything about themselves, so finding good friends that fill in the gaps in you is important. then you look at it closer and you realize there are much worse interpretations of it. one is that our main character is determining the presence of the other characters and vice versa and they are all choosing to be together. that's a bit disgusting. it allows people to come together and express themselves through their connection and then be prejudiced against other groups of people because being prejudiced is their authentic self. if you think that can't be someone's authentic self at least at one particular moment in time then you have never actually met a reactionary. just like a Goth kid, they will insist that even if it's a phase bigotry is exactly who they are.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5608" data-dimension="S2">The true Big Bad of Deltarune is stereotypes {{YouTube|JpTCVxB9CwA}} {{YouTube|3GbJfhgCyfg}} / The true antagonist to Luz is stereotypes -> this is more of a framing statement than a factual statement; it needs other propositions behind it to be able to evaluate it as true or false. 
I feel like this statement really cheapens Deltarune. any other story could be about stereotypes, you know? {{book|The Owl House}} can be about stereotypes; why not. but Deltarune is about something bigger, it's about how the individuals are related to the game world and what individuals are going to do when the game world dies. a Deltarune AU could be the stage for an allegory about the United States smashing other countries to pieces and even if they try to put themselves back together with Communism before they get smashed they can't defy the death of their national population and ethnicity and just have to come to terms with death.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="5609" data-dimension="S">Grimey the neckbeard {{YouTube|PseqiM06JhQ}} -> this anecdote is very interesting sociologically because it provides such a counterpoint to the "[[E:Q66,22|Susie]]" narrative that coming together around fiction will allow people to learn about each other and make them better people. in this story, letting Grimey into the tabletop group actually just brought out the worst in him and revealed that he was not meant to be friends with the people he was attempting to roleplay with. it did not help make him more empathetic toward the characters or the players through exposure to them, it just shocked all the other people when they were exposed to him and made them want to get rid of him. this is such an important concept. almost every "progressivism" in the United States tries to assume this will never happen to people, especially that it will never happen unpredictably. Grimey the neckbeard + <cite>Friendship is Magic</cite> = Mud Briar

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5610" data-dimension="S2">Fiction enables fans to learn about each other / fiction allows people to learn about each other and make them better people (sic - don't fix typo unless erasing prototype notes) -> not always false, but a rather Existentialist model of fiction. for a counterpoint, see "Grimey the neckbeard"

</li><li value="5620" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5630" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="5640" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5641" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" data-qid="56,42" value="5642" data-dimension="S2">Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=56,43|Q2=56,43}}Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q3300|9k]])

</li><li value="5644" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5645" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5646" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5647" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5648" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5649" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5650" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5651" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5652" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5653" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5654" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5655" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5656" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5657" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5658" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5659" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="56,60" value="5660" data-dimension="S">zoroastrianism (motif) -> the general motif of a supreme being that opposes the king of destruction; there may be a bit more to it than that
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="56,61" value="5661" data-dimension="S">demiurge as patron deity of physics / demiurge as patron deity of reality (material reality; Materialism; reality as defined by physical interactions) -> this is what I think Deltarune is doing in practice, at least in terms of what its actual "message" to its audience is, and I kind of love it
</li><li data-qid="56,62" value="5662" class="field_horror" data-tradition="HAS" data-dimension="S">gnosticism (motif) -> the motif of gnosticism being used as a theme in art, not necessarily in service of religion
</li><li data-qid="56,63" value="5663" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">The King -> the motif of a great worldwide or international emperor in religion or fiction. equally applies to Aslan or the god of a real-world religion
</li><li value="5664" class="number_empty">??
</li><li data-qid="56,65" value="5665" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">The Opposers, plural -> the motif of an Opposer which simply consists of a group of opposing individuals without any particular god-level leader. the Dark Forest in <cite>Warriors</cite> is an example
</li><li data-qid="56,66" value="5666" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">The Opposer / The Satan (archetype or motif) -> the motif of a great worldwide enemy in religion or fiction. "satan" originally simply meant "the opposer". Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity all have some counterpart to this. The Opposer + ??? = Mx. Satan.

</li><li class="field_exstruct field_LGBT" data-qid="56,67" value="5667" data-dimension="S2">gnosticism in LGBT+ media / LGBT+ and gnosticism (use of mythical imagery by queer creators; not conspiracy theories about the origins of LGBT+ identities) / LGBT+ media and belief in any higher power as scary (as horror; literary analysis) / belief in higher power as horror (LGBT+ fiction) -> not to be confused with conspiracy theories that Gnosticism-proper "created" gay and transgender movements. this is the motif of media which are predominately about "queer experiences" having narratives that the concept of gods is scary ({{game|Adastra}}), or that fictional characters in a metanarrative could only have a demiurge as a god and that's scary ({{game|Deltarune}}), etc.

</li><li value="5668" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5669" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="5670" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5671" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5672" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5673" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5674" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5675" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5676" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5677" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5678" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5679" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="5680" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5681" class="number_empty">??

{{li|I=S1/AC|Q=56,82|Q2=5682}}Preventing Algeria from having a national bourgeoisie
{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=56,83|Q2=5683}}Third World countries are poor due to inferior ideology -> today it's pretty common (again.) to hear this spin in relation to Africa. sometimes they try to claim it's Marxism and is a 'logical' system of bad choices, sometimes they're a little more honest and are like "African tribesmen wanted to keep their inferior culture and didn't want progress". the tone of the statement is exactly the same no matter which one they say; when they say "savagery" they may as well be misusing "Marxism" and if they say "Marxism" they may as well have said "savagery". 
appears in: Starlight glimmer episodes, Ayn Rand books (listen to her rants about North American tribes, it gets quite literal), that one thing about the constitution of I think Algeria, I need to go get that again

</li><li data-qid="56,84" value="5684" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">Starlight Glimmer
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="56,85" value="5685" data-dimension="S2">City governments are similar to friendships / Village governments resemble friendships
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="56,86" value="5686" data-dimension="S2">Freedom to be yourself is similar to friendships / Authenticity is similar to friendships -> Authenticity (Existentialism)

</li><li value="5687" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="56,88" value="5688" data-dimension="S">anarchist orientalism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q56,88|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=56,89|Q2=5689}}Having too few skilled theorists comes from poverty / A lack of high-quality political theorists, as found in situations like the Russian Empire, is tied to a lack of development and widely-available education, and thus overall emerges from a general national state of poverty / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]]) 
Having too few skilled theorists is a form of poverty + [[E:Wealth gets rid of poverty|Wealth gets rid of poverty]] (sic) = To increase the number of political candidates, force a country to create more wealth
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ML|Q=56,90|Q2=5690}}Stalin became mandatory because there wasn't a large enough pool of mainstream Marxist-Leninist experts / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=56,91|Q2=5691}}To increase the number of political candidates, force a country to create more wealth / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]])

</li><li value="5692" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5693" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5694" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5695" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5696" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" data-qid="56,97" value="5697" data-dimension="S2">Communism, no food! / Communism, No Food (edict; command; threat; imperative) / Communism having nothing and failing must happen (must be the result; is required to be the result) -> this isn't a descriptive idea, this is an external imperative 
Communism, No Food + China = During the Great Leap Forward the United States hit China with sanctions

</li><li value="5698" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5699" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="5700" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic</cite>
</li><includeonly>{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=57,01|Q2=5701}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 1
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=57,02|Q2=5702}}(... {{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode list [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000|omitted]])
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,21|Q2=5921}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 221</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=57,01|Q2=5701}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 1
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=57,02|Q2=5702}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 2

{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=57,99|Q2=5799}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 99
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=57,99|Q2=5799}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 100

{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,50|Q2=5850}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 150

{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,60|Q2=5860}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 160

{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,70|Q2=5870}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 170
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,71|Q2=5871}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 171
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,72|Q2=5872}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 172
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,73|Q2=5873}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 173
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,74|Q2=5874}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 174
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,75|Q2=5875}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 175
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,76|Q2=5876}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 176
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,77|Q2=5877}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 177
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,78|Q2=5878}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 178
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,79|Q2=5879}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 179

{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,80|Q2=5880}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 180
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,81|Q2=5881}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 181
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,82|Q2=5882}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 182
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,83|Q2=5883}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 183
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,84|Q2=5884}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 184
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,85|Q2=5885}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 185
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,86|Q2=5886}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 186
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,87|Q2=5887}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 187
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,88|Q2=5888}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 188
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,89|Q2=5889}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 189
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,90|Q2=5890}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 190
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,91|Q2=5891}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 191
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,92|Q2=5892}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 192
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,93|Q2=5893}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 193
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,94|Q2=5894}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 194
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,95|Q2=5895}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 195
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,96|Q2=5896}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 196
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,97|Q2=5897}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 197
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,98|Q2=5898}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 198
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=58,99|Q2=5899}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 199
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=5900 |Q2=5900}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 200
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,01|Q2=5901}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 201
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,02|Q2=5902}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 202
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,03|Q2=5903}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 203
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,04|Q2=5904}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 204
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,05|Q2=5905}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 205
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,06|Q2=5906}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 206
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,07|Q2=5907}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 207
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,08|Q2=5908}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 208
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,09|Q2=5909}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 209
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,10|Q2=5910}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 210
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,11|Q2=5911}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 211
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,12|Q2=5912}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 212
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,13|Q2=5913}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 213
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,14|Q2=5914}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 214
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,15|Q2=5915}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 215
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,16|Q2=5916}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 216
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,17|Q2=5917}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 217
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,18|Q2=5918}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 218
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,19|Q2=5919}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 219
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,20|Q2=5920}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 220
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=59,21|Q2=5921}}{{film|My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic}} episode 221</noinclude>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,22" value="5922" data-dimension="Z">"Tempest Shadow" (movie)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5923">??

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IK, MX onto LR|Q=59,24|Q2=5924}}You "{{TTS|Kant|Kant|title=Kant / cannot (can't)}}" control a nation / You Kant control another nation (searchable) / Kantianism can never successfully regulate a separate countable population of people / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5924|9k]])

</li><li data-qid="59,25" value="5925" class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, ML, MZ" data-dimension="S">the prince (meta-Marxism) / the Stalin (archetypical figure) / the Asgore (archetypical figure) / Marxist theorist archetype (meta-Marxist literary analysis) / the prince (as interpreted through meta-Marxism rather than through the descriptive models of feudal orders detailed by Machiavelli; not Machiavellianism) -> the abstract concept of a figure that is tasked with making decisions in order to end a conflict between two groups of living, breathing, chunk-competing Subjects, and is stuck in hardship, removed from privilege, having to figure out history's most difficult problems for everyone and probably being hated for any solution because history is messy and few solutions ever look good. the motif of a figure with a sword of Damocles over them who may be wrongly framed as causing all the problems when they were really just handed an impossible problem to solve and pushed to step up and make personal sacrifices and compromises of various kinds to solve it. 
Undertale is wired if you decide to take it rather literally. Deltarune might be too. if I'm right that Gaster is actually Dess and she/he is actually in there trying their best to halt the Roaring. but even if I didn't guess Deltarune right I don't care, you can still point to the concept in Undertale if you look closely.

</li><li data-qid="59,26" value="5926" data-remark="3,1415926..." class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">Pi can't beat a Pokémon game

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, PT" data-qid="59,27" value="5927" data-dimension="S2">The proletariat is privileged / Any proletariat that exists at all is privileged relative to early North Korea / In the grand scheme of history, the proletariat is the most privileged class because it does not have to deal with the hard tasks of fighting other populations of people for national territory, local-state territory, non-imperialized populational territory, town territory, business territory, or household territory (in some cases), and only has to go to work and produce to survive / 
In the grand scheme of history, the proletariat is the most privileged class because it does not have to fight a war of national independence against other nations, a regional war to determine local states, a post-colonial war against global empires, a chunk-competitive cold war of different ethnic populations to claim space to live and work in a town (in some cases), an eternally-ongoing cold war between people-farmers to claim exactly the right corral of workers and exactly the right group of customers for each group to get an income and buy from each other, or a violent struggle between individual households over limited houses and job slots in each enterprise (in some cases) to have a house to live in and to be able to follow laws -> 
this, to me, is one of the only ways to explain why First World countries are so "distracted by ideology" or "distracted by hatred". none of that is accurate. it's the fact that nobody in First World countries wants to acknowledge the actual material processes of history, and everybody wants to believe that because those have mostly completed they never actually existed and the absence of them is what's normal, rather than that everyone in First World countries is privileged for having been able to complete nearly all of those processes (but not every one of them of course, because in conditions of Liberal-republicanism that's impossible). the belief that humanity doesn't materially compete over anything in the sense all Animals do and everybody is already just groups of friends that can magically form bigger groups of friends is one of the most damaging and dangerous beliefs there is. Commu-nity pushes the United States and its allies to brutalize other countries for the simple crime of having history and going through historical processes to develop free-standing territories, which each require experts under unimaginable pressure to navigate them: kings, nobles, Kim Il-Sung, Stalin, Mao. most ironically, the concept of experts under great hardship for other people to have privilege still exists in capitalism. [[E:The Undertakers|the Undertakers]] get to go on and on about how hard it is to create a business and for some reason nobody comes and knocks their business over and says "nope, you're not doing it right, we're gonna keep taking it from you and putting in a new owner until you run your business the exact way approved by the United States and Liberal-republicanism". capitalism just has a million tiny Stalins all oppressing people way worse than Stalin ever did. 
First World countries don't get better unless we recognize the concept of "[[E:The Stalin|the Stalin]]", a figure that is tasked with mediating conflicts between groups of living, breathing, eating, space-occupying individuals that would expand over each other or kill each other for open slots. "the Stalin" can take a few different actions in response to this. they can act violently, oppressing one or both of the two groups of conflicting people to ensure some of them are protected from each other. alternatively, they can act carefully to try to make sure as few people get hurt as possible and that the two populations actually have to join together and live in harmony. this basically requires creating Bolshevism so the two populations are part of one thing and nobody uniquely "owns" dictatorial control of either population versus being able to be removed in an emergency. anything else will eventually create more problems and more instances of "the Stalin" who have to solve them — although this can still be fixed with some patience. don't demonize "the Stalins", appreciate their work and make sure all of them unify together and don't fight each other but also get to complete their task.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5928">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5929">??

</li><li data-qid="59,30" value="5930" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Make Your Mark</cite>
</li><li data-qid="59,31" value="5931" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Make Your Mark</cite> episode 1
</li><li data-qid="59,57" value="5957" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Make Your Mark</cite> episode 27
</li><li data-qid="59,58" value="5958" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Tell Your Tale</cite>

</li><li class="number_empty" data-tradition="" data-qid="59,59" value="5959" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,60" value="5960" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q5960|The Tea Dragon Society]]</cite> (all media)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,61" value="5961" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Tea Dragon Society</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,62" value="5962" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Tea Dragon Festival</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,63" value="5963" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Tea Dragon Tapestry</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,64" value="5964" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q5964|The Tea Dragon Society Card Game]]</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,65" value="5965" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q5965|Autumn Harvest: A Tea Dragon Society Card Game]]</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,66" value="5966" data-dimension="S">Town market (<cite>The Tea Dragon Society</cite>) / town bazaar
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,67" value="5967" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q5967|Comic quick-start]] / Mentor rules sheet
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,68" value="5968" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q5968|Tea Dragon Society Card Game Rulebook]] / Glossary rules sheet -> are these different for the two games? if so, consider them editions of the same work
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,69" value="5969" data-dimension="S">True dragon (<cite>The Tea Dragon Society</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,70" value="5970" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q5970|Tea Dragon]] (<cite>The Tea Dragon Society</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,71" value="5971" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q5971|Jasmine tea dragon]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,72" value="5972" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q5972|Rooibos tea dragon]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,73" value="5973" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q5973|Chamomile tea dragon]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,74" value="5974" data-dimension="S">Ginseng tea dragon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,75" value="5975" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q5975|Earl Grey tea dragon]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,76" value="5976" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q5976|Hibiscus tea dragon]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,77" value="5977" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q5977|Ginger tea dragon]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,78" value="5978" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q5978|Peppermint tea dragon]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,79" value="5979" data-dimension="S">Tea Dragon society (group)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,80" value="5980" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Q5980|Mentors token]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,81" value="5981" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Q5981|Growth token]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,82" value="5982" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Q5982|Victory point token]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,83" value="5983" data-dimension="S0">[[E:Q5983|Tea Dragon card]]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" data-qid="59,84" value="5984" data-dimension="S2">The only way to peel people away from Marxist party-nations is to shatter the economic base until people are alienated (1960) -> statement leading up to the first Cuba embargo, before #2 became a reality. this is such a striking statement because it's like.... the ultimate weapon of Existentialist marketism is more marketism. {{em|we}} make your [[E:Q42|own meaning]], and we Kantianize you if your society doesn't fit into our society. predicated on the unfortunately correct assumption that you desperately want to be connected to our capricious and arbitrary society. 
this memo provides such insight into how the First World thinks. there is this hanging assumption that {{em|for some reason}} it's good to Zinovievize countries, and then they just... think a bunch and start getting creative on exactly how to achieve it.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,85" value="5985" data-dimension="S">Entertaining (9 in box) - st / {{{TTS|🌼|Growth|title=Growth}}} / use 1 / cost 0
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,86" value="5986" data-dimension="S">Feeding (9 in box)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,87" value="5987" data-dimension="S">Grooming (9 in box)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,88" value="5988" data-dimension="S">Twilight Snow - {{{TTS|❄️|winter|title=Winter}}} / {{{TTS|🍂|growth|title=Growth}}} 0 / {{{TTS|☕|cost|title=Cost}}} 9 / {{{TTS|🫖|points|title=Points}}} 3+?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,89" value="5989" data-dimension="S">Sleeping (9 in box)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="59,90" value="5990" data-dimension="S">Tea Dragon deck / character draw-deck area

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="59,91" value="5991" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q59,91|Nice walnuts don't get cracked]] / Nice walnuts not getting imminently broken is paradise / Countries are like walnuts: they only taste good when you crack them open / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="59,92" value="5992" data-dimension="S2">Even if Liberalism is perfect taxes buy war / Even if Liberalism worked perfectly taxes would only buy war / If Liberal-republicanism worked perfectly it would still result in millions of tax dollars going to the military and very little going to social programs / Arceus really did a number on Ultra Space, huh? (in reference to Liberal-republican processses coming from one big country of the petty bourgeoisie that is obligated to crush other countries to "free" the rest of the world's petty bourgeoisie) -> imagine, for a moment, that we live in a perfect world — a world, or at the very least a United States and cluster of First World countries, which is perfect for Liberal democracy. everyone understands voting. everyone votes for progressives. the US Republican Party ceases to exist. there are two new center-Liberal parties which are not a proto-fascist hellscape, and they only keep getting better, even if they only keep getting better very, very slowly; they keep getting better but they don't keep getting worse. the next thing that happens is all the biggest capitalists drain out of the United States and go live in Third World countries so they can experience as few regulations as possible. if anyone calls foul they'll say "well if I don't like the United States isn't it my freedom to move somewhere else? what is this, North Korea?". at a certain point, absolutely nothing will be able to keep billionaires from enslaving all the people of Nigeria, and the only thing that will be possible for stopping them is to occupy the Third World countries with soldiers and basically kill the capitalists if they don't stop. at that point you're just doing Existentialist class war, and the only difference is that the class operating it is Artisan and Careerist types against "the big guy", not the proletariat. this is the problem. Liberal "democracy" almost obligates countries to invade other countries and overthrow their governments. and the reason it does that is people are committed to Existentialist class war of the bourgeois Filaments in their country against class enemies of Existentialism, including feudal orders, alternate historical periods, and in general any material object which doesn't obey them, up to and including other countable cultures themselves. the real problem is that workers are in class war only sometimes but Existentialists are in class war always, for decades and decades. Existentialists are in infinite revolution or forever cold war against the whole world, and they always have been. the only bright side here is this pattern rather hilariously explains Trotskyism. if you're a part of the big worldwide machine of Existentialist class war, of course you'll let the United States and every area of Existentialism crush workers' states. I'd only just barely stop short of calling Trotskyism an Existentialism. I think there's a decent case to be made that Zinovievism is an Existentialism though.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="59,93" value="5993" data-dimension="F2">A workers' state will surely fail if it doesn't buy specific inventions from other countries / Avoid the forbidden fruit and you will surely die / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="59,94" value="5994" data-dimension="S2">Walnut core inside shell against other shell equals core plundering core / Anti-marginalization efforts from the United States' margins to "help" minorities in China turn into US majority and US minority against absolutely everybody in China / Trotsky and Trotskyites without their own workers' state fight for either the Soviet Union's government or the United States and Mexican governments / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" data-qid="59,95" value="5995" data-dimension="S2">Empire can survive while it avoids extremes / Imperialism can survive as long as it isn't extreme -> so here's the thing about "[[E:a crumb of socialism|socialism]]". if you define it so modestly that it's any chunk of individuals taking care of other individuals, outright nationalist reactionaries can perform socialism without ever being progressive. it's super duper easy for Tories to do something for each other and then turn it into love-bombing and say you're a traitor if you don't support destroying Palestine, you're a non-person if you don't support shooting Black people to death before they go to prison. mutual aid isn't socialism and it isn't even love. it only really guarantees social cohesion, which is terribly easy to form around the imperative to survive at the expense of other populations. all Tories have to do to be able to do whatever they want is just be a little bit "not extreme" and appear to be nice to all the people immediately around them while being terrible to people somewhere else. 
golden mean + global empire = this

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" data-qid="59,96" value="5996" data-dimension="S2">Democracy is the abundance of skilled experts / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]]) 
The United States was more democratic than the Soviet Union + Stalin became mandatory because there wasn't a large enough pool of mainstream Marxist-Leninist experts = Democracy is the abundance of skilled experts

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="59,97" value="5997" data-dimension="S2">The United States conquers countries by forcing them to Freely Choose things / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]]) 
culturocracy + ??? = this.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="59,98" value="5998" data-dimension="S">walnut shell (analogy) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="59,99" value="5999" data-dimension="S">walnut core (analogy) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q59,91|9k]])
</li></ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Template:Li

2026-05-02T05:53:55Z

Reversedragon: search-hint

<includeonly><onlyinclude>{{#if:{{{start|}}}||</li>}}<li {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|lang{{=}}"{{{lang|}}}"}} {{#if:{{{I|}}}|{{Template:I{{{I|}}}/class}}}} {{#if:{{{class|}}}|class{{=}}"{{{class|}}}"}} {{#if:{{{Q2|}}}|data-qid{{=}}"{{{Q|}}}" value{{=}}"{{{Q2|}}}"|value{{=}}"{{{Q|}}}"}} {{#if:{{{dimension|}}}|data-dimension{{=}}"{{{dimension|}}}"}} data-icon="{{{I|}}}">{{#if:{{{Q2|}}}{{{Q2|}}}|{{#if:{{{Q2|}}}|Q{{{Q2|}}}/Q{{{Q|}}}|Q{{{Q|}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{h4|}}}|<h4>{{{h4}}}</h4>}}{{#if:{{{PPPA|}}}|{{{PPPA|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}</includeonly></onlyinclude>== Description ==

This is a template meant to mirror the HTML <code>li</code> tag. The purpose of it is to make prototype pages more readable and intuitive and less easy to make typos. As such, most of the parameters for the tag have to do with Hue Items.

== Parameters ==

* <code>start</code> - Must be used on the first Item in the list for correct rendering. (Though if it is omitted, browsers may ignore the bug anyway.)
* <code>I</code> - Icon Template, such as <code>S2/Fy</code>. If this is specified, you might not need <code>dimension</code> or <code>class</code> — check if the icon Template and its corresponding <code>/class</code> Template exist to make that possible.
* <code>dimension</code> - Item dimensionality. Optional.
* <code>class</code> - For customizing the CSS classname applied to the tag. Optional.
* <code>Q</code> - Item number with commas, for use in ordered lists.
* <code>Q2</code> - Item number without commas, for use in ordered lists.
* <code>h4</code> - pProposition title, to be bolded and shown on table of contents. Optional.
* <code>lang</code> - Language of text inside list item. If not specified, this list item will probably be assumed to have the same language as the page or section that contains it.

[[Category:Templates for markup]] {{ArticleTitle|NoContents=y}}

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43

2026-05-02T05:52:00Z

Reversedragon: previous propositions - some may need to be merged?

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Edgeworth's dialectic|User=RD|E=Q64,43|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,43|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game|Ace Attorney}}) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]]) -> motif examined in Ace Attorney 2. ... Edgeworth collides with Wright. he has a particular way of thinking which is 'a problem' to Phoenix Wright. Wright continues to push on 'in authenticity'. after the incident where somebody tried to frame Edgeworth (following inside the recurring theme of behind-the-scenes fights between the criminals and the lawyers or detectives) and the Judge(?) reminded people of his actual violations of procedure, Edgeworth leaves. when he comes back, he gives Wright some very cryptic advice about 'knowing what it means to be the defense' after he 'discovered what it means to be the prosecution'. at the end it becomes clear Edgeworth did change. as much as he still seems reluctant to say it out loud he seems to have been jarred by his encounters with Phoenix and realized there was a need to to also collide the two of them together mentally and transform himself into something else. 
this motif is... a mixed bag. in some ways it's a good thing — it's always great to see a character re-evaluate themself. in some ways it's a little yucky because it reminds me of [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic (Liberal-republicanism)|Fukuyama's dialectic]] but somehow applied to people. in Fukuyama's dialectic it's asserted that improvement and moderation are inherently tied together such that there's not really any such thing as change, only restoring the perfect. and here, you can almost see a nasty undertone that Edgeworth had to rethink himself because his personality was "not moderate" and "had to be moderated" while Phoenix, in being defined by authenticity and a kind of purity of character, is characterized not by actual striving for self-improvement but by inherent perfection. Franziska von Karma is obnoxious but like, as much as this isn't my favorite kind of 'character development', at the very least she did work hard to get where she is. meanwhile the game ultimately seems to knock that concept of improving through effort, and after thinking about it a while that's a little unsettling honestly. it's like Edgeworth didn't improve morally because he tried to do that — the form of effort that is relevant here and possibly more important — but because he regressed to the mean, he fell back to the Ideal. that concept is the thing that bothers me. 
Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/Aa|Q=64,43|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game|Ace Attorney}}; Lacanianism) -> added previous propositions. some of these may need to be merged together? I think Q64,43 is its own motif because it can be considered the {{game|Ace Attorney}} version, or the "fictional works" version of the motif, while at least Q51,01 would be separate from it.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/ES|Q=51,01|Q2=5101}}When The Subject simply {{em|is}}, it compels people to listen / Edgeworth's dialectic (generic)

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=51,02|Q2=5102}}The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / whatsisname the unlikeable guy (Excessive Subject, Žižek) will stop the problem by stoking empathy -> I only caught this one after three or more times of listening to a Deltarune analysis. on Noelle's blog there is [https://deltarune.com/the_n3w3st_g1rl_g1rl/ an incident] where Susie is about to bite Kris, but then she stops because Kris said something unexpected. the blog post does not even explain what Kris said, underscoring the motif that Kris is an "excessive Subject" even to The Player. outside Deltarune, this same concept is portrayed much worse in <cite>The Excessive Subject</cite>. Rothenberg and Žižek clumsily try to explain that basically if a person is just really unpredictable people would eventually be forced to have intersubjectivity and learn empathy. honestly? I really do not think so. the problem isn't that reactionaries don't understand things. the problem is that the processes of society are much more physical and "inanimate" than people want to believe, reactionaries understand those processes all too well, and they choose to perpetuate cruel patterns because it's genuinely materially easier than doing otherwise. like, to get them to change you'd have to force them to expend energy and create things when they don't want to. doing nothing is much easier than doing something. people being unpredictable doesn't make Actually Getting Off Your Butt And Doing Things become easy.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=51,03|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me") -> the motif of either of the above two propositions being enacted in fiction

{{li|I=F2/IK/Aa|Q=618}}The regulation of technology is an instance of Edgeworth's dialectic; technology is regulated when individual behavior becomes Excessive relative to other individuals and Filaments of individuals press individuals to change

{{li|I=S2/Aa|Q=618}}Markets are an anarchism because they involve Edgeworth's dialectic

{{li|I=S2/IK/MX|Q=618}}Edgeworth's dialectic is inappropriate for use at large scales; the Idealist model of "moderation" and "extremes" cannot be expected to operate reliably or at all in large societies as opposed to very small clusters of people -> I love calling this Edgeworth's dialectic over 'Susie's dialectic' because just knowing this name comes from a series about court cases it makes it sound weirdly 'official', not least because it's a relatively fancy name, and the character canonically has a surname. 
sneaking in anime characters into a discussion that's basically about laws becomes funnier the closer it gets to being impossible for someone who didn't about know the series to identify what's going on. trying to sneak in a Pokémon when people don't know what Pokémon is: basic. talking about ace attorney like it was a real court case: advanced.

</li></ol>

=== Technology ===
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=LR, ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Can we really trust companies to use their technology for good?! -> this is one of the biggest glaring contradictions in the whole of blue anarchism. that government must be used to contain """technology""", the place power supposedly comes from, but that we're really not supposed to think about government and nearly supposed to forget it exists after an election, and that society must be developed through people spontaneously creating technology with no guidance from anyone else. that feels like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. 
"power comes from technology" "we only have society when we regulate technology" "well you have to have businesses" "businesses don't have anything to do with anything" "they're a business, they have to make a profit" "" 
honestly, like... anticommunism is one of the most dangerous technologies ever invented, because it makes your government secretly build atom bombs whether you want them. can we ban anticommunism just because it's dangerous and acts as a material process that causes the creation of corporations and institutions thus making it a technology?

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Power comes from technology / Political power comes from material inventions and philosophical technologies, including corporate structures, government institutions, and ideological conditioning [https://cwre.org/w/Small_government] [https://cwre.org/w/Political_power_comes_from_technology] -> {{em|no.}} now, I like the definition of technology here. that part is not really the bad part — honestly, it's pretty cool and fitting to be able to call something like Marxist historical materialism a technology. that said, this is an Idealist model of where power comes from. it doesn't look like it at first, when it appeals to material objects like spears, bomber planes, and datacenters full of LLMs, but the telling part is when it considers policies to be technologies on the same level as physical inventions. while that shouldn't be a bad thing it's definitely being done for the wrong reasons. what's being implied is that technologies are something that are deliberately created as social constructs by individuals based on what they personally want — based on individual knowledge, individual ideology, and individual will. the article says that individual actions and decisions can never fully be prevented, which is correct, but then it claims that they can be contained anyway, based on some oddly specific between-the-lines reasoning that if people decide to do something it must then be possible to tell them not to decide to do it. this is not correct. people are countably separate material objects capable of multiplying their capital and capacity for destruction before they are rational agents, so if you try to believe that Ideas and Free Will are the basis for government then you'll end up at the conclusion that [[E:Government is almost impossible|government is almost impossible]]. all you can really claw back from the harsh facts of reality is the concept that because people have the capacity for destruction that in itself means that there's the right for a nation-state to assert government over them. but nation-states are countable, so you have to decide which nation-state has the inherent right to capture which people. and if you decide it wrong, the United States will forcibly assimilate a bunch of individual Native Americans into the United States identity and culture just so they are incapable of waging a war against it. or, for a more fun example, if you decide wrong the Communist Party of the Soviet Union will forcibly assimilate a bunch of Trotskyists that would rather create their own countably separate Marxist party, and make them operate within and construct the Soviet Union even as they don't really want to. this really is not how government works or where it comes from. you see this in the contradiction between Bolshevism attempting to take possession of Careerists and take away their right to appropriate capital or towns so the petty bourgeoisie don't exist any more but the whole sea of "petty classes" and people who don't understand Marxism that exist all pushing back at once and adding up to significant portions of a population as well as what may be majorities within First World populations. if it were true that Communism can't contain these classes for the greater good, then they would also be too powerful for Liberal-republicanism to contain.

{{li|I=F2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Power comes from technology -> look very closely here, and you'll catch it: the implication that {{em|political power is inherently bad}}, and while it's something society is allowed to have 'as a treat' the reason it has to be regulated is that power, {{em|democratic or un-democratic}}, is inherently destructive.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a technology
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a dangerous technology / Anticommunism is a dangerous technology that must be banned or regulated -> this is so stupid it's hilarious and yet it's one of those moments where I'm like, did I have a moment of dark genius...? would this actually work? 
I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technologies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}} 
Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology

</li></ol>
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* Aa / psychoanalysis


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/hue2.css

2026-05-02T05:39:44Z

Reversedragon: psychoanalysis

/* stylesheet for showing item identifiers with particular color codings */

@media screen {
/* general categories */
.hue .field_internal { border-color: #909090; background: #d3d3d3; /* silver; LightGray */ }
.hue .field_geo { border-color: #3d4831; background: #749363; /* chlorophyll */ }
.hue .field_nations { border-color: #ae8847; background: #ddb887; /* khaki; Burlywood */ }
.hue .field_exstruct { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky blue */ }
.hue .field_trotsky { border-color: #b71a0a; background: #fd9920; /* flame; DarkOrange */ }
.hue .field_gramsci { border-color: #7e2b42; background: #f589a7; /* strawberry */ }
.hue .field_ML { border-color: #820212; background: #c24252; /* crimson */ }
.hue .field_mdem { border-color: #5330ab; background: #9370db; /* violet; MediumPurple */ }
.hue .field_BPP { border-color: #714b51; background: #4a174a; /* nsafu */ }
.hue .field_anarchy { border-color: #3f3b3b; background: #7f7f8e; /* charcoal */ }
.hue .field_fantasy { border-color: #40ae50; background: #90ee90; /* bright green; LightGreen */ }
.hue .field_horror { border-color: #305e00; background: #509e40; /* dark green */ }

/* experimental */
.hue .field_antiberry { border-color: #0a7658; background: #81d4bd; /* anti-strawberry */ }

/* rare fields - these override the common fields if one of those is specified */
.hue.field_LGBT .field_LGBT { border-color: #1b3671; background: #a399f2; /* lavender */ }
.hue.field_GNU .field_GNU { border-color: #ec8500; background: #78b5c8; /* penguin */ }

/* hyper-specific Existentialisms or Leninisms */
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rdemocracy { border-color: #273d99; background: #59a8ee; /* vivid sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_humanities { border-color: #515a8c; background: #9de1d7; /* tide blue, cyan */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_freud { border-color: #042019; background: #114779; /* abyss blue */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rhizome { border-color: #11236a; background: #5b7993; /* blue black */ }
.hue.field_ML .field_mao { border-color: #750a32; background: #bf3a73; /* hyacinth; berry red */ }

/* series-specific tweaks */
.hue.data_mage .bloc_earth { border-color: #4e6400; background: #afc641; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sun { border-color: #821408; background: #d07450; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sea { border-color: #093e73; background: #1e99bd; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_steel { border-color: #645a5a; background: #ececec; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_death { border-color: #937a1b; background: #4d293e; }

.hue.data_teadragon .suit_spring { border-color: hsl(354, 40%, 65%); background: hsl(102, 77%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_summer { border-color: hsl(138, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(56, 82%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_autumn { border-color: hsl(3, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(14, 91%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_winter { border-color: hsl(141, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(240, 40%, 80%); }
/* these were in HSL to be easier to balance against each other */

.hue.series_pkmn .element_ice, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_ice { border-color: #3dcef3; background: #81dff7; }
.hue.data_urbanfantasy .element_candy, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_candy { border-color: #9d2abc; background: #fd5dcc; }

.hue.series_pkmn .element_normal { border-color: #9fa19f; background: #c1c2c1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fighting { border-color: #ff8000; background: #ffac59; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_flying { border-color: #81b9ef; background: #add2f5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_poison { border-color: #9141cb; background: #b884dd; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ground { border-color: #915121; background: #b88e6f; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_rock { border-color: #afa981; background: #cbc7ad; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_bug { border-color: #91a119; background: #b8c26a; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ghost { border-color: #704170; background: #a284a2; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_steel { border-color: #60a1b8; background: #98c2d1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fire { border-color: #e62829; background: #ef7374; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_water { border-color: #2980ef; background: #74acf5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_grass { border-color: #3FA129; background: #82c274; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_electric { border-color: #fac000; background: #fcd659; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_psychic { border-color: #ef4179; background: #f584a8; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dragon { border-color: #5060e1; background: #8d98ec; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dark { border-color: #624d4e; background: #998b8c; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fairy { border-color: #ef70ef; background: #f5a2f5; }

/* basic placeholder entry and field-specific placeholders */
.hue .number_empty, .hue .element_empty { border-color: transparent; background: #404040; }
.hue .number_empty a { color: inherit; }

/* swatch text colors */
.mw-body .hue .field_ML:before, .mw-body .hue .field_ML .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy:before, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy .figure,
.mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death:before, .mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death .figure,
.mw-body ol.hue .number_empty, ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty:before, ol.hue .field_geo.element_empty:before, .mw-body ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP:before, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP .figure
{ color: #fafafa; }
.mw-body .hue .field_mdem:before, .mw-body .hue .field_mdem .figure,
.mw-body .hue.field_exstruct .field_freud .figure, ol.hue.field_exstruct .field_freud:before
{ color: #eeffe8; }
}

/* hide clarifications within series */
/* this is being redone from scratch. it was progressive enhancement anyway, so not much is lost
classnames which were used: .series_teadragon .series_wingsfire .series_deltarune .series_adventuretime-2010 .series_dragonball .series_DBsuper */
.hue dfn ins.series_pokemon
{ display: none; } /* these will only be shown inside their respective series */
.hue.series_pokemon dfn ins.series_pokemon { display: inline-block; }
.series_pkmn dfn.field_pkmn .field { display: none; } /* these will _not_ be shown inside their respective series */

/* [[Category:Fake Item lists]] [[Category:Item colors ontology]] */

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/hue2.css

2026-05-02T04:30:02Z

Reversedragon: psychoanalysis

/* stylesheet for showing item identifiers with particular color codings */

@media screen {
/* general categories */
.hue .field_internal { border-color: #909090; background: #d3d3d3; /* silver; LightGray */ }
.hue .field_geo { border-color: #3d4831; background: #749363; /* chlorophyll */ }
.hue .field_nations { border-color: #ae8847; background: #ddb887; /* khaki; Burlywood */ }
.hue .field_exstruct { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky blue */ }
.hue .field_trotsky { border-color: #b71a0a; background: #fd9920; /* flame; DarkOrange */ }
.hue .field_gramsci { border-color: #7e2b42; background: #f589a7; /* strawberry */ }
.hue .field_ML { border-color: #820212; background: #c24252; /* crimson */ }
.hue .field_mdem { border-color: #5330ab; background: #9370db; /* violet; MediumPurple */ }
.hue .field_BPP { border-color: #714b51; background: #4a174a; /* nsafu */ }
.hue .field_anarchy { border-color: #3f3b3b; background: #7f7f8e; /* charcoal */ }
.hue .field_fantasy { border-color: #40ae50; background: #90ee90; /* bright green; LightGreen */ }
.hue .field_horror { border-color: #305e00; background: #509e40; /* dark green */ }

/* experimental */
.hue .field_antiberry { border-color: #0a7658; background: #81d4bd; /* anti-strawberry */ }

/* rare fields - these override the common fields if one of those is specified */
.hue.field_LGBT .field_LGBT { border-color: #1b3671; background: #a399f2; /* lavender */ }
.hue.field_GNU .field_GNU { border-color: #ec8500; background: #78b5c8; /* penguin */ }

/* hyper-specific Existentialisms or Leninisms */
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rdemocracy { border-color: #273d99; background: #59a8ee; /* vivid sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_humanities { border-color: #515a8c; background: #9de1d7; /* tide blue, cyan */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_freud { border-color: #042019; background: #114779; /* abyss blue */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rhizome { border-color: #11236a; background: #5b7993; /* blue black */ }
.hue.field_ML .field_mao { border-color: #750a32; background: #bf3a73; /* hyacinth; berry red */ }

/* series-specific tweaks */
.hue.data_mage .bloc_earth { border-color: #4e6400; background: #afc641; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sun { border-color: #821408; background: #d07450; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sea { border-color: #093e73; background: #1e99bd; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_steel { border-color: #645a5a; background: #ececec; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_death { border-color: #937a1b; background: #4d293e; }

.hue.data_teadragon .suit_spring { border-color: hsl(354, 40%, 65%); background: hsl(102, 77%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_summer { border-color: hsl(138, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(56, 82%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_autumn { border-color: hsl(3, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(14, 91%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_winter { border-color: hsl(141, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(240, 40%, 80%); }
/* these were in HSL to be easier to balance against each other */

.hue.series_pkmn .element_ice, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_ice { border-color: #3dcef3; background: #81dff7; }
.hue.data_urbanfantasy .element_candy, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_candy { border-color: #9d2abc; background: #fd5dcc; }

.hue.series_pkmn .element_normal { border-color: #9fa19f; background: #c1c2c1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fighting { border-color: #ff8000; background: #ffac59; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_flying { border-color: #81b9ef; background: #add2f5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_poison { border-color: #9141cb; background: #b884dd; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ground { border-color: #915121; background: #b88e6f; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_rock { border-color: #afa981; background: #cbc7ad; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_bug { border-color: #91a119; background: #b8c26a; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ghost { border-color: #704170; background: #a284a2; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_steel { border-color: #60a1b8; background: #98c2d1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fire { border-color: #e62829; background: #ef7374; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_water { border-color: #2980ef; background: #74acf5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_grass { border-color: #3FA129; background: #82c274; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_electric { border-color: #fac000; background: #fcd659; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_psychic { border-color: #ef4179; background: #f584a8; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dragon { border-color: #5060e1; background: #8d98ec; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dark { border-color: #624d4e; background: #998b8c; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fairy { border-color: #ef70ef; background: #f5a2f5; }

/* basic placeholder entry and field-specific placeholders */
.hue .number_empty, .hue .element_empty { border-color: transparent; background: #404040; }
.hue .number_empty a { color: inherit; }

/* swatch text colors */
.mw-body .hue .field_ML:before, .mw-body .hue .field_ML .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy:before, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy .figure,
.mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death:before, .mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death .figure,
.mw-body ol.hue .number_empty, ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty:before, ol.hue .field_geo.element_empty:before, .mw-body ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP:before, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP .figure
{ color: #fafafa; }
.mw-body .hue .field_mdem:before, .mw-body .hue .field_mdem .figure,
.mw-body .hue.field_exstruct .field_freud .figure
{ color: #eeffe8; }
}

/* hide clarifications within series */
/* this is being redone from scratch. it was progressive enhancement anyway, so not much is lost
classnames which were used: .series_teadragon .series_wingsfire .series_deltarune .series_adventuretime-2010 .series_dragonball .series_DBsuper */
.hue dfn ins.series_pokemon
{ display: none; } /* these will only be shown inside their respective series */
.hue.series_pokemon dfn ins.series_pokemon { display: inline-block; }
.series_pkmn dfn.field_pkmn .field { display: none; } /* these will _not_ be shown inside their respective series */

/* [[Category:Fake Item lists]] [[Category:Item colors ontology]] */

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/hue2.css

2026-05-02T04:27:21Z

Reversedragon: psychoanalysis color: abyssal blue

/* stylesheet for showing item identifiers with particular color codings */

@media screen {
/* general categories */
.hue .field_internal { border-color: #909090; background: #d3d3d3; /* silver; LightGray */ }
.hue .field_geo { border-color: #3d4831; background: #749363; /* chlorophyll */ }
.hue .field_nations { border-color: #ae8847; background: #ddb887; /* khaki; Burlywood */ }
.hue .field_exstruct { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky blue */ }
.hue .field_trotsky { border-color: #b71a0a; background: #fd9920; /* flame; DarkOrange */ }
.hue .field_gramsci { border-color: #7e2b42; background: #f589a7; /* strawberry */ }
.hue .field_ML { border-color: #820212; background: #c24252; /* crimson */ }
.hue .field_mdem { border-color: #5330ab; background: #9370db; /* violet; MediumPurple */ }
.hue .field_BPP { border-color: #714b51; background: #4a174a; /* nsafu */ }
.hue .field_anarchy { border-color: #3f3b3b; background: #7f7f8e; /* charcoal */ }
.hue .field_fantasy { border-color: #40ae50; background: #90ee90; /* bright green; LightGreen */ }
.hue .field_horror { border-color: #305e00; background: #509e40; /* dark green */ }

/* experimental */
.hue .field_antiberry { border-color: #0a7658; background: #81d4bd; /* anti-strawberry */ }

/* rare fields - these override the common fields if one of those is specified */
.hue.field_LGBT .field_LGBT { border-color: #1b3671; background: #a399f2; /* lavender */ }
.hue.field_GNU .field_GNU { border-color: #ec8500; background: #78b5c8; /* penguin */ }

/* hyper-specific Existentialisms or Leninisms */
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rdemocracy { border-color: #273d99; background: #59a8ee; /* vivid sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_humanities { border-color: #515a8c; background: #9de1d7; /* tide blue, cyan */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_freud { border-color: #042019; background: #174773; /* abyss blue */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rhizome { border-color: #11236a; background: #5b7993; /* blue black */ }
.hue.field_ML .field_mao { border-color: #750a32; background: #bf3a73; /* hyacinth; berry red */ }

/* series-specific tweaks */
.hue.data_mage .bloc_earth { border-color: #4e6400; background: #afc641; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sun { border-color: #821408; background: #d07450; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sea { border-color: #093e73; background: #1e99bd; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_steel { border-color: #645a5a; background: #ececec; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_death { border-color: #937a1b; background: #4d293e; }

.hue.data_teadragon .suit_spring { border-color: hsl(354, 40%, 65%); background: hsl(102, 77%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_summer { border-color: hsl(138, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(56, 82%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_autumn { border-color: hsl(3, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(14, 91%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_winter { border-color: hsl(141, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(240, 40%, 80%); }
/* these were in HSL to be easier to balance against each other */

.hue.series_pkmn .element_ice, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_ice { border-color: #3dcef3; background: #81dff7; }
.hue.data_urbanfantasy .element_candy, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_candy { border-color: #9d2abc; background: #fd5dcc; }

.hue.series_pkmn .element_normal { border-color: #9fa19f; background: #c1c2c1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fighting { border-color: #ff8000; background: #ffac59; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_flying { border-color: #81b9ef; background: #add2f5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_poison { border-color: #9141cb; background: #b884dd; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ground { border-color: #915121; background: #b88e6f; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_rock { border-color: #afa981; background: #cbc7ad; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_bug { border-color: #91a119; background: #b8c26a; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ghost { border-color: #704170; background: #a284a2; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_steel { border-color: #60a1b8; background: #98c2d1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fire { border-color: #e62829; background: #ef7374; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_water { border-color: #2980ef; background: #74acf5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_grass { border-color: #3FA129; background: #82c274; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_electric { border-color: #fac000; background: #fcd659; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_psychic { border-color: #ef4179; background: #f584a8; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dragon { border-color: #5060e1; background: #8d98ec; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dark { border-color: #624d4e; background: #998b8c; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fairy { border-color: #ef70ef; background: #f5a2f5; }

/* basic placeholder entry and field-specific placeholders */
.hue .number_empty, .hue .element_empty { border-color: transparent; background: #404040; }
.hue .number_empty a { color: inherit; }

/* swatch text colors */
.mw-body .hue .field_ML:before, .mw-body .hue .field_ML .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy:before, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy .figure,
.mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death:before, .mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death .figure,
.mw-body ol.hue .number_empty, ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty:before, ol.hue .field_geo.element_empty:before, .mw-body ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP:before, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP .figure,
.mw-body .hue.field_exstruct .field_freud
{ color: #fafafa; }
.mw-body .hue .field_mdem:before, .mw-body .hue .field_mdem .figure
{ color: #eeffe8; }
}

/* hide clarifications within series */
/* this is being redone from scratch. it was progressive enhancement anyway, so not much is lost
classnames which were used: .series_teadragon .series_wingsfire .series_deltarune .series_adventuretime-2010 .series_dragonball .series_DBsuper */
.hue dfn ins.series_pokemon
{ display: none; } /* these will only be shown inside their respective series */
.hue.series_pokemon dfn ins.series_pokemon { display: inline-block; }
.series_pkmn dfn.field_pkmn .field { display: none; } /* these will _not_ be shown inside their respective series */

/* [[Category:Fake Item lists]] [[Category:Item colors ontology]] */

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43

2026-05-02T02:31:41Z

Reversedragon: Markets are an anarchism because they involve Edgeworth's dialectic

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Edgeworth's dialectic|User=RD|E=Q64,43|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/Aa|Q=64,43|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]]) -> motif examined in Ace Attorney 2. ... Edgeworth collides with Wright. he has a particular way of thinking which is 'a problem' to Phoenix Wright. Wright continues to push on 'in authenticity'. after the incident where somebody tried to frame Edgeworth (following inside the recurring theme of behind-the-scenes fights between the criminals and the lawyers or detectives) and the Judge(?) reminded people of his actual violations of procedure, Edgeworth leaves. when he comes back, he gives Wright some very cryptic advice about 'knowing what it means to be the defense' after he 'discovered what it means to be the prosecution'. at the end it becomes clear Edgeworth did change. as much as he still seems reluctant to say it out loud he seems to have been jarred by his encounters with Phoenix and realized there was a need to to also collide the two of them together mentally and transform himself into something else. 
this motif is... a mixed bag. in some ways it's a good thing — it's always great to see a character re-evaluate themself. in some ways it's a little yucky because it reminds me of [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic (Liberal-republicanism)|Fukuyama's dialectic]] but somehow applied to people. in Fukuyama's dialectic it's asserted that improvement and moderation are inherently tied together such that there's not really any such thing as change, only restoring the perfect. and here, you can almost see a nasty undertone that Edgeworth had to rethink himself because his personality was "not moderate" and "had to be moderated" while Phoenix, in being defined by authenticity and a kind of purity of character, is characterized not by actual striving for self-improvement but by inherent perfection. Franziska von Karma is obnoxious but like, as much as this isn't my favorite kind of 'character development', at the very least she did work hard to get where she is. meanwhile the game ultimately seems to knock that concept of improving through effort, and after thinking about it a while that's a little unsettling honestly. it's like Edgeworth didn't improve morally because he tried to do that — the form of effort that is relevant here and possibly more important — but because he regressed to the mean, he fell back to the Ideal. that concept is the thing that bothers me. 
Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=F2/IK/Aa|Q=618}}The regulation of technology is an instance of Edgeworth's dialectic; technology is regulated when individual behavior becomes Excessive relative to other individuals and Filaments of individuals press individuals to change

{{li|I=S2/Aa|Q=618}}Markets are an anarchism because they involve Edgeworth's dialectic

{{li|I=S2/IK/MX|Q=618}}Edgeworth's dialectic is inappropriate for use at large scales; the Idealist model of "moderation" and "extremes" cannot be expected to operate reliably or at all in large societies as opposed to very small clusters of people -> I love calling this Edgeworth's dialectic over 'Susie's dialectic' because just knowing this name comes from a series about court cases it makes it sound weirdly 'official', not least because it's a relatively fancy name, and the character canonically has a surname. 
sneaking in anime characters into a discussion that's basically about laws becomes funnier the closer it gets to being impossible for someone who didn't about know the series to identify what's going on. trying to sneak in a Pokémon when people don't know what Pokémon is: basic. talking about ace attorney like it was a real court case: advanced.

</li></ol>

=== Technology ===
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=LR, ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Can we really trust companies to use their technology for good?! -> this is one of the biggest glaring contradictions in the whole of blue anarchism. that government must be used to contain """technology""", the place power supposedly comes from, but that we're really not supposed to think about government and nearly supposed to forget it exists after an election, and that society must be developed through people spontaneously creating technology with no guidance from anyone else. that feels like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. 
"power comes from technology" "we only have society when we regulate technology" "well you have to have businesses" "businesses don't have anything to do with anything" "they're a business, they have to make a profit" "" 
honestly, like... anticommunism is one of the most dangerous technologies ever invented, because it makes your government secretly build atom bombs whether you want them. can we ban anticommunism just because it's dangerous and acts as a material process that causes the creation of corporations and institutions thus making it a technology?

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Power comes from technology / Political power comes from material inventions and philosophical technologies, including corporate structures, government institutions, and ideological conditioning [https://cwre.org/w/Small_government] [https://cwre.org/w/Political_power_comes_from_technology] -> {{em|no.}} now, I like the definition of technology here. that part is not really the bad part — honestly, it's pretty cool and fitting to be able to call something like Marxist historical materialism a technology. that said, this is an Idealist model of where power comes from. it doesn't look like it at first, when it appeals to material objects like spears, bomber planes, and datacenters full of LLMs, but the telling part is when it considers policies to be technologies on the same level as physical inventions. while that shouldn't be a bad thing it's definitely being done for the wrong reasons. what's being implied is that technologies are something that are deliberately created as social constructs by individuals based on what they personally want — based on individual knowledge, individual ideology, and individual will. the article says that individual actions and decisions can never fully be prevented, which is correct, but then it claims that they can be contained anyway, based on some oddly specific between-the-lines reasoning that if people decide to do something it must then be possible to tell them not to decide to do it. this is not correct. people are countably separate material objects capable of multiplying their capital and capacity for destruction before they are rational agents, so if you try to believe that Ideas and Free Will are the basis for government then you'll end up at the conclusion that [[E:Government is almost impossible|government is almost impossible]]. all you can really claw back from the harsh facts of reality is the concept that because people have the capacity for destruction that in itself means that there's the right for a nation-state to assert government over them. but nation-states are countable, so you have to decide which nation-state has the inherent right to capture which people. and if you decide it wrong, the United States will forcibly assimilate a bunch of individual Native Americans into the United States identity and culture just so they are incapable of waging a war against it. or, for a more fun example, if you decide wrong the Communist Party of the Soviet Union will forcibly assimilate a bunch of Trotskyists that would rather create their own countably separate Marxist party, and make them operate within and construct the Soviet Union even as they don't really want to. this really is not how government works or where it comes from. you see this in the contradiction between Bolshevism attempting to take possession of Careerists and take away their right to appropriate capital or towns so the petty bourgeoisie don't exist any more but the whole sea of "petty classes" and people who don't understand Marxism that exist all pushing back at once and adding up to significant portions of a population as well as what may be majorities within First World populations. if it were true that Communism can't contain these classes for the greater good, then they would also be too powerful for Liberal-republicanism to contain.

{{li|I=F2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Power comes from technology -> look very closely here, and you'll catch it: the implication that {{em|political power is inherently bad}}, and while it's something society is allowed to have 'as a treat' the reason it has to be regulated is that power, {{em|democratic or un-democratic}}, is inherently destructive.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a technology
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a dangerous technology / Anticommunism is a dangerous technology that must be banned or regulated -> this is so stupid it's hilarious and yet it's one of those moments where I'm like, did I have a moment of dark genius...? would this actually work? 
I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technologies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}} 
Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology

</li></ol>
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* Aa / psychoanalysis


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43

2026-05-02T02:27:58Z

Reversedragon: Power comes from technology; link

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Edgeworth's dialectic|User=RD|E=Q64,43|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/Aa|Q=64,43|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]]) -> motif examined in Ace Attorney 2. ... Edgeworth collides with Wright. he has a particular way of thinking which is 'a problem' to Phoenix Wright. Wright continues to push on 'in authenticity'. after the incident where somebody tried to frame Edgeworth (following inside the recurring theme of behind-the-scenes fights between the criminals and the lawyers or detectives) and the Judge(?) reminded people of his actual violations of procedure, Edgeworth leaves. when he comes back, he gives Wright some very cryptic advice about 'knowing what it means to be the defense' after he 'discovered what it means to be the prosecution'. at the end it becomes clear Edgeworth did change. as much as he still seems reluctant to say it out loud he seems to have been jarred by his encounters with Phoenix and realized there was a need to to also collide the two of them together mentally and transform himself into something else. 
this motif is... a mixed bag. in some ways it's a good thing — it's always great to see a character re-evaluate themself. in some ways it's a little yucky because it reminds me of [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic (Liberal-republicanism)|Fukuyama's dialectic]] but somehow applied to people. in Fukuyama's dialectic it's asserted that improvement and moderation are inherently tied together such that there's not really any such thing as change, only restoring the perfect. and here, you can almost see a nasty undertone that Edgeworth had to rethink himself because his personality was "not moderate" and "had to be moderated" while Phoenix, in being defined by authenticity and a kind of purity of character, is characterized not by actual striving for self-improvement but by inherent perfection. Franziska von Karma is obnoxious but like, as much as this isn't my favorite kind of 'character development', at the very least she did work hard to get where she is. meanwhile the game ultimately seems to knock that concept of improving through effort, and after thinking about it a while that's a little unsettling honestly. it's like Edgeworth didn't improve morally because he tried to do that — the form of effort that is relevant here and possibly more important — but because he regressed to the mean, he fell back to the Ideal. that concept is the thing that bothers me. 
Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=F2/IK/Aa|Q=618}}The regulation of technology is an instance of Edgeworth's dialectic; technology is regulated when individual behavior becomes Excessive relative to other individuals and Filaments of individuals press individuals to change

{{li|I=S2/IK/MX|Q=618}}Edgeworth's dialectic is inappropriate for use at large scales; the Idealist model of "moderation" and "extremes" cannot be expected to operate reliably or at all in large societies as opposed to very small clusters of people -> I love calling this Edgeworth's dialectic over 'Susie's dialectic' because just knowing this name comes from a series about court cases it makes it sound weirdly 'official', not least because it's a relatively fancy name, and the character canonically has a surname. 
sneaking in anime characters into a discussion that's basically about laws becomes funnier the closer it gets to being impossible for someone who didn't about know the series to identify what's going on. trying to sneak in a Pokémon when people don't know what Pokémon is: basic. talking about ace attorney like it was a real court case: advanced.

</li></ol>

=== Technology ===
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=LR, ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Can we really trust companies to use their technology for good?! -> this is one of the biggest glaring contradictions in the whole of blue anarchism. that government must be used to contain """technology""", the place power supposedly comes from, but that we're really not supposed to think about government and nearly supposed to forget it exists after an election, and that society must be developed through people spontaneously creating technology with no guidance from anyone else. that feels like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. 
"power comes from technology" "we only have society when we regulate technology" "well you have to have businesses" "businesses don't have anything to do with anything" "they're a business, they have to make a profit" "" 
honestly, like... anticommunism is one of the most dangerous technologies ever invented, because it makes your government secretly build atom bombs whether you want them. can we ban anticommunism just because it's dangerous and acts as a material process that causes the creation of corporations and institutions thus making it a technology?

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Power comes from technology / Political power comes from material inventions and philosophical technologies, including corporate structures, government institutions, and ideological conditioning [https://cwre.org/w/Small_government] [https://cwre.org/w/Political_power_comes_from_technology] -> {{em|no.}} now, I like the definition of technology here. that part is not really the bad part — honestly, it's pretty cool and fitting to be able to call something like Marxist historical materialism a technology. that said, this is an Idealist model of where power comes from. it doesn't look like it at first, when it appeals to material objects like spears, bomber planes, and datacenters full of LLMs, but the telling part is when it considers policies to be technologies on the same level as physical inventions. while that shouldn't be a bad thing it's definitely being done for the wrong reasons. what's being implied is that technologies are something that are deliberately created as social constructs by individuals based on what they personally want — based on individual knowledge, individual ideology, and individual will. the article says that individual actions and decisions can never fully be prevented, which is correct, but then it claims that they can be contained anyway, based on some oddly specific between-the-lines reasoning that if people decide to do something it must then be possible to tell them not to decide to do it. this is not correct. people are countably separate material objects capable of multiplying their capital and capacity for destruction before they are rational agents, so if you try to believe that Ideas and Free Will are the basis for government then you'll end up at the conclusion that [[E:Government is almost impossible|government is almost impossible]]. all you can really claw back from the harsh facts of reality is the concept that because people have the capacity for destruction that in itself means that there's the right for a nation-state to assert government over them. but nation-states are countable, so you have to decide which nation-state has the inherent right to capture which people. and if you decide it wrong, the United States will forcibly assimilate a bunch of individual Native Americans into the United States identity and culture just so they are incapable of waging a war against it. or, for a more fun example, if you decide wrong the Communist Party of the Soviet Union will forcibly assimilate a bunch of Trotskyists that would rather create their own countably separate Marxist party, and make them operate within and construct the Soviet Union even as they don't really want to. this really is not how government works or where it comes from. you see this in the contradiction between Bolshevism attempting to take possession of Careerists and take away their right to appropriate capital or towns so the petty bourgeoisie don't exist any more but the whole sea of "petty classes" and people who don't understand Marxism that exist all pushing back at once and adding up to significant portions of a population as well as what may be majorities within First World populations. if it were true that Communism can't contain these classes for the greater good, then they would also be too powerful for Liberal-republicanism to contain.

{{li|I=F2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Power comes from technology -> look very closely here, and you'll catch it: the implication that {{em|political power is inherently bad}}, and while it's something society is allowed to have 'as a treat' the reason it has to be regulated is that power, {{em|democratic or un-democratic}}, is inherently destructive.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a technology
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a dangerous technology / Anticommunism is a dangerous technology that must be banned or regulated -> this is so stupid it's hilarious and yet it's one of those moments where I'm like, did I have a moment of dark genius...? would this actually work? 
I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technologies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}} 
Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology

</li></ol>
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* Aa / psychoanalysis


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Template:IS2/IK/MX/class

2026-05-02T02:27:09Z

Reversedragon: reuse violet swatch

#redirect[[Template:IS2/MX/class]]

Template:IF2/IK/Aa/class

2026-05-02T02:26:10Z

Reversedragon: reuse freud swatch

#redirect[[Template:IF2/Aa/class]]

Template:IF2/Aa/class

2026-05-02T02:25:39Z

Reversedragon: dimension

<onlyinclude>class="field_exstruct field_freud manual {{{1|}}}" data-dimension="F2"</onlyinclude>
[[Category:I-Template classnames]]

Template:IF2/Aa/class

2026-05-02T02:25:24Z

Reversedragon: freud swatch

<onlyinclude>class="field_exstruct field_freud manual {{{1|}}}" data-dimension="S"</onlyinclude>
[[Category:I-Template classnames]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,30

2026-05-02T01:05:31Z

Reversedragon: Wendy Oldbag's debut is an example of Idealist reasoning

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Ace Attorney|User=RD|E=Q64,30|Contents=y}}
{{ContentWarning|Full game spoilers — Ace Attorney (#1)}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,30|Q2=6430}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} (metaseries) -> I had no reason to add this until suddenly I was watching it just for context on 'cross-examine the parrot', and then was like, {{i|oh wait, this game is about logic. it's not actually about real court procedure as much as it's about an abstract concept of "reason". which... makes it surprisingly relevant to a wiki about logic. ok. time to code it.}}
{{li|I=S1/IK|Q=64,30|Q2=6430}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} -> field: fiction; field: Kantianism

</li></ol>

== Motifs ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,29|Q2=6429}}lawyer of justice -> intuitive, because it's at least vaguely what their stated purpose is.
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=64,37|Q2=6437}}lawyer of injustice -> it's rarer you see {{em|this}} in fiction and yet Homestuck catapulted the idea into popular consciousness.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,31|Q2=6431}}objection! (motif)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,31|Q2=6431}}objection! (motif) -> "objection maker": [https://objection.lol/maker]

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}narrative parallel
{{li|I=M3/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Are narrative parallels admissible in court? ({{game|Ace Attorney|E=Q64,41}}; secular philosophy against religion) -> the answer should be no, but Phoenix, unbelievably, manages to use them in the only way that's acceptable.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/IV|Q=44,13|Q2=4413}}See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart / Lies always beget more lies. See through one, and their whole testimony falls apart ({{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney}} tutorial) {{YouTube|aha0iZQvMvY}} -> you know what joke I'm going to make.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=51,02|Q2=5102|ww=Q64,41}}The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / you are the most unpredictable defense attorney ... I cannot deny the possibility of what you say -> at this moment Phoenix is having a 'revelation' from a ghost who should be only as helpful as he is but is an undetectable inner experience. 
I'm not going to say this shouldn't be in there or deny this kind of thing makes stories more interesting, but I do have to say, we're getting into a sizable degree of unnecessary Kantianism here; the work is departing from reality on its 'realistic' society model before it departs from reality on fictional rules.

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618|ww=Q64,41}}Wendy Oldbag's debut is an example of Idealist reasoning -> to be perfectly fair to these games, they use Idealism mostly for window dressing rather than the core logical problems of the game; the setting eschews supernatural forces (divine or magical) having a serious effect on the story and the court cases actually are built on a perhaps-somewhat-naïve Materialism. I really can't think of a moment where Idealism undermined the story or lessened it in any way and made me mad. this tiny, narrow little slice of the arts and writing would be one of the very few cases where Idealism has a positive effect on society. that said. the ways the characters are designed provide a nice window into {{em|what Idealism actually is}}, and can be something of a teaching moment. 
Oldbag's appearance is slightly surprising. she is a roadblock. there are particular central themes set up for the case — tokusatsu shows, action, epic rivalries, feudal times and their possible vague connection to the current setting, very vague connections between Edgeworth/"Mitsurugi" and the Steel Samurai — and then Ms. Oldbag suddenly shows up. but there is a buried inherent logic to why she is there. only later into the case we see that the show being a "kids' show" is important, and Ms. Oldbag has to be there as this figurative and also literal obstacle to the kids having fun. the joke lands because it is not completely obvious, but the idea comes out of a very basic contradiction between abstract concepts that are thought to be inherently opposed which then manifest in particular material ways that "make sense" — Oldbag literally running after the boy that broke in. this is what Idealism is: the use of abstract concepts to ostensibly explain material reality when something happens in material reality and you see two labeled things collide after the fact. 
Idealism comes up in Pokémon types, where the interactions between two Pokémon are explained after the fact using inherent characteristics (Types). Idealism comes up in Deltarune, where the element system is taken less seriously allowing for weird new elements like "mouse" and "cat" but the inherent connections between two concepts give rise to elemental pairs. Idealism shows up in Ace Attorney designs where characters have particular roles in the story and then each character's design plays up particular abstract concepts to hint at these roles (the characters having strange names that clearly mean something but only slowly unfold like miniature mysteries of their own is one of the most obvious parts of this). Idealism shows up in a lot of places in different ways. 
Idealism may be "mostly" bad in that it clouds people's understanding of real-life events, but if you only want to use it as an art technique, you can learn a lot about how to create good "EarthBound logic" by unmasking various other instances of Idealism in other works.

</li></ol>

== Motifs (AA2) ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice For All [vol. 2]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}One purpose of the bourgeoisie is to mediate international trade and make overseas products available locally -> it's always funny when a proposition about capitalism comes up in the middle of something not about it, but I'll take it.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}Edgeworth's dialectic -> motif examined in Ace Attorney 2. {{YouTube|iSJP7AU1c9s|rem=AA2 32/50}} {{YouTube|ktUevbfqylU|rem=AA2 50/50}} Edgeworth collides with Wright. he has a particular way of thinking which is 'a problem' to Phoenix Wright. Wright continues to push on 'in authenticity'. after the incident where somebody tried to frame Edgeworth (following inside the recurring theme of behind-the-scenes fights between the criminals and the lawyers or detectives) and the Judge(?) reminded people of his actual violations of procedure, Edgeworth leaves. when he comes back, he gives Wright some very cryptic advice about 'knowing what it means to be the defense' after he 'discovered what it means to be the prosecution'. at the end it becomes clear Edgeworth did change. as much as he still seems reluctant to say it out loud he seems to have been jarred by his encounters with Phoenix and realized there was a need to to also collide the two of them together mentally and transform himself into something else. 
this motif is... a mixed bag. in some ways it's a good thing — it's always great to see a character re-evaluate themself. in some ways it's a little yucky because it reminds me of [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic (Liberal-republicanism)|Fukuyama's dialectic]] but somehow applied to people. in Fukuyama's dialectic it's asserted that improvement and moderation are inherently tied together such that there's not really any such thing as change, only restoring the perfect. and here, you can almost see a nasty undertone that Edgeworth had to rethink himself because his personality was "not moderate" and "had to be moderated" while Phoenix, in being defined by authenticity and a kind of purity of character, is characterized not by actual striving for self-improvement but by inherent perfection. Franziska von Karma is obnoxious but like, as much as this isn't my favorite kind of 'character development', at the very least she did work hard to get where she is. meanwhile the game ultimately seems to knock that concept of improving through effort, and after thinking about it a while that's a little unsettling honestly. it's like Edgeworth didn't improve morally because he tried to do that — the form of effort that is relevant here and possibly more important — but because he regressed to the mean, he fell back to the Ideal. that concept is the thing that bothers me. 
Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

</li></ol>

== Characters ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Phoenix Wright
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Miles Edgeworth -> I'll use the dark swatch because of the weird motif that came up for a bit of potraying prosecutors as horrifying killers.

</li></ol>

== Works ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,41|Q2=6441|rem-E=Q64,41}}{{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney}} (2001) [vol. 1] [https://aceattorney.fandom.com/wiki/Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney]
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice For All}} [vol. 2]
</li></ol>

== Theories ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} is a series about Liberal-republicans fighting brown anarchists -> there is a really solid theme of [[E:direct oppression|direct oppression]] running through the first game, where various people hire somebody to do harm to somebody that they think is violating the established local rules of their career or business — in effect, businesses or Artisanal practices acting like tiny governments. 
the moment the Steel Samurai came up I couldn't help but think, this character must be very thematic. he has a color timer on him for no reason, which connects him to Ultraman series. but Ultraman series is futuristic. while Steel Samurai is deliberately medieval; it's based in these principles of feudal orders with emperors, dukes or counts, and knights. I think that contrast is intentional and meant to frame Ace Attorney as {{em|feeling}} like it doesn't take place in 2001 because the characters' values are stuck hundreds of years before. now, you could have gotten that much from a magazine article; it's well known that the games are based on something called the ritsuryō system. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritsury%C5%8D] but when you get into the subtext of that is when things get really interesting. the ritsuryō system as a whole dates back to about the year 700; this places the characters' values approximately 1300 years before the game was made. 1300 years ago there was no United States. there was no global empire in its modern form (although Greek Egypt happened in about 300, so imperial colonies were already invented in more of a feudal form). Liberal-republicanism being an empire did not exist yet. Liberal-republicanism did not exist yet. we have to appreciate {{em|how different}} the world was in 300 — the whole dynamic of the United States and Japan and Germany and China fighting as powerful republics didn't yet exist. so then, what is the significance of Phoenix Wright and Edgeworth coming in and applying these very Kantian or Liberal-republican values to a world which is stuck in the 700s? it's a symbolic transition to Liberalism — they are taking feudalism and attempting to transition it to Liberal-republicanism. but more than that. because all the characters have to be superficially modern to make the setting truly feel shocking, all the peripheral characters live in capitalism. they exist within corporations and skilled practices and "[[E:Careerist layer (meta-Marxism)|Careerism]]". the peripheral characters may come out of something of a self-selected sample of people who have been near crimes, being detectives and witnesses and criminals, etc, but within them, you see a very clear theme pop up of almost all the lawbreakers suspect or not clearly trying to enforce particular rules themselves instead of letting the overarching republic do it. each lawbreaker, whether it's Redd White carrying out blackmail that is probably not legal or von Karma trying to get Hammond shot and Edgeworth in prison, always has a particular notion of what order and justice are; the most offensive thing to them is not getting to perform [[E:direct oppression|direct oppression]] and having someone else "hierarchically" meddle in their affairs. this weirdly positions the criminals of the Ace Attorney series as some kind of anarchism. definitely not one of the best kinds of anarchism, it goes without saying that most charcoal anarchists would hate it. but that by itself isn't to say it isn't an anarchism. blue anarchism almost certainly exists. orange anarchism may exist. brown anarchism may exist. so the only question that remains is what kind of anarchism Wright and Edgeworth are fighting.

{{li|I=S2/DFy/A|Q=618}}Ace Attorney is copaganda {{YouTube|eeALirUTUOc}} -> this..... god this really shows where people probably but not definitely in the United States are at. I find it funny this would even be a concern when anybody with a brain can see that this game revolves around the lawyers. not the judge. not the detectives or the cops. as much as I know that's not the criterion being used; the point is of course for anarchists to try to isolate forms of force brought down by The State, so in theory violent cops count, but the Judge issuing a verdict and putting people away would count, and in context of the series von Karma hitting everyone with her whip almost certainly counts. anyway. the games pretty much never depict sentencing or the court piling on more charges — a very important scare tactic in real life. it's all about Wright and Edgeworth and a couple other prosecutors. the games really focus in on the concept of reasoning and the notion of law being a thing of effort and expertise, as much as medieval settings try to put similar qualities onto knights or occasionally onto nobility. these games are really actually "liberal-republic-aganda", if that were a word. they do subtly push an "agenda", but it's not an agenda of state force, it's an agenda that liberal republics are built on "reason" by hardworking people that if not necessarily good are at least complex and not bad. it's like.... these games are not defending killer cops but they {{em|are}} kind of defending Benjamin Franklin. so, your mileage may vary on how bad that is; George Washington did own slaves, so, yeah. there's also that bit of weird subtext connecting the lawyers back to feudal Japan, but if you wanted to figure out how that connects back to Japanese empire or Japanese reactionaries I feel like it would take stepping out of these games and unpacking a couple of Kurosawa movies or such to really get a grip on the cultural context, and I really don't feel like doing that at the moment so personally I'm just going to let it go.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Ace Attorney is copaganda -> so when I searched up the link I really saw somebody say the phrase 'police investigation' in a negative tone. this is just it, people have these really negative experiences with cops directly that teach them the little they know, and want to live in a world without laws, but simultaneously want to live in "a democracy" and practice nonviolence and like have the entire thing operate exactly like a Liberal republic but with the tiny change that every individual is, I dunno, magically given a shock collar that zaps them if they violate some defined list of Bad Things that Make Clusters of Minorities Unhappy. kind of like the early {{cite|Zootopia}} concepts if the shock collars actually meant there weren't any cops. 
I try so hard to steelman anarchists and not present their points and concepts as just stupid if I can possibly think of a way they could make sense, but the anarchists themselves are always dropping the ball. trying to defend anarchism always feels like when Phoenix has a witness who just goes on the stand and claims they did it while Phoenix is standing there like {{i|no! no! no! you didn't have to say that}}.

</li></ol>

== AUs ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/Fy/ML|Q=618}}hold it! you call that Leninism? / Ace Attorney but in the context of a Communist party or Communist International -> I was watching these games for other reasons, and in my mind, they had nothing to do with Communism. {{em|until}} Mia had to go and say 'once you see through one lie the whole thing falls apart'. that really got my mind gears turning because I started imagining a fictionalized version of the Moscow Trials which was in over-the-top Ace Attorney format. which is just, a vastly more historically accurate way to adapt that event than the [[E:ominous trial of doom|ominous trial of doom]] trope you see in works like {{film|The Twilight Zone}}; Trotsky himself is almost as weird as an Ace Attorney character, and even among the people they actually dragged in, the arguments or narratives were just about as bad as some of the witnesses give in Ace Attorney games. like, Trotskyites are giving Larry Butz level of testimony, persuade me otherwise. 
then my mind started to wander to other possible angles, like a party meeting over an issue but being really divided on it and they start having a heated argument and banging on their desks. 'Left Opposition versus Right Opposition' kind of thing. that has so much comedy potential. and it could be a bit legitimately educational too. I kinda love the idea of these somewhat self-contained scenarios where a party is meeting over strategy on how to get through a particular problem in a particular country's revolution and there is a lot of tension because bad things happen to the working class when you get it wrong and they're going back and forth in these heated arguments to try to prove or disprove something. it almost sounds more interesting than Ace Attorney in some ways because like, you don't just have the fake opposition of the prosecutors and defense attorneys, you have more of a radial opposition of various factions and between different meetings the two sides could be anybody. it has a certain meta-Marxist appeal to it, in a weird way. 
Ace Attorney + Leninist variant of fictional place = this.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/ML|Q=618}}hold it! you call that Leninism? -> though it's not very serious (and is not finished) [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist|I have a "demonstration" of this now]]

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}Ace Attorney without trials / Ace Attorney but there are no lawyers -> so. I said that "Ace Attorney is copaganda" was a stupid proposition unless you find the most "ace" anarchist who actually has a decent exmat and can actually argue their points in a non-stupid way. but. as I wrote that down, I realized that if you tried to redesign the Ace Attorney universe around the constraint of what those people {{em|apparently}} want rather than what they literally want... it would actually be a weirdly fun challenge. if we're thinking about this in terms of a hypothetical game it would definitely be difficult to draw up a set of core game mechanics that would feel appropriate to the original series while at the same time more or less rewriting everything. but in terms of just writing a story around some characters, that would probably be quite doable. 
I think the best place for this to start would be at the beginning, with the original two incidents. when Phoenix is a child lawyers exist and he sees the young Miles Edgeworth stand up for him, everything is the same at that point. then when he's in college he learns the law department is shutting down, or maybe it isn't shut down at that time but people are occupying buildings and there is a lot of chaos and he doesn't quite know what's going on. I don't know what Mia is doing, she might actually be defending anarchists in a court trial or something weird might be going on like that. Phoenix was originally in college for theater. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AceAttorney/comments/9euckp/why_did_phoenix_wright_study_art_in_college/] so he would be studying the humanities and honestly I'd realistically expect that he would run into some odd people who are absorbed in schizoanalysis or other Existentialist nonsense philosophies that behind all the spaghetti strive to promote moral progress and empathy. he's a bit conflicted because I assume based on the central themes of the original series that he is fairly logical but none of this stuff makes any sense, it's more like a weird little mystery that he can't quite piece together. (gosh, he's already become relatable.) I guess the vignette of Phoenix in college is quite literally just him trying to solve the mystery of what is going on with the law department and sort of mentally putting together a "corkboard" of everything for his own peace of mind. he runs into Mia as she is investigating the incident she is supposed to be defending, in the traditional way lawyers always do in the games for some reason. and I guess because he wants to solve this thing he like, takes up the secretary / counsel role and decides to help her? we have the dynamic of Phoenix and Maya but literally reversed. of course, I feel like for thematic consistency we have to stick to the most important rule of this AU of there being absolutely no trials. Mia thinks there is going to be a trial but the commotion continues and it gets held up and doesn't happen. anarchists level the courthouse, I don't know. the anarchists try to get rid of the police department and the detectives' involvement in things. so the two of them are having to figure out how to "defend" the anarchists in a new environment where the anarchists are sort of making all the rules now. they quickly figure out that one of the best things they can do is simply learn to parse out what people are on the anarchists' side and what people aren't, and quickly report "the wrong people" so that at any particular "venue" or event they don't get in. at the end of this story arc Phoenix looks at a campus newspaper and learns that as he is graduating the law department really will be abolished. he is stunned. he looks back at the clipping he found about the 'demon prosecutor'. he has no idea what is going to happen to this man in the coming years, but knows that whatever happens it is now his duty to be a part of it. hoping he will not have to defeat his new enemy with violence, he vows to help bring Edgeworth down.

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==

* (none)

== Subpages or related pages ==

* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist|RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3

2026-05-01T13:56:08Z

Reversedragon: Power comes from technology

<h2 id="section-proposed3">Unsorted Items (page 3) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/MX/LR/JC|tradition=MX onto JC, MX onto LR|Q=618}}The {{TTS|U.S.|United States}} Civil War was a counter-revolution / The United States Civil War was a counter-revolution in that it opted to integrate slaveholders and non-slaveholders into the same population rather than fully expelling slaveholders from the country as was done in North Korea, or expelling real and potential imperialists (Imperial Japan plus the inseparable alliance of Taiwan and the First World) as was done in China -> this isn't to claim that you could really go back and make the right choice on that {{em|now}} when the conditions have greatly changed. but at the same time, understanding the correct outcome of that period might at least provide a vague {{em|guide}} as to what could be done now. 
it's crazy how, I am almost certain that the way First World countries talk about North Korea is influenced by the fact that the US Confederacy never faced any true consequences. [https://world.kbs.co.kr/special/northkorea/contents/news/closeup_view.htm?No=355353] I think United States people and even South Koreans genuinely don't understand the idea of slaveholders not being your friends that you have to treat as an ends and not a means and {{a|E=tent of freedom poles}} even as being friends with them will inevitably lead to repeatedly making excuses for the oppressors and prioritizing them over the people they have hurt. there's the Idealist concept of expelling the intolerant, and then there's the Materialist concept of expelling materially oppressive populations. the former does basically nothing but I think the latter is actually somewhat useful. in that respect Frantz Fanon might be categorically wrong — he might not be right when he says it's useless to create the national bourgeoisie. they don't really do much of anything positive, it's true, but national movements are actually important, and solely on the day they happen you do need somebody to carry them out with instead of nobody. I guess the key is trying to defeat the bourgeoisie immediately after you get national independence? something like that. I feel like one of the major conclusions I've been coming to is that Marxism undervalues national borders and talks too much about 'the bourgeoisie', when national borders are actually important in and of themselves, otherwise you're giving the power or ability to create them {{em|to}} the bourgeoisie. by all means, defeat them after they're fenced in or out, you can even do it along with a few {{em|other}} countries that just chopped up the total territory of the bourgeoisie like China + Vietnam + Korea etc, just remember it's the second step. 
Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory [false] + Reconstruction (United States) = this.

{{li|I=S2/JC|Q=618}}North Koreans are classified into three layers: the core layer, the wavering layer, and the hostile layer / People in North Korea are classified into three classes: (sic) the core class, the wavering class and the hostile class ... with 51 subcategories (Liberal-republicanism) / in 1958, North Korea felt the need to control possible internal political threats by sorting out those who were loyal or disloyal to [[E:The Regime|the regime]] [https://world.kbs.co.kr/special/northkorea/contents/news/closeup_view.htm?No=355353] -> huh! so the WPK actually has theory about what I describe as the conflict between Trotskyist or anarchists and Stalin's government or their equivalents in other historical periods. 
English-speaking publications are so fearmongering about this, and seem to wildly try to reframe it to be worse than it is. but... I'm fascinated honestly. I want to know what all 51 of those categories actually are 
"The core group consists of descendants of people who did not commit crimes during the colonial era ... Crimes here refer to reactionary activities" - conveniently leaving out that the prototypical person who belongs to this group {{em|allowed Japanese people to treat Koreans as property}}. you think it's bad for people to be sanctioned for that? and in less bad ways than global capitalist society is now sanctioning people for supporting Palestine or Cuba. what does that say about you? do you secretly want to own a Korean slave, or what?

{{li|I=S1/MX/LR|Q=618}}molecular campism / individualized national sanctions (Liberal-republicanism) / individualized defection to the Third World or to workers' states (Third World Marxisms) -> this is how bad capitalism is really getting. when all their "actually-scary" tactics fail to work after decades they just cut as deep down to basics as they can possibly go and [[E:1984 (Orwell)|unperson]] your person, physically cut you out of the geographical area of the country and the population and declare you part of another population. at this point it's like, insulting to have to try to be part of such bigoted populations in the first place. it might be time for "sour grapes" theory. we might have real evidence now that First World citizenship is so much of a class position that not getting out of the First World can sometimes be class collaboration at this point.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}all Russians are spies -> common in like every thriller novel.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}autogenocide / "I have never seen anybody isolate the concept out by itself" (censored title) -> the abstract concept of a group of people taking an action which is thought or alleged to lead to its complete extermination. you see this come up quite often in Tory and fascist thought but surprisingly I have never seen anybody isolate the concept out by itself and name it and examine it. it also arguably appears in center-Liberal discourse periodically, largely for the purpose of justifying why Liberal-republican police departments and federal forces are the most capable of protecting minorities, inevitably after accepting a bunch of stipulations for making minorities as palatable to Tories as possible, while nothing else is.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The Regime / good countries have governments; bad countries have regimes {{YouTube|bUHjstDCshI}}

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}A world of dragons is a world of adventure / A world of dragons is a world of battles (generic) / A world of dragons is a world full of possibility / A world of dragons is a world of unknowns / A world of dragons is a world of mystery and wonder / here be dragons (generic)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}A world of dragons is a world of battles

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}A world of dragons is a world of morality / A world of dragons is a world of clear right and wrong -> this actually isn't true sometimes. Wings of Fire is one of the most compelling and least contrived examples

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kantianism is a scam and everything about a state being created directly from a "state of nature" is a lie -> it would be more accurate, although not quite literally true, to say that human beings are always in a State at all times, and there is no time when they aren't — whenever a human physically has the ability to pull out a gun and use it to enforce their will on another person and smash violations of that particular specific will there exists some kind of State. each local state in a warring states period is a State, because it can make laws. most business territories qualify as States. but here's the shocking part: there are times when a peasant farm or a household counts as a State. in some particular places like the US South 100 houses who are all bent on keeping Black people out of their town could be a State just by virtue of the households being there each with the capability of violence individually. 
we like to present the notion of civilization or a republic through simplified models and say things like "the State has a monopoly on violence", but those simplified models don't always capture the complex reality. there are times the central government or local-state does not in fact have a monopoly on violence and violence is actually held and used at much more local levels instead, that can go way way down to the house level or to a [[E:Filament (meta-Marxism)|Filament]] of about 20 linked-together households at a time who spontaneously decide on their own that certain things will be allowed and certain things absolutely won't be allowed and if you break the rules of their Filament they'll kick you out or perhaps actually hurt you. practically speaking, that Filament is a State of its own, and if it begins at only one individual then that individual combined with their house and gun can be a State. 
the significance of this strange model I just laid out is this. States do not conquer a state (status) of nature. they always conquer other States that serve basically the same function that they do. because everything that goes into a State is itself a State, it's almost totally arbitrary which State actually gets to conquer all the other States. even so, there is the baffling result that this can actually make things better just because multiple States are not conflicting over the same area and fighting each other.

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Any user who genuinely advocates that Black people in North America (African-Americans; {{TTS|tts="black" people in lowercase|'black' people|E=putting black people in lowercase but not White people}}) are taking away from the world or creating back-and-forth antagonisms between racial populations solely by their own hand, and is not for instance simply talking about thought experiments that on the surface sound bad, will be banned -> {{TTS|tts=NKPov|NKPOV|R=NKPOV}}. 
nobody on here has had the opportunity to violate this yet, but oh boy... the number of people in chatrooms and on video platforms, even people who don't intend to, who "violate this rule" is crazy. 
I think there will be multiple levels of action on policies, one of which where you are actually banned, and one of which where you lose conference pass and can't edit anything but you can still log in. that will be used if anybody signs up here but reveals themself to be a brown-aligned editor and yet doesn't actually do anything very bad

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Violence is personal responsibility / All forms of violence are forms of taking responsibility over one's external environment 
Violence is personal responsibility + ? = Every ideology invents direct action.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}fascism in India -> I know this exists because I recently just ran into it.

{{li|I=S0/MW|Q=618}}proposition representing imperative declaration / imperative proposition / proposition representing imperative rule that was adopted based on some previous chain of logical reasoning -> generic catch-all category for project policies, propositions discussing specific real-world bills and laws, and possibly things like trading card game ban lists or game rules, I'm not totally sure. basically this Item is here to explain why exactly senate bills are S2 statements instead of Z. they're S Items because they're "made up" in a sense, in the sense of all imperative declarations being somewhat arbitrary rather than truly obligatory for every object on earth to express through physical necessity. that kind of necessity is what is required for something to be a Z2 Statement.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Art is just slow-motion manufacturing / Art is just making things inefficiently

{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=618}}The New Course [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/the-new-course-leon-trotsky-1924/00.html] -> this is. really really rewriting the course of events it feels like.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}calling something Orwellian because it involves Trotsky rewriting whole courses of historical events to be about himself -> the 'lesser-known' definition of Orwellian that you might come up with if you only read Animal Farm. although, actually, this motif really does cameo in 1984 too. maybe this is a more solid definition than I thought 
gosh. imagine a future where one of the achievements of this ontology project is just, getting people to all agree that "Orwellian" is a synonym for some shades of orange only in specific contexts 
or at least, imagine living in a future where people can't agree whether Orwellian is a glacier color palette or orange and people are just calling any fictional character that undermined a country or movement and is glacier-colored "Orwellian" in color

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}terrible OCR title / OCR {{TTS|tts=leetspeak|l33tsp34k}} / {{TTS|tts=UlRitTingGus Of Li-O-I1 Irotskiv|UlRITinGS OF LE0I1 IROTSKV}} -> some computer glitches are just never not funny. though it does help when you add Trotsky's antics in there. I look at that and am like, oh god this is a wonderful disaster

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}second-order logic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic] -> oh my god I finally found it. I felt like I was going crazy. yes. this is approximately what I'm trying to do. first-order logic uses carefully-structured proposition objects. second-order logic tries to do operations on whole sets of them at once. I'm basically trying to take the concept of second-order logic and backport it into 'pre- first-order' propositional logic so that the fine structure on the statements isn't strictly necessary although it's optional and when you use that precision you get back to second-order logic again. 
the "onto" operator is some kind of second-order logic operator that I still don't quite understand.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}Second-order logic is basically the same thing as lambda calculus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic] -> there's a strange similarity between predicate variables and lambdas, or "for all a,b" statements and lambdas. aren't they both tiny functions embedded into a larger expression? right now I can't see any difference.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|tradition=ML onto ES|Q=618}}person who has been compared to Herr Dühring -> you're going to need sources to use this on account of how ridiculously specific it is. but when I think I've seen it on at least two different people, there's cause for it.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Accepting the December 5 resolution could have united the party (Stalin 1924) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/05/24.htm#IX] -> hmm! this looks less like a fact and more like a claim to be shown true or false. this is why we need [[E:existential materialism (meta-Marxism)|exmat]]: if Stalin's predictions of Trotsky and any of his followers aren't correct, he won't be giving correct facts about how to unite a party.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}reality-breaking anticommunism / description of Marxism so bad the author can't be right about anything else -> I think this is what propelled me to put together meta-Marxism. in general, you can genuinely judge how true to reality an ideology or model of reality is by how well it models and predicts other ideologies or models of reality. the first step for me was realizing this was true about Lacanianism. then I realized it was true between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, most of all from the Trotskyist direction but also from the other direction. then I fully noticed it was true of everyone who supports Liberal-republicanism and I was depressed but also my mind was blown. it took a while for me to stop holding it against people when, you know, my realization of how doomed everyone was had separated me from basically everybody. but I think it was a necessary realization.

{{li|I=S2/ES/LGBT|Q=618}}Trans people are not an ideology -> I don't think that's possible. mainly because trans people are under attack so often that they inevitably have to generate a bunch of theory about themselves to combat the misinformation. isn't queer theory an ideology? (one that accepts the existence of trans people but then takes an ideological stance around them anyway.) arguably, supporting capitalism or supporting Deng Xiaoping Thought are ideologies. so everybody has a political ideology. {{YouTube|_GBUArD51KY}}

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|tradition=MX onto DG|Q=55,16|Q2=5516}}Moderation is a form of extremism / Because individuals vary greatly, their normal healthy states of being are in effect naturally "extreme" relative to each other, and thus any attempt to regulate an overall population's "extreme" behavior by bringing down "moderation" on every single individual one-by-one is in effect an attempt to intolerantly force a specific way of being on large numbers of people, and through the sheer quantity of that action it becomes extreme -> this sounds like something a schizoanalyst would say but at the very least it's more correct than [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic|what Mr. Jiang says]].

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX|Q=618}}Communist revolution restores the proletariat / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the only form of Communist revolution in all practical terms because no country which needs to turn into a workers' state will ever have a significant proletariat; only countries where the proletariat either hardly exists or is actively getting disbanded and eliminated are likely to form a workers' state -> I feel like Mr. Jiang needed to be told this when he was so bizarrely glued to classical Menshevism and thinks Lenin is evil because he wasn't a Menshevik (no joke). {{YouTube|QtqfIjK1GAc}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}Capitalism comes from the belief that mutual aid cannot bring freedom / The post-structuralist Ideal that people delivering things to each other can never be freedom without the ability to disconnect relationships for other relationships because all relationships inherently contain the potential for domination can generate capitalism and entire capitalist countries -> I think based on this there is an argument that Gramscianism is actually post-structualist and blue. it depends on how heavily people cling to perfection and being connected to the perfect people versus to actually uniting different groups of people together to try to form a solid proletarian subpopulation. I do know that the strawberry swatch has become more tightly associated with using existing forms of production to defend national borders, while the concept of kicking people out of or putting them into an amorphous mass of 'good people' is a really Liberal-republican way of thinking especially when there is no physical Lattice of proletarian allies that is understood in molecularized terms.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=LR, ES|Q=618}}anticommunist book featuring Stalin / anticommunist book making statement about Stalin / book with anticommunist leanings unexpectedly making statement about Stalin -> even after you exclude every book that is actually intended to be about the USSR or Stalin such as {{book|Animal Farm}}, you'd be surprised how many of these there are. 
I was just reading an ordinary newspaper comic strip collection and guess what, that was technically an 'anticommunist book featuring Stalin'. when I saw Stalin come up by name I just, my brain had one of those windows task manager freezes for a moment, and then after it unfroze I decided it was funnier than the rest of the book and all I could visualize for the next few minutes was doing one of those edits where you take arbitrary comic strip frames and put them together or Dinosaur-Comics edits where you keep reusing the same strip and putting in new dialogue, and just make a bunch more strips of them talking about Stalin. I liked the idea of turning that into a video, starting out with a simple comic dub and then getting progressively weirder with edits of it and elaborations on it to the point it was just on entirely another plane from where the original strip had started. this is my sense of humor. one of the funniest things to me is making edits of anticommunists talking about Communism but actually getting it right or at least {{em|kind of}} not getting it wrong; sometimes the voice clips videos give you are hard to work with to make the most accurate statements, or are easier to edit into something being said ironically than into something being said totally seriously. I do want to see if I can finish that video from yesterday of Mr. Jiang giving an actually not crazy summary of China. because like with PragerU, an actually lucid Jiang video would be much more unexpected than a crazy one.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}Fukuyama's dialectic / Hegelian dialectic (Fukuyama) {{YouTube|AEPSUC-UQ5k}} -> this is the questionable concept that Ideas evolve through destroying their opponent Ideas and then specifically integrating "the best" parts of them, which is bound to be subjective and shaped by the priorities of the [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|physical elements (class structures)]] that make up the winning Social-Philosophical System; it comes with the inherent connotation that whatever Idea popped out after digestion really is "the correct Idea" instead of one that is being arbitrarily adapted to a given Social-Philosophical-Material System.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=LR, P4|Q=618}}Hegel said that ideas evolve through populations fighting each other and the strongest classes' or nationalities' ideas becoming the only ideas -> what Jiang's explanation of Hegel sounded like. {{YouTube|AEPSUC-UQ5k}} it's..... maybe half right? it actually matches Stalin's description of anarchism. but it also sounds like this really half baked idea that you'd get by reading Hegel through Fukuyama. something about this is not right but [[E:I don't know enough about stars to dispute that|I don't know enough about Hegel to say]].

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=LR, P4|Q=618}}I don't know enough to dispute it / I don't know enough about stars to dispute that ({{film|It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia}}, {{TTS|S05e03|tts=season 5 episode 3}}) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IASIP/comments/1deqq0/that_doesnt_sound_right_but_i_dont_know_enough/] [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521349/quotes/]

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}mutation of proverbs into representational quotes -> there's something to be said about how people used to throw around proverbs a lot and now the role of proverbs has more or less been taken over by Memes — what are, in general, artistic representations of phenomena shown descriptively instead of prescriptive descriptions of what 'should' be.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Violations of a legal code have swatch colors / There are at least two kinds of violations of any given law: left-wing (charcoal) violations and right-wing (brown) violations -> there are definitely different kinds of legal violations, some of which are more harmful to society than others. people will get really defensive if you try to label them with value judgements of "good" and "bad", so the smart thing is to label them with swatch colors so they will sound more descriptive. 
this notion of violations having swatch colors is comparable to the concept of Marxist organizers marking organizers as being on left or right deviations (meaning forward or backward in the process), in that after a workers' state is created it will make laws and then when people want to continue doing parts of society early or late after it's been prohibited there will be forward or backward pointing violations of those laws. I'd go so far as to say without a concept of forward versus backward pointing violations a legal system can't really function; it is impossible to call in any fraction of the people, privileged or common, to revise the laws without an idea of what forward pointing violations even are or what kinds of potential violations that have not been banned are truly outdated. there must be a concept of individual laws being progressive or reactionary for there to even be a parliamentary democracy. the easiest way to define this is to classify violations of the law and new changes in the law by swatch color. 
I think this is one of the only concrete justifications for having a brown swatch on this project apply not just to old feudal orders and attempted restorations of them (Italian fascism, restoring the Russian empire, etc) but also to Toryism. you really have to think differently when analyzing Liberal-republicanism. it's all composed of Ideals and this dumb Fukuyama dialectic, which absolutely should not be endorsed, and shouldn't even be endorsed in Item classifications. but you have to materially analyze the individual events going on in Liberal-republicanism {{em|somehow}}. I think one of the only ways to do that is to classify violations and attempts to change the law by factional swatch color in an attempt to classify the material basis of each deviation from current laws.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}Trotskyists should be undermining Russia / Why do Trotskyists put their energy into subverting workers' states when they could be putting their energy into subverting Third-World capitalisms and making {{em|those}} transition into Trotskyism?? -> they've got a whole free Russia sitting there. it's actually rather powerless against attacks from the outside, like, is it gonna attack the United States? Trotskyists have the conditions they worked to create in the 1930s, so why not use them. why bother talking about the First World and how it's supposedly on the brink of crisis or bashing China and Cuba when you could instead bash the only country that actually needs you. bash Russians endlessly until they finally realize that carrying out empire will be the end of them and only if they let Trotskyism [[E:Trotskyist imperialism|take over their country from the outside]] will they survive. 
god I am sick of post-structuralist politics and especially post-structuralist geopolitics. it always comes down to abusing relationships as a form of power. like is Russia more likely to get to Deng Xiaoping Thought if Trotskyists were to take over all the businesses in Russia and in effect actually invade it? these days everything big happens in response to external threats, not actually in response to internal factors.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}China is what happens when classical Menshevism succeeds {{YouTube|QtqfIjK1GAc}} {{YouTube|AEPSUC-UQ5k}} -> I don't have {{em|solid}} proof right now but it's quite a thought. 
A) Menshevism historically believed that you get all the benefits of Bolshevism through reform B) Mensheviks claimed that capitalism was 'diversifying' and they needed to 'adapt' — this one sounds a hell of a lot like what Deng and Xi say, only they made it more sophisticated

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why doesn't anti-essentialism apply to United States support of workers' states? -> we're always told to believe everything else is "not always bad" from bad days to teachers to therapists to jobs to, I don't know, grandpa's questionable opinions about Mexicans that invoking anti-essentialism isn't going to make him give up. <s>for me it's just the 'bad days' stuff, I promise.</s> so why are there still just a few really specific things that everybody believes are always always bad?

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}Dakota region and Communism (1920s) [https://news.prairiepublic.org/main-street/2018-02-05/communism-on-the-plains] -> this is strawberry because overall it took a long time for any Marxist allies in the United States to get very seriously into the theory. people bring up

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}the responsibility of artists to [[E:The System|struggle against the system]] that exploits, alienates, and pacifies and towards building a culture that inspires, drives, and sustains our collective struggle for liberation -> I got this in an email. this is a perfect example of: what does this even mean?? 
the actual context is this: artists are supposed to participate in ending apartheid. I don't actually remember whether apartheid here refers to partitioning people in South Africa or to Palestine, but I won't call that a problem with the statement, because if it's valid at all it would be {{em|just as valid}} in either case. sure, end apartheid. but at the same time. what do any of the other words here mean 
edit: found the public link! [https://peoplesforum.org/events/course-the-artist-must-take-sides-culture-the-movement-past-present-future/] this is.... ridiculously Western-Marxist. "ruling elites use culture to flood our screens with art that makes the crisis feel permanent" what? thanks Mark Fisher. "culture brings movements into collective action" and not classes, or [[E:Juche-socialism|the existence of national populations in contradiction with empires]]? our "socialism" is literally worse than North Korea's, because I swear there's historically been more Materialism going on there. end apartheid, and even bring your mural artists along to recruit more people. but also. what is this. this is like, if a bunch of propaganda groups broke off from Trotskyism and declared that Marxism was literally nothing more than [[E:newspaper Marxism|having newspapers]] and because newspapers they are the most important people in the world, and totally a class. totally a revolutionary class.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Glitch Productions having every right to take down every video makes them virtuous for not doing it; this is to imply that copyright must exist to be able to reveal the much more important material fact of what businesses are [[E:|Good or Bad]] -> every single ad for anything on YouTube deserves the Snopes treatment. and every glowing review of an "indie" production containing a non-subjective claim.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mario is a proletarian / Mario is not a proletarian (counter-claim) / Mario is not a proletarian; this is to imply that Mario is a self-employed tradesman -> I don't think anyone has made this claim {{em|seriously}}-seriously, but if only in the interests of a joke often being funnier when it's true, it's worth pushing back on statements that aren't true. 
evidence: A) Mario acts as an individual or in a group of two people B) Mario wields superpowers. superpowers are often used as coding for an expert in a field. look at Tony Stark, look at Ash / "Pokémon Trainer", look at Twilight Sparkle wielding magic while having a huge library of books Isaac Newton style, look at Goku being the best in the world at martial arts and wielding superpowers B) Mario lives in a fantasy kingdom. historically it took a long time for kingdoms to contain any workers, even in 1900 the Russian Empire had very few workers C) many other fantasy works such as MLP gen 4 opt to portray kingdoms as full of petty producers even though they don't have to D) Mario is contrasted with Wario. according to the official site Wario has at least 19 employees. [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/wario/en/member/wario/index.html] Mario is not a member of a group of 19 employees nor does he have 19 employees. D) Wario is associated with "greed" while Mario is not. it is a common tactic for blue and charcoal anarchists to claim that capitalism is caused by Greed and if they filled the world with small businesses they could also somehow clear the world of Greed. it is also a common tactic for ordinary capitalists to claim that some corporations are especially "corporatist" but they know capitalists that "aren't the greedy ones". 
god I swear Wario has more known employees than any of the businesses in my city have total employees. that is so sad

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}Wario has {{TTS|tts=at least 19|19+}} employees / Wario has 19 known employees, and at least 19 employees total at the time portrayed on the Nintendo homepage [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/wario/en/member/wario/index.html] / having fewer total employees than Wario has known employees (sense) -> so that is a fact now apparently. "having fewer employees than Wario" is now a sensical concept.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Elections originate from nobody owning parliament, not from everybody owning parliament; this is to imply that if all the people in parliament owned parliament, kingdoms would have transitioned to a standing population of ruling people that own the kingdom equally but would not have developed public elections -> this is one of the best arguments to throw at Richard Wolff and co-op anarchists. they aren't actually using Marxism, they're using some anarchist framework of "giving orders correlates with illegitimate authority" and anarchy being the next step after "democracy", so you have to bust up their historically inaccurate claims with something other than class analysis to actually make it clear how bad they look.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Anti-essentialism is a path to truth -> every Liberal-republican and every Existentialist seems to believe this. so, like, do you see the contradiction already? if {{caps|Everybody}} should believe Existentialism and there are certain things every Existentialist has to believe to be an Existentialist then there is a rather {{em|essentialist}} definition of what range of people and ideologies existing in the United States is acceptable. post-structuralist philosophy is genuinely logically contradictory because the moment everyone accepts it as a theory of reality then it will materially be the case that only post-structuralism will be allowed, and its day-to-day practice will no longer be post-structuralist because it must maintain the {{em|essentialist structure}} of everybody being post-structuralist and all upholding certain fake, non-genuine declarations of anti-essentialism. in one sense all post-structuralism must secretly contain a structuralism inside, and all [[E:Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|secular-Buddhist "everyone wants to go together and discard the individual" nonsense]] must contain an existentialism inside. though that one takes a little longer to explain. 
all so-called 'retroversions' that replace the internal physics or causality model inside a Social-Philosophical System of people generally involve a Social-Philosophical System actually physically extending itself over everything and obligating everyone to join it. this is how the dictatorship of the proletariat works (crimson republic), it's how the Communist Party of China works (strawberry republic), and it's theoretically how a 'dictatorship of the Trotskyists' (orange republic) would work. so the historical precedent is that if everyone accepts post-structuralism then there would be some sort of post-structuralist Social-Philosophical System that extended over the whole population that was the physical substrate that held that information and made this the most common model by keeping out other model-holding substrates; post-structuralism as a society would be a structure. as for partly-metaphorical ego death, it is said to begin in an environment where there strictly exists no defined structure — "arborescence" where interactions start at any particular point and flow out from that point to other points is deemed bad and basically a condition where you have to start all over. so ultimately there is no physical substrate which can take people from individuals up to Rhizome except individuals; the philosophy of ego death is egoist. ironically, even though the first two words I picked out and assigned to blue anarchism failed to describe the most important and topical aspects of it that have catapulted it to widespread acceptance, it happens that underneath a lot of obfuscation by the people being studied they're still true in the end. the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition really is existentialist (individualist) and structuralist (essentialized, structurally-definable, 'totalizing', exclusionary), even when it tries hard to claim it's turned collectivist and post-structuralist. 
Anti-essentialism is a path to truth + ?? = golden mean / Reject "always" and "never" in response to abstract Ideals to find the truth. [file:///home/user/Downloads/zygon-14122-goodman.pdf]

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}All Liberal-republicans have scapegoats / Liberal-republicans and blue anarchists are lying when they claim their theories aren't about targeting and abusing minorities as scapegoats for problems they didn't cause -> it is such a common Liberal-republican line you hear everywhere that Toryism is bad because it blames the wrong people for problems just to be able to blame somebody. the rhetorical purpose of saying this line, whether they want to admit it or not, is to claim that center-Liberals know how to stop this process and not do it. there's no reason to single out Tories as bigots if you knew you were a bigot too, because then you'd know that that was a "normal" thing to do that nobody would actually believe was bad and you would lose the argument. so if they single out Tories for "pushing issues onto minorities", they must believe that A) people do not find this completely normal and B) that there is an obvious way to not do it that allows them in practice to not do it and truly come out looking better. 
so, these are the assumptions of center-Liberals going into arguments about prejudice. but they're wrong. and {{film|Zootopia 2}} is a wonderful superficial illustration of why. {{film|Zootopia}} sets up the general idea that groups of mammals singling out other groups is bad basically because it goes against the foundational rules of the fantasy animal city; because the productive forces have changed and animal flesh is not a production input any more and all mammals in the city live by exploiting farm crops or simple animals like fish and insects, new rules have sprung up that violence against mammals is unnecessary and illegal. so, when somebody has been quietly driving snakes out of the city to have more land, material wealth, and power, what is at fault for this? individuals. you create {{film|Zootopia}} meaning it to be mostly abstract until a few bad jokes about "go back to the jungle" are thrown in there to explain why you like it, but then when you show that to the United States population there are a few obvious ways people are going to react. everyone is thoroughly blind to the concept of classes as far as what the actual concept under the word is; if you ever actually try to say there are classes and they assemble into a specific kind of country of a particular color people's eyes glaze over, and [[E:anarchism|they start telling you]] that {{em|actually}} a country is a bunch of individuals [[E:tent of freedom poles|having freedom and having freedom not all at once]] who collectively appoint The Cops to ensure none of the individuals tread on others' Freedom. but also that The Cops are bad and need to be abolished so everyone can learn to have freedom and have freedom separately in parallel despite the inability to control some individuals' nasty behavior they will absolutely insist is part of their Freedom. the typical solutions may involve attempting to take individuals and [[E:psychological anarchism|reconstruct their internal psychology as a new form of government]], or attempting to replace The Cops with some nebulous thing called "communities" that sounds like it means something but in practice is standing in for "I have no idea what the hell we're going to do, so go to all the people in your town and hope they somehow know better than me". Liberal-republicanism, anarchism, and [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]] all run on this same basic idea of "let's solve every problem by just existing and living our lives and hoping some contingent individual other people don't have access to will appear and help us personally"; it's like everyone in the United States shares a single brain cell containing a single blue anarchism. so, you show {{film|Zootopia}} to people. and what they are going to take away from it is that the city laws are a social construct "as they ought to be" but the introduction of Materialism to the film in the special setting-unique form of ancient predator and prey populations is inappropriate. when given the second film they will praise the attention on individual bad actors because this fits with their existing narrative that social conflicts can't come from undesigned processes and some conscious individual must have acted to culturally fabricate them; prejudice is intelligent design and populations competing over space is intelligent design. anybody who [[E:Arceism|disrupts social harmony]] by grossly stepping over another individual's Natural domain of personal Freedom will necessarily be unmasked to be a Demonic Face of Evil and a wrecker who is purposefully attacking anarchy. so here's the problem with that. that isn't generally the reason why social conflicts occur. the general reason why social conflicts occur is that different chunks of people each have an idea for how to shape society or the world and they exist and produce and grow outward and then they smash into each other and get angry because they each think their way to develop the world is right. trying to say that one person taking stuff that another person could have had is {{em|generally}} a deliberative activity which deliberately happens by examining another person's identity and existence and then invalidating it is something of a conspiracy theory — it takes a process which in general is undesigned and tries to find an intelligent agent who created it through an evil plan. so in the end, this way of thinking is bound to eventually start pointing at people who didn't ultimately cause something and vilifying the fact they have consciousness as a scapegoat. the thing that center-Liberals claim to understand and be able to avert is a thing they continue to do, and this implies that {{em|it is not a thing they understand and are able to avert}}. which is to say their claim to being able to avert it is false. their claim that if you vote for them people will stop blaming convenient scapegoats out of anger and prejudice is false. people will keep blaming convenient scapegoats out of anger and prejudice, but the form of the prejudice will simply change: it will be a prejudice against people who do not believe in anarchism and people who have supposedly disrupted or wrecked anarchism. and it will in fact be a prejudice because it refers to made-up Ideals everyone is commanded to follow regardless of whether they match reality and especially when they don't match reality. "Black people have subhuman intelligence" is a prejudice because it is not true. "trans people made up their gender" is a prejudice because it is not true. so if "populations running into each other is an evil conspiracy" {{em|isn't true}}, then isn't it {{em|possible}} this in itself is a prejudice and not allowed under the rules of anarchism?

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}shoebox hockey -> my new favorite metaphor for quantum mechanics. 
"let's play one of the world's weirdest sports. we're going to make a sport out of two teams hurling ping-pong balls into each other. but the referree is way up in the bleachers, and can't actually see the individual ping-pong balls. to make the ping-pong ball collisions easier to count, we put them in shoeboxes, and the players hit the shoeboxes across the floor until they collide. we know the balls are somewhere inside the shoeboxes, so the colliding shoeboxes become equivalent to all possible positions of the ping-pong balls. 
some people may say, why do you need the ping-pong balls to play the game then? well first, this is a field sport and it doesn't have to make sense. second, you don't. as far as the referree is concerned, a game played with only the shoeboxes is totally equivalent to a game with shoeboxes containing ping-pong balls."

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}Anarchist freedom naturalizes property / Anarchism realizes property as universal human right / A "human right to private property" actually comes from the realization of anarchism / When bourgeois theorists claim that parceling up every socioeconomy (society composed of particular economic elements; society composed of interacting [[E:particle elements (meta-Marxism)|particle elements]]; society consisting first of [[E:economic base|economic base]]) into free-floating businesses ("[[E:You cannot own a hurricane|privately-owned]]" businesses) is a "human right" in that the conditional ability to own free-floating businesses is a "right" all individuals in a country [[E:IBE|Should]] be given, they are enacting a fundamentally anarchist value; this is to state that bourgeois theorists seek to cover countries in capitalism because they model all individuals as [[E:individual interacting with the surrounding world according to anarchism|charcoal individuals]] and in fact wish to build society physically out of the sum of many separate individuals all [[E:tent of freedom poles|having freedom and having freedom separately in parallel]], while the creation of free-floating businesses and capitalism is only an un-designed consequence of this -> the more I think about this this is where I land. practically nobody who supports capitalism actually does it because they support capitalism. it's almost always because they support this ideal of allied individuals equally coming together in friendship to defend against their enemies even if those individuals are super-wealthy capitalists. because they think [[E:Twilight Sparkle is similar to West Germany|society is made of friendships]] and not economic elements, they think capitalists can just kind of join in friendship to capitalist allies, and [[E:Gramscianism|that could result in Freedom]] rather than the oppression of all of society by one big {{caps|Wasp}} Swarm that shortly becomes led by bigots and yet still mandatory. accordingly, they become appalled at Marxist states because those aren't composed purely of individuals joining together in friendship and they actually have a physically separate stratum in the central party which does specific tasks — under the simplistic anarchist view of reality a central party existing is Domination. 
in one sense anarchists are sticklers for molecularization. that's one of the best things you can say about them: they're really obsessed with society being built out of small local pieces. but beyond that they do not go upward to upreductionism and molecular {{em|Materialism}}.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=99,119|Q2=618|rem=119 kph}}You cannot own a hurricane (statement that uncontrollable forces the size of many people cannot be owned) / Capitalists cannot actually own businesses / No capitalist is really truly capable of owning a business because ownership is in almost every single case ever the pattern of bigger things controlling smaller things or people controlling entirely inanimate things; you can never actually own something substantially larger according to the above definition than your personal household, and materially and practically speaking any said structure larger than your household always owns you, whether it is a kingdom, a republic, a tribal population, a nationality, a body of speakers of a particular language, a racial subpopulation, a bridge club, or a business / {{TTS|lang=ja|台風を所有できない}} / {{TTS|lang=ja|人は台風を所有できない}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon] -> this is the most pedantic {{censor|shit}} you will ever see but I think there's real value in it in terms of busting open capitalist ideology and the deontological roots that cement it. 
you can own a guitar because the guitar is smaller than you and inanimate. you can own a hamster because the hamster is smaller than you and it's easy to put in a cage; because the cage is smaller than you and inanimate you own the cage. you can own a horse because although the horse is physically larger than your person, you can own a pasture because the pasture is inanimate and possible to contain into a single (somewhat privileged) household, and if the horse is contained in your household on a large patch of grass it becomes equivalent to a hamster. you can own your children in a tenuous sense because they are contained in your household — in this case "you" refers only to the {{em|household}} owning them, and the household owns them only in the same sense your body owns your arm, but not in the sense you own the guitar or even in the sense you own the horse. the moment you get outside your household you cannot physically own anything. you cannot own your neighbors. you cannot own your children once they are adults and have households. two hundred years ago you could own your neighbors and your neighbors' conceptual households (families) inside your household, but not now. this has to do with the way people were defined two hundred years ago: it was common to actually think on some level that [[E:five races theory and scientific racism|Black people were stupid]] and the cognition of the 'African race' was somehow partially comparable to guitars and comparable to horses. [https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/five-races-of-mankind-1911/] without that official framework of scientific racism it's hard to argue that anyone owns people in any literal way. you cannot own your adult children. so how can you really argue you own your workers? you don't own any of them and they don't own you. so the reality is that, just like parents and children being owned by a household, all workers and supposed "owners" are just comparable members of the same structures that contain both of them. this is the crux of how all bourgeois theory functions. all the {{censor|bullshit}} that will be said about "[[E:the invisible hand|the invisible hand]]" and "silly Communists, you can't really predict the whole thing, [[E:tacit knowledge|tacit knowledge]]!!" means that business owners don't actually own businesses. they are working with forces that are larger than them and more powerful than them and that practically speaking {{em|own them}}, and then pretending they control that. nobody owns a hurricane. not if the hurricane is inanimate. [[E:Steamed Hams demonstrates Materialism|not if the aurora borealis or an entire wildfire is crammed into your house]]. what is really going on is that a bunch of business chunks are floating around competing for existence and competing to be the biggest independent of the people that supposedly own them, and everyone is calling that a way [[E:Liberal economics is the allocation of resources|"to manage"]] (to control) the structure of society when it doesn't even achieve that end, it only appears to work because the end result is for particular business chunks to end up taking up particular spatial slots for something to exist in, and the goal is for society to be structured and arranged with various things in various slots and one thing being connected to a thing instead of another thing having been connected to it. asking capitalism to design a society is like asking an LLM to solve a math problem and looking inside and finding the LLM added two numbers in a completely crazy and inscrutable way. 
you physically cannot own a business. the only thing that is physically possible is [[E:molecularization (study of free-floating objects interacting to form larger objects)|molecular interactions between free-floating objects to form larger objects]].

{{li|I=S1/MZ|Q=618}}meta-Maoist carving knife / identifying ideologies that diverge from a correct Maoist line in order to slice through to the bottom of them in the process and leave them behind / reaching the bottom of the iceberg of errors (Maoism) [https://www.massline.info/mlms/mlch04.htm] -> this is admirable when it works but it seems like at a certain point China just stopped doing it and started going deep to understand other ideologies but then just stamping them 'allowed' without any further changes. that's not even meta-Marxism, really, because if it was you'd be holding all the other classes or ideologies to their best possible behavior and not letting them get away with any errors that they should recognize, for instance if a countable Maoism and a countable Hoxhaism are trying to coexist they should both understand the concept of creating dictatorship of the proletariat and if either of them is drifting away from it the other one should call it out. the violet version of this motif is only different in there being two or three parties hanging around that are learning from comparisons of each other

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}{{book|The Mass Line and the American Revolutionary Movement}} (Harrison 2004-2023) -> I am probably going to have to analyze this to make use of it but gosh this is a treasure trove of some sort. I really love finding weird books on google [https://www.massline.info/mlms/mlms.htm] in fact. maybe this is just the me typing this at midnight talking. I feel like that one line in Deltarune where Jockington nonsensically compares something to dunking a basketball and says "try to be that dunk". that's me attempting to write a random book of initially confusing quality yet genuine effort you stumble onto on Google. I've got to be that dunk

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=ML onto W|Q=618}}Bernstein argued that First-World capitalism was so well adapted and unlikely to collapse that people could sit around and vote without a revolution {{YouTube|x8UirV4JcLc}} -> this is an important thing to remember when discussing the idea of the "labor aristocracy". if you become completely sure that people won't stand up to capitalism rather than looking {{em|now}} for the future conditions under which they actually will, there's a certain point where for all practical purposes you just morph into Edward Bernstein and accidentally encourage violent anticommunism because you have no way of stopping it.

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=MX onto W|Q=618}}Bernstein claims capitalism avoided "immiseration" because he mistook non-proletarians for workers {{YouTube|x8UirV4JcLc}} -> based on 30 years of living in capitalism? and the observation that all job openings are getting rarer relative to the number of people? the people who are "diversifying" capitalism are the people who are trying their hardest to graduate out of the proletariat and help the owners exterminate it.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, DX, ES, LR|Q=618}}revisionism as "country characteristics" / claiming revisionism to be country characteristics / claiming departure from all reasonable models of transition into Bolshevism and substituting them with capitalism to be country characteristics -> Bernstein and Deng Xiaoping both did this in their own ways. China is getting to socialism through a defensive 'socialist market economy'! the United States is diversifying rather than packing more and more people into [[E:people addition paradox|a baseline existence]]! these are really just the same thing ultimately, they're excuses.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}hiding different conflicting kinds of moral truth values inside "ought" [https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/the-utilitarian-tradition-is-conceptually] -> this didn't even cross my mind as a problem but knowing how much gets hidden in words like "we", I don't doubt it

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}A real utilitarian knows whether to drain a random Martian to save five Martians [https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/ethically-alien-thought-experiments]

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The labor theory of value can't be true because some goods cost a lot or a little but it isn't proportional to the exact amount of labor that went into them {{YouTube|6UEJKhrt-aM}} -> this man does not understand socially-necessary labor time. you should take anyone like this and grill them about why so much money is being spent on AI when it is producing a bunch of actually useless goods that demonstrate exactly why this isn't true

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Why do economists talk about the invisible hand if markets don't operate based on physics?? -> you have to think about this a bit to see why it's such a gotcha. people these days are always talking about ""systems"" and it has become such a buzzword and an excuse to claim that systems are inherently self-contained and can't be manipulated outside their own internal logic whether they are Markets or LLMs. but here's the thing. if that was true, then the reason you couldn't change them from the outside would be because their rules are physics and they're generating the next iteration of what's happening in them based on physics. it's been shown that chaos has equations and even unpredictability is mathematical. where do you think internal rules come from? did God create bureaucracies and LLMs?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}addition paradox [https://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/06/population-paradox.html] -> the "paradox" goes like this: A) well-being cannot go down by adding more people who have a life above the baseline but have no effect on anyone else B) well-being goes up when people above baseline contribute to people below baseline C) it is not better to have a world with many people below baseline than with fewer people above 
the second two points are interesting but the reason this is a paradox is the first point is just wrong. there's no way to add more people either above or below baseline without having an effect on other people, and whether they're above or below is vaguely proportional to how much they'll take away — the people above are the ones who take away, not the ones below, because nobody climbs above baseline without taking things at least from the overall earth, if not from other people. thus, it follows that as you add more people everyone goes down toward baseline either way, unless we're talking about a very large population and there are a few people who are going up and up and up from their job of keeping everyone else ordered into chunks so people can have anything, and pocketing a large tribute from the chunks for it. in which case it just isn't a paradox at all and the fourth bullet point is Communist revolution. and the fifth point is people realizing that they need to [[E:socialist transition (Marxism)|fix the problem of everyone taking away from the population in a zero-sum game by carefully placing down all the new people to each contribute something back]]. 
this scenario is so weird. nobody chooses to add people to the world, people are just born and they don't choose to be. so the only choice you can actually make is removing people through deportations, killings, or preventing reproduction, which is a choice nobody likes so in effect it's not a choice. also there's a whole middle step where people largely exist through interacting with each other and predicting what everyone else will do and having to pick the right things everyone else wanted, which gets harder and harder to do as there are more people and a broader population and generally makes life worse and generates capitalism. every time people exist both above baseline and below baseline that interact there will be antagonisms because the people below often get pushed into doing whatever the people above want just to earn things nonviolently, or worse, told that organizing themselves together into a form where they don't have to do that is evil and that begging the people above after they take everything is the only way. just having any people below baseline gets to being unethical because you can't actually just ask any of the people above to give them generosity; real wealth is held in the form of how many people you can herd together and bleed for money continuously every week, so any generosity you give anyone both comes from exploiting other groups of people and dries up quickly. people live through interacting in society but there are always people who do more "societying" and suck up all the wealth and standard of living because wealth comes from people arranged into society and the more society you do the more connections you have and in some cases the more people you exploit and earn money from. 
I think this paradox comes from having a worldview that doesn't include material contradictions. when you bring dialectical materialism into it it unravels immediately because reality is a series of things happening and changing and something always has to happen

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Memorized-Leninism / memorizing Marxism-Leninism by rote instead of applying it as a method -> this is one of the only big problems left in anti-revisionist parties that they nonetheless keep falling into over and over

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}Mao had to fight against the early CPC memorizing Leninism [https://www.marxists.org/history//erol/ncm-7/lrs-mao.htm]

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}psychological anarchism -> the concept that if anarchists want to get rid of [[E:Government (Bellergarrigue)|Government]], the thing anarchists call Government does not in fact exist at all so all Domination must exist inside psychology and psychological trauma. even when that somehow scales up into a society-wide Government. 
this is the general category including "Western" psychoanalysis anarchisms and everything else. 
I had so much trouble with putting a name on this. I was like, what the hell, democulture? postcolonial {{em|anarchism}}? but I had to listen to summaries of literature with anarchism hidden in it like a thousand times until I finally caught it

{{li|I=Z1/W|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}{{book|If We Burn}} (Vincent Bevins 2023) [https://vincentbevins.com/book2/] -> book about how a lot of new movements in Third World countries have [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|'basically' been anarchism]] and opened up space for reactionaries to take over

{{li|I=Z1/FS|Q=618}}Free Software movement

{{li|I=Z1/BP|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}Zapatismo / Zapatista Marxism -> this is a named Marxism for comprehending tribal societies or something similar apparently, not an anarchism. so I guess it gets an ideology code. 
I don't know what swatch to give this. tribal societies often get "A", but when they're explicitly not anarchist... Black Panther swatch for now I guess, because sometimes I use it for the concept of very undeveloped places in Africa fighting for independence as long as they aren't garbling Marxism.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}West Germany destroyed public transit {{YouTube|bKq-iip4LXs}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Marriage and Conscience Act ({{TTS|tts=Louisiana House Bill 7-07|title=Louisiana — House Bill 707|LA HB707}}, 2015) [https://www.christianexaminer.com/news/louisiana-representative-drafts-marriage-and-conscience-act-modeled-after-the-14th-amendment.html] [https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=937123]

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The socioeconomic form of small countries is no more than exactly what large countries allow it to be / The inner structure and ideology of small countries is not mainly created by the economic development of the country on a particular day, but is no more than exactly what large countries allow it to be -> this thought scares me. 
on the bright side, I know it's false in at least one case: Trotskyists claiming Stalin's government created East Germany and "made" it be 'Stalinist'. East Germany created East Germany. the world is, ironically, more molecularized than Trotskyists want to believe, they want to believe that people independent of Stalin wouldn't adopt "Stalinism" but in reality people just go form "Stalinism" because they want to. this makes it strange that Trotskyists are rather obsessed with people choosing to be Trotskyist independently — "restore the soviets!" — but they don't seem to understand how people operating independently actually works.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The Chinese empire invaded Korea in the 1600s
{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}In 1894 the Chinese and Japanese empires fought over Korea [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule] -> Korean slavery was going to come starting from about here. the colony was created in 1910, and everything just got worse and worse into World War II. until 1950 when the United States destroyed all the new buildings built by the Japanese.

{{li|I=Z1/HAS|Q=618}}Korean famine of 1809 -> this is why it's dumb to say Communist parties "cause" big disasters, they've happened in feudal periods without any Communist party.
{{li|I=Z1/HAS|Q=618}}Korean famine of 1869

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}{{book|Dilbert}}

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}{{book|Dilbert}} but for co-ops / comic strip about the absurdities of working in smaller co-ops [https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/25/roderick-t-long/free-market-firms-smaller-flatter-more-crowded/] -> as soon as the first few paragraphs of the Cato article I was reading said this I had to stop reading it because my mind was madly trying to imagine actually having this comic strip and even though I couldn't quite see it in front of me the hypothetical comic strip was already vastly more interesting than the article and I really wished it was real. I really want to read the comic strip from 2100 where Spain or wherever is covered in co-ops and they made a comic strip that solidly takes place in that year instead of our own but shows all the worst things about that society 
gosh I had not considered putting in comic strips as "article" pages in between Ironblood stories, but when they don't require super art skill or anything that's totally possible; that's definitely an idea to try. oh it would be especially good if the accompanying story was a more detailed account of some random 'real Dilbert' that puts the slightly baffling comic strip fully into context. that feeling of trying to read North Korean news articles when you know nothing about it and thinking "what's going on here, why is it like this" versus how they read if you actually know the history and you can then see it {{em|is}} odd and different but ending up with news articles like these does make perfect logical sense. all the other stories do talk about workers but they don't really go into that specific angle of work being a pain to the point of being totally surreal. so that possibility is still there

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}anarchist worried anarchism will only happen 500 years later [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1s1rjk7/have_we_made_likeany_progress/] -> having the internet and getting to see {{em|real}} members of each ideology that believe it but actually have to deal with all its consequences instead of just prototypical or idealized members is so amazing.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Anselme Bellegarrigue [https://voluntaryist.com/uncategorized/voluntaryism-european-anarchist-tradition/] [https://ia601803.us.archive.org/29/items/the-anarchist-library-full-list-of-pdfs-nov-2020/anselme-bellegarrigue-the-world-s-first-anarchist-manifesto.pdf] -> who is this? anarchists have a special talent for finding utterly obscure figures I've never heard of in my life.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}Anarchism materially consists of several different sociophilosophies / Anarchisms transition to a stateless society through different paths and thus contain different color-swatch characteristics; this is to imply that anarchism could actually be several completely distinct color swatches or ideology codes which at a certain point might even stop overlapping and truly be different things / Since anarchism is the doctrine that all the affairs of the people should be conducted on a voluntary basis, it is up to the people who compose such a society to arrange their affairs as suits them [https://voluntaryist.com/uncategorized/voluntaryism-european-anarchist-tradition/] -> so anarchism is definitionally a pseudo-MDem. by this definition it consists of people choosing local characteristics and starting at "democracy" to produce models that hypothetically {{em|could}} be molecularized like Marxist political economy, but which are not building a society based on picking out the best particle elements in order to succeed — i.e., crimson chunk of workers and soviets for example repeated up to a few million times to create a capable subpopulation that creates the workers' republic — but instead they err toward whatever particle elements are "available" that people won't reject in order to avoid people defecting. it thinks democracy molecularizes you because it thinks molecularizing lies only in creating social connections although it should also be considering links breaking and [[E:production structure (meta-Marxism)|clusters of links]] transitioning into other clusters of links and how to handle those smoothly without the society dissolving.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=MX onto A, MX onto ML|Q=618}}post-structuralist Bolshevism -> here's an example of a concept that should be total nonsense, total concept-spaghetti, but which actually becomes a question when you're forced to contend with the existence and widespread prevalence of anarchism. [[E:Anarchism opposes the imposed|anarchism is that which opposes what is imposed.]] which is basically to say, all social relationships ever are optional if there is any chance of them turning toxic on you. which there usually is a tiny chance with everything there is, so everything has to come with an escape route from Domination and everything is optional. but if all social relationships are optional, everything in effect becomes a market, because all attempts at interaction with anybody by anyone else become these rejectable "products" you have to make especially good and have to put real skill and effort into to not get turned down for someone else. and then you have the concept of "decentralized/distributed/diffuse decision-making", which seems tailor-made to create Filaments and [[E:Twilight Sparkle resembles West Germany|give power to Filaments]] just because they inherently form and exist without imposed power. the concept of post-structuralist freedom itself seems to me like it's a boundless wellspring for dialing physical societal development way backward and generating infinite petty bourgeoisie. by the time you achieve Freedom you just get one big Filament of a million tiny producers that's basically identical to capitalism but it maybe has some sort of "[[E:anarchemistry|anarchemist]]" mechanisms to keep businesses from growing. whenever I interact with anarchist thought it makes me lose all hope about everything and spiral into depression in like five seconds, because you're just recreating the same {{censor|shit}} that ultimately produced Israel and I swear the end result of anarchism will always be anarchisms saying other anarchisms are Domination and eventually fighting wars with each other. it's seemingly more likely to lead to the "[[E:nationalism (George Orwell)|three countries fighting eternally]]" scenario in {{book|1984}} than Communism. [[E:Literally Nineteen Eighty-Four|Literally 1984]]. 
okay, so, that's the depressing part, let's get back to the fun part. what would you do if anarchists banned Bolshevism, all the blue and strawberry and charcoal and orange and brown and pure-bright-green petty bourgeoisie in the world getting together and totally making the wrong choice, and Marxism perpetually is under the constraint it absolutely has to conform to anarchism? you have to create a Second World for the purpose of protecting Third World ethnic groups from oppressive axes of First-World ethnic groups (probably made worse by anarchists' love of Filaments) that would otherwise want to slurp up every square meter of land Third World people could use for their own further multiplication. you have to keep as many people as possible dedicated to that Second World and building it up so people are protected inside it. you need some process that takes crimson people and the structures they form and glues them together one by one to build larger and larger structures even if various individuals periodically keep deserting you and keep periodically flying off the edges. you need to basically create a formulation of Marxism with a very advanced molecularization to it where absolutely nothing is blobby or amorphous or about "masses" that aren't perfectly understood structurally down to the connections of every individual or said another way the exact shapes and structures individuals form into. you need to take Marx and Stalin's concept of society being made specifically of individuals graphed together into production structures by relations of production and elaborate on it a lot so every possible structure in society and the things it turns into are really well understood to where you truly govern the system through scientific theory practiced by every individual all predicting society as they act individually and not even through democracy. 
right.... {{em|this}} is why I was so oddly obsessed with constructing a unique violet named Marxism in the early bad {{book|MDem}} drafts. that would be this. that would be the Marxism you build when anarchism has been totally ruining the world and you need the most unimaginably highly advanced Marxism to be applied immediately to every individual to ever pull off saving the Second World in the middle of that. so the named Marxism I was describing early on was actually more like, fully quantized molecular ?????.

{{li|I=S1/Zv|tradition=ES, Zv, A|Q=618}}post-ideological anarchism / freeform movement which has taken up miscellaneous anarchist ideas and strategies as well as miscellaneous other concepts and traditions for no ulterior reason except that they consider them useful (Curran) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morgan-rodgers-gibson-anarchism-the-state-and-the-praxis-of-contemporary-antisystemic-social-mo] -> this might be one definition of an orange anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A|Q=618}}Anarchism opposes the imposed / Anarchism is that which opposes what is imposed / Anarchism is that which opposes any form of authority, coercion, or [[E:hierarchical social structure (anarchism)|hierarchical social structure]] that when it is in contradiction with a group it impacts cannot be fully justified and consented to (Rodgers) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morgan-rodgers-gibson-anarchism-the-state-and-the-praxis-of-contemporary-antisystemic-social-mo] / I deny what denies me (Bellegarrigue) [https://ia601803.us.archive.org/29/items/the-anarchist-library-full-list-of-pdfs-nov-2020/anselme-bellegarrigue-the-world-s-first-anarchist-manifesto.pdf] -> that sounds like an awfully strawberry ideology that's like, going to let all the peasants think they're workers and defend having things exactly the way they are and then complain about how hard the peasants exploit themselves despite how much they've shifted freedom and responsibility onto the individual and off authority figures

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A onto ML|Q=618}}Commune of Kronstadt, last bastion of 1917 [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/iztok-on-anarchism-in-the-ussr-1921-1979] -> this is the anarchist version of "Trotsky, who founded the CPSU"

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A onto A|Q=618}}Anarchism is often met with ridicule (Rodgers 2021) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morgan-rodgers-gibson-anarchism-the-state-and-the-praxis-of-contemporary-antisystemic-social-mo] -> and there are definitely reasons for that. 
like, {{censor|goddamn}}, this article will talk about "misconceptions about anarchism" like real anarchists on the ground aren't constantly trying to make everything as opaque and obscure and hard to understand as possible such that everyone will misunderstand it.

{{li|I=S2/Zv|tradition=A|Q=618}}A movement against The System is a movement that opposes the status quo / An antisystemic movement is a movement that opposes the status quo (Immanuel Wallerstein) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morgan-rodgers-gibson-anarchism-the-state-and-the-praxis-of-contemporary-antisystemic-social-mo] -> really orange definition.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}Grecian peaches -> the motif of a product that is imported from another country and sounds really fancy when you phrase it in a way like "Grecian peaches" but is just a regular product similar to those found in the country importing it, and that may even be marginally lower than average quality because it is less of a quality product and more of a quantity product imported from other countries to cover supply gaps. 
this motif comes from my everyday life. I looked on a bag of frozen peaches and was surprised to see they were from Greece. then I was further suprised to notice that they were greener than the other peaches. ...hang on. wait. no, the other peaches were from Greece too. so my city sells both good peaches from Greece and bad peaches from Greece under different brands. I guess there's a kind of dark genius to that, in that you can actually tell them apart and so the company can't be blamed that you chose the "bad" peaches, although they lie a little about why the brands are different. 
okay now I have a question I've never had before. why don't we import peaches from China? because that's apparently where they originally came from before they were grown in the United States. is it the distance? I know some peaches come from the United States only in a particular season. is China too close to the same latitude? is Greece really a different enough latitude to have different seasons? do they grow peaches in California, like rice and maybe a couple other things from China and Japan? —ok, the answer to that one is yes, most of US peaches come from California. so I guess that solves part of the mystery, California has taken over for China in quantity if not in season. but what's with Greece? are we just exploiting Greece because the country has owed people a lot of money? I need to get to the bottom of this some time.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}supply chains as complicated as mystery novels -> you can say this and it's hardly an exaggeration at all. whenever a product comes from somewhere weird you haven't seen there is always some strange and complicated story of specific events that happened.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=MX onto ML|Q=618}}Karl Marx is one of the world's most successful failures -> he didn't save Germany but he indirectly saved like seven other countries from the fate of either Algeria, Afghanistan, or the United States. which in the end is pretty impressive. 
Marx. Rosa Luxemburg. the East Germany people. this is the story of Germany. many tragic failures but it got more successful each time.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}By 1991, Germany and South Korea had overlapping country characteristics -> this is my thought: they're both effectively buffer states in the middle of huge conflicts between giant rival blocs of capitalism. South Korea is more obvious because it was created in the first place when the United States (? check that) occupied it in the 1940s. 'New West Germany' was created when First World countries teamed up with West Germany and pushed to take back the rest of Germany local-state by local-state — they went through connecting small chunk of owners to small chunk of owners across the country and there was a whole blue [[E:Lattice model (meta-Marxism)|Lattice]] operation going on there. there may have been more countries standing on West Germany applying pressure but it's really about the same story as South Korea, the United States wanted it filled up with capitalism so it would be a United States ally and not an ally of China or the former, soon-to-dissolve Soviet Union.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Twilight Sparkle resembles West Germany / Twilight Sparkle is similar to West Germany / Twilight Sparkle's political ideology is similar to the campaign for First-World countries to re-take East Germany -> this sounds crazy at first but listen. put aside the fact that main characters of this show can be princesses, and instead focus on the idea that to understand the problems of their overall principality or body of subjects they have to have a model of how society functions and how pieces of a society go together. then we look at the exact content that is in that model of society. 
the Starlight Glimmer episode is evidence that Twilight believes in the Ideal of "freedom". various season-opening and season-ending episodes center around the concept of several Ponies linking together to defeat individual antagonists as a team that is bigger and more capable together — this is the central theme of the show after all, so it's pretty evident and obvious. now, what is the economy of Equestria like? it's this weird idealized picture of a medieval economy in modern times that in practice resembles a Third World country like India. we know it and love it, this specific "historical period" is in so many fantasy works and console RPGs from {{film|Blue Dragon}} to {{film|Adventure Time}} to {{book|Wings of Fire}} Pantala arc and {{game|Roses in the Flames}} to {{game|Undertale}} to arguably maybe {{book|Dragon Ball}} ({{film|Dragon Ball}} is arguably a little more agrarian? part of it is peasants and part of it is capitalist cities). Applejack and Rarity are the summary of what Equestria's economy is, one of them on an individual farm with no extra employees and one of them in a small artisanal boutique that is primarily operated by one individual. the characters we're supposed to rely on to defend Equestria are a lot of tiny artisanal businesses of one or two people, but we're told that won't be a bad thing as long as 6 or 50 or 1,000 of them stand together. so we have a class. we have a subpopulation of a particular class that is presented as the most important class on the show, {{em|so}} important we have to present effectively a whole class of Ponies and not just one or two individuals in the intro sequence. and sure, that's like, so what, the Spyro games present a bunch of tradesman type characters that even form a large pool of characters when you collect the locations they were turned into statues in the first game but that doesn't have to be a critical part of the plot or premise, right? but then the Starlight Glimmer episode turns that on its head by telling us exactly what the show is about. Starlight has like effectively a nasty anarchism, a Pol Pot {{em|town}} instead of a country but it does look more like Pol Pot than Stalin. but the show then makes a point of visually showing us forms of coding that tell us we're maybe supposed to read this town as the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe anyway — under-developed town, few kinds of products, bad-quality products because you put regular people in charge of everything instead of artisanal experts in every social slot and dared to try to transform Artisan types into regular workers (in this case really really literally with a magic spell). this town really shouldn't be any of Twilight's business if it existed in a setting more similar to real life; the brown-anarchists may be hurting themselves but they aren't hurting anyone else. but Twilight takes it upon herself to imperialize a random town and destroy an abstract metaphor for a half-baked workers' government. and why does she do this? so that one big connected group of Artisan types can take over and fill in every house or business slot in the whole town, and get rid of that pesky proletariat and all the misery it brings "in practice". Twilight banned the proletariat to stop her Third-World country from developing past 'the good old days'. just like how in practice it's pretty arguable that linked Filaments of hundreds and thousands of bourgeoisie in each of several connected states at once have outright disbanded and banished the proletariat from significant parts of the United States except just a few. the new tactic of the bourgeoisie is to just round up 10-100,000 bourgeoisie across multiple local-states or countries and bring all of those at once down on 10 proletarians or unemployed, so that at any given second the bourgeoisie form a real majority and the few remaining proletarians that have survived their onslaught but won't for much longer form a real minority. the concept of "democracy" simply doesn't apply to anything any more because the oppressive majority of people really is ruling over the tiniest minority and "democracy" is required to serve society's most oppressive people rather than the people who actually need rights. this is basically what Twilight's battle against Starlight Glimmer and various season villains accidentally represents. Twilight doesn't serve traditional medieval aristocrats and yet she serves and leads the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in order to enact active intolerance of other populations being ruled by any other class. so, big bourgeoisie or small bourgeoisie, the way that Ponies link up to defend Equestria is oddly similar to how First-World countries made sure to find all the blue chunks across East and West Germany in order to link them up with their own bourgeoisie and form one gigantic blue bourgeois chunk that could outnumber and rule all the workers in eastern Germany; neocolonial dictatorship of a full country population over a full nationality's worth of ethnic groups as well as total domination of the bourgeoisie.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism would be equally good or bad without voting; this is mostly to imply national- or state-scale elections, not city or county elections -> in the United States we all have this illusion that voting actually does something when in reality people can vote for a candidate who says "I'll do this" and then the candidate does nothing. everyone is horrified by the notion that a central party could just appoint a president or something. even though that's almost exactly what happens with prime ministers after the regional representatives are elected. you have to wonder if just getting rid of unnecessary forms of voting could be progress by itself, inasmuch as even Deng Xiaoping Thought is not as toxic as Liberal-republicanism. realistically you need to have elections at a local level just as a pragmatic way of getting the representatives out there, but honestly I'm not sure if the United States needs voting at the federal level to get the exact same results you'd get anyway. is multicapitalism actually the biggest problem? if the country has nearly eliminated the proletariat should the focus be on getting rid of multicapitalism and creating mono-capitalism? everything supposedly bad about mono-capitalism already exists in multicapitalism, it's just pointlessly concealed.

{{li|I=Z1/ML|Q=618}}South Africa Democratic Teachers' Union [https://sadtu-pol-ed.blogspot.com/] -> didn't know that existed but all right. 
their page discusses critical distinctions such as that capitalists aren't created out of mere hoards of money and need buyers before they're capital. seems like a fairly good page.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=?? / Socialist-Revolutionaries|Q=618}}pale-pink quasi-socialism (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/nov/01.htm] [https://sadtu-pol-ed.blogspot.com/2012/07/socialist-revolutionaries-narodniks-and.html] / we deny that the present-day peasantry as a whole belongs to the petty-bourgeois strata; we think that next to the farm capitalists there is also a working peasantry which lives by the exploitation of its own labour-power (narodism) -> the ideas in this text are more or less what I was thinking when I created the strawberry swatch. A) funny to see Lenin speak in swatches, even if it's rather colloquial rather than used to represent a serious form of analysis. B) people who can't tell the difference between Artisan types and workers and try to say that various kinds of tiny one-person businesses are workers. the United States examples are a blur for me at the moment because there are so many but for China there was that time the CPC got tired of fighting university academics and just started framing them as 'workers'. that by itself is enough to make Deng Xiaoping Thought strawberry. not to mention the outright class collaboration between whatever the CPC is and just whole patches of capitalism they let exist; that's verging on blue right there, the academics thing is definitely a better example.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}economic adventurism [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch04.htm] -> I think this is a sensical concept? only in the sense of {{em|predicting}} things will happen faster than they really are, not in the sense of actually doing things fast; theoretical adventurism. the first works I found it said in were Trotsky bashing the specific implementation of "Stalinist" policies though.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}Zhong Sheng [https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3347708/china-warns-japan-new-militarism-takaichinomics-risk-instability] [https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/behind-zhong-sheng-pseudonym-understanding-china-s-official-diplomatic-voice] -> I didn't know about this. this is apparently a CPC pen name used for the Dengist theory equivalent of an author picking a new name to get placed on a different shelf.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV, MX|Q=618}}Internationalism is a material object -> field: Trotskyism, meta-Marxism. this has to be at least somewhat true given that we all know a pile of Ideals can't regulate international relations. Trotskyism is not actually wrong for proposing that individual countries will merge into a larger material object, it's just usually wrong about what that larger object or objects might look like.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}stashing private gold-certificates until the proletarian storm blows over (stashing wealth-certificates; Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm] -> Lenin's description of what it means to be the petty bourgeoisie or presumably the kulaks. 
this remark really puts Deng Xiaoping Thought into perspective because they sort of took that early transition into the crudest structural changes of socialism (tiny artisanal businesses and free-floating kulak sized businesses into state businesses) and turned it backwards. Stalin later explains that there are many stages of transition and when Hayashi and people start complaining about state capitalism what they should be telling people is that it's supposed to continue transitioning into larger and more consolidated structures. crimson [[E:red anarchology|anarchology]] is pretty legitimate but there are specific rules, which include that smaller localized structures continuously unify into bigger de-localized structures.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Stalin's party was happy to see anarchists and anticommunists bash Trotsky over Kronstadt [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> I don't think this is true. I don't think they cared about that as much as whether they defeated the regional bourgeoisie.

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=ML, IV, MX|Q=618}}Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. ... If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of ... we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}front-lines workers / shock troop workers / shock-brigade workers [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/09/15.htm] [https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1930/v07-n189-NY-aug-07-1930-DW-LOC.pdf] -> the motif of a section of workers that is deemed most important at the moment and gets support from the central party to do its tasks, sometimes taken directly from the other workers. 
I distinctly remember an incident where Trotsky accidentally reinvented this worse and Lenin had to explain the concept to him. that kind of thing is going to happen, but it {{em|is}} embarrassing in retrospect when you're later going to name yourself the vanguard of Leninism for the whole world and at the same time you've only barely improved.

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}shock-brigade workers in North Korea [https://archive.is/1Bv70]

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}Kronstadt rebellion of 1921 [https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/kronstadt/izvestia/06.htm]
{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}shock-brigade workers (anarchism)

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}Cannonists slandering Soviet Union / James P. Cannon's faction slandering Soviet Union [https://www.marxists.org/archive/amter/1930/jul-08-1930-DW.pdf] -> sometimes after spending a bit too much time constructing 'the best version of Trotskyism' so I'm 'allowed' to tear into it I need to turn around and remind myself of things like this. even Cannon was causing a lot of trouble until the last minute it seems.

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}viewing quantum physics through dialectical materialism [https://marxismandsciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Kumar_ms_240803201.pdf]

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}What is Trotskyism's national language? / If all the world's Trotskyist theorists moved to one country, taken from either one particular historical period or across all historical periods, what would be the most popular language or languages they spoke? -> this is one of those questions that's just silliness, but still interesting to think about. the point of it is this: do all Trotskyists belong to one countable culture or multiple countable cultures? and if they belong to multiple countable cultures, why do they (or would they) conceptualize the world in terms of a single civilization instead of in terms of multiple things colliding?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The final class of humanity in upper-phase communism (defined as a "class" purely in the sense of being a repeatable but specific way of connecting individuals to larger subpopulational units or [[E:relation of production|production structures]] that every individual undergoes over and over across space) is going to be something resembling the petty bourgeoisie but which is not the bourgeoisie because it is totally anchored to a population (perhaps a national population, perhaps the world population) and fundamentally does not have the ability to own and control an independent chunk of society or break countries into multiple populations through the will of a single individual or tiny group of individuals smaller than a "real" ethnic group -> there is a particular class transition you need to undergo to get rid of Trotsky. Trotsky has power not because he owns a useful subunit of production (nope, he's hardly doing anything for the wider society) but because he has the power to separate populations through disconnecting the fundamental social graph links between people and re-linking a bunch of reactionaries and foreign capitalists into a new "nationality" which exists on the scale of divisions between national populations. {{em|that}} is the class relation that is empowering post-structuralism, Gramscianism, and "Yaroshekoism" or Deng Xiaoping Thought, as well as the historical 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy. the [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketist mode of production]], the ability of the bourgeoisie to specifically own the capacity to link people into nation-states and defend national borders.

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618}}Gramscianism can solve racist policymaking -> I think in the United States we've learned that this just isn't true, because minority or integrated, there are simply never enough people united together at once to overcome oppressive majorities if you go this particular route where you try to focus on large areas of the country at once as a single unit without any distinction of regions or industry chunks or subpopulations. 
truth value: false in United States.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}areas-of-industry classifications [https://fourweekmba.com/industry-types/] [https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3221905] -> this is important both for philosophy tags within the Ontology project and for designing Aurora / Ironblood cards
{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, and Medicine (STEMM) [https://cpassfoundation.org/stemm-education/]

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All relationships create hierarchy (capitalism) / All relationships are [[E:spatial hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|hierarchical]] until humanity is at an advanced stage of socialist transition / Landlords are perfect post-structuralists -> this is the truth in contrast to post-structuralist {{censor|bullshit}}. everyone who exercises or realizes post-structuralism holds hierarchical power over everyone they know. this is why there are landlords. <s>landlords are perfect post-structuralists.</s> wait no add that to the proposition, that's too good to waste

{{li|I=Z1|Q=618}}random hospital patients in Cuba dying from losing power to life support {{YouTube|8hoCmEiOcHY}} -> I really can't forgive anybody that calls Communism hateful after this. you somewhat literally killed a random person's grandpa

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=LR, MZ, MX|Q=618}}You're not rational unless you doubt every single bit of Marxism from beginning to end (Bertrand Russell) {{YouTube|8hoCmEiOcHY}} -> ...wait. this is backhandedly true isn't it? mao would actually approve of this one, because if you do it with a head on your shoulders what you find is that most of Marxism is correct and you bothered to doubt things because you wanted to have a strong foundation in understanding why they're true. okay Bertrand Russell, you win this one, but you're now required to be a Communist. so did you really win. 
god I hate post-structuralist philosophy. I know why he actually said this. it's this dumb stupid {{censor|fucking}} {{censor|idiotic}} concept that only when you are not actually part of a society at all and can choose between nations and ideologies and industries as window dressing are you truly Free. 
can we start an antipoststructuralist movement which is specifically a backlash against post-structuralism and bashes it for being the bane of Third-World countries and literally any progressive factions existing in First World countries at all. you {{censor|fucking}} created Ronald Reagan and Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. you should {{censor|fucking}} be in prison or something for all the ventilator patients that just died in Cuba. post-structuralist philosophy is the only philosophy on the planet from any era I would consider for just one second actually making illegal and like maybe you don't go to prison but all your books are unpublished and confiscated and every time you put out more we come back and confiscate them again. apply the principles of copyright and create like partyright where the central party has the right to control the distribution of all post-structuralism and maybe locks it up in an isolated library-of-congress so you can read it if you go all the way there but whenever you post it online it gets taken down as "not your property" and everyone mocks you for thinking it is your property saying "it's within the central party's rights to do that, they're in control of the property not you". I'm joking of course. I don't know what you could realistically do. but we have to get rid of this. we have to get rid of the entire concept of post-structuralist economics and post-structuralist politics. we have to get rid of it almost like when the SCP Foundation found a way to erase a concept from the universe and tried to use it to delete SCP-682. [https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-6820] I know it came back, I know. it was just the first thing on my mind

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}blue adventurism -> the motif of Liberal-republicanism and Existentialism going waaaaaaay into the development of things that by all coherent logic should have been predicted to happen later while other things happened instead. this isn't really to say that the things developed early are inherently bad, although in a few cases they can be bad if and when people are trying hard to create an anarchism and these things are actually getting in the way of the anarchism building a viable republic and defending itself.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}"Progressive" does not describe philosophies / "Progressive" does not describe ideologies / "Progressive" is a meaningless term for actually classifying ideologies because every single ideology in existence wants progress but the actual difference is that each one defines progress and the act of pushing for progress differently -> once you understand this you understand Trotskyism, and you also understand Toryism, Liberal-republicanism, and anarchisms.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ideologies are not best categorized as left-wing or right-wing on the basis of an attempt to define progress nor "freedom" nor "tradition", and instead the best split to define right-wing ideologies is whether an ideology strives for populations to actually unite or practices [[E:radial conservatism (meta-Marxism)|radial conservatism]]; this is to imply that anarchism is a right-wing ideology because it refuses to be part of any named Marxism, that Trotskyism is a right-wing ideology because it would rather crush other Marxisms through secret conspiracies and anticommunist collaborations than cooperate with them, and that Stallman Libertarianism, although a right-wing ideology in that it preserves the bourgeoisie and their tendency to shard out of society, could in fact still be progressive in that it teaches people to question large corporations' power to wipe things off the internet or take away Third-World sovereignty as well as encouraging creativity and freedom for marginalized identities at least at times -> I feel like this classification system needs entirely new words just so people don't get confused and think the new definitions are the old ones. the right/left axis is now the orangeing axis. the other axis will be... hmm. would it be the axis of whether they actually bring progress? but you need a good way to quantify that for it to have a meaning. the second axis should be how Materialist the ideology is and how effectively it is able to adjust its models to more accurately match material reality as time goes on. ideologies that grasp dialectical materialism {{em|at all}} are like in the middle of the axis, while ideologies that reach a seriously dialectical level of improvement every time new information about reality emerges go at the end. the first axis is the orangeing axis, the second axis is the violet axis. or, the violate (adjective) axis. violate as an adjective is hardly ever used now so it will do. when an ideology is violate (adj), it has violated the laws of physics and the imperative to avoid harmful consequences of having the wrong models, while when it is inviolate it is in accordance with reality, i.e. "in violet". orange on one side, rubedo/focus on the other side, because "focus" originally referred to a hearth they're both fire-colored words. the temperature axis 
ironically the Communism axis is the real measure of achieving anarchy even by the anarchists' definitions, while the Trotskyism axis is what the anarchists always do orthogonal to their real mission.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Right-wing ideologies can be progressive / When the split between left-wing and right-wing ideologies is defined as the willingness to needlessly fracture national populations and the presence of radial conservatism, right-wing ideologies can in fact be either reactionary or progressive inasmuch as despite their biases and insular nature they can be in favor of freedom of all populations or demographics from imperial exploitation by other demographics and the abolition of all individualized property on scales which are relevant to forming society and bigger than a personal residence (bigger than a house; bigger than an apartment building)

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX onto ML, MX onto EC, MX onto STM|Q=618}}violate/inviolate axis -> this axis is precisely defined as being in accordance with all scientific and historical conclusions which can be obtained with nothing more than keen observation. you do have to start with the base assumption that Bolshevism and Stalin are not an inherently bad thing but after that it's nothing but observations of past events. I swear, there is just one very thin orange veil between everyone and accurate information.
{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX onto ML, MX onto IV, MX onto A|Q=618}}temperature axis / rubedo vs orangeing axis / fusion vs diffusion axis

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=EC onto ES, EC onto W, EC onto A|Q=618}}Atheists should practice Fisherism / Atheists should call out every incorrect use of language related to religion that bakes it into society -> was it Dawkins or Sagan that said this? I think it was Dawkins in God Delusion.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}ISO standard for philosophical traditions -> only today did I have the idea to actually search if this already existed. it doesn't seem it does. [http://www.philosophy-index.com/traditions/] [https://iep.utm.edu/category/traditions/] [https://www.bisg.org/philosophy] it really should. I don't know exactly what I'd do if there came to be a standard and it didn't match the codes used here. I don't think they could be immediately updated. I feel like for anything that didn't have codes I'd use the new standard while keeping the codes that are already chosen. unless one day it just suddenly becomes time to update one of the codes so that it at least visually displays as the new code everywhere. I think the backend of page titles and stuff would stay the same but the visually-shown tradition codes when you transclude the item would change.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}BISAC subject headings [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BISAC_Subject_Headings] [https://www.bisg.org/complete-bisac-subject-headings-list] [https://www.bisg.org/philosophy] -> this is.... not bad. for library books this is a pretty decent way to sort them by philosophical tradition. this is apparently a successor to the Dewey Decimal system which actually has subcategories for fiction — that is incredibly useful if you just have a bunch of novels sitting around you want to organize.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}{{TTS|tts=Soviet Union|.su}} top-level domain overrun with cybercrime and White supremacist sites [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su] -> this feels like a weird microcosm of what happened to the real Soviet Union when "the real United States" and "the real Russia" took it over.

{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618}}Reason is logic (Liberal-republicanism) / Reason is binary formal logic -> this is one of the propositions that has brought the complete downfall of Liberal-republicanism. reason sounds good on paper but in practice it requires paying a bunch of expensive lawyers to do all the reasoning of how what representatives voted on is actually implemented or interpreted. this discrepancy happens because the people who vote for laws and the people who have to implement laws are entirely separate material populations, and any sufficiently large separation in space means that causality is broken and things will happen totally independently of each other with no real ability to control or predict them until they collide in an unpleasant surprise — the moment you have to pay the lawyers a bunch of money to figure out what's even going on. the systems Liberal republics have invented for solving social conflicts are entirely made up, even as the actual conflicts are unavoidable workings of the physical universe, and turn into an artisanal exercise of one person containing no actual democracy. the lawyer with the big detailed law degree is the real dictator every time. the lawyer is the 'totalitarian dictator' that rules over everyone's daily lives. the only real way to fix this is to stop assuming binary formal logic (the stuff of law) has any ability to jump over the Gödel gap and predict the rest of the universe. this can actually be done using wave-machine logic. 
ironic, isn't it, that people believe Lenin was a dictator but it's actually lawyers that are the totalitarian dictators in almost every sense of that term and abandoning law and becoming a Marxist theorist in fact made him {{em|not}} a dictator.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Reason must become relativity / To be useful reason must become relativistic (physics definition, not sociology or anthropology) / For reason to describe the entire universe, it must design itself around special relativity

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Language is one of the worst-designed communication protocols in the history of the universe -> but because everyone fundamentally relates to other human individuals in language, we nevertheless have to design everything about this whole wiki on top of that to never ever ever ever communicate the wrong thing through any phrasing or interface element ever. sometimes I wish language didn't exist and we could somehow just communicate in math. in practice that would probably be language anyway, but, you know.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=MX onto ML|Q=618}}For a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat (proletarian civilization) to exist, a particular finite population in the form of a countable material object must exist, such that there exists a concept of betraying the proletariat or being loyal to the proletariat in the sense of being physically inside it or being physically outside it -> this is a meta-Marxist definition, but I'm pretty sure this is what Stalin believed and put into practice, so it can be crimson.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}"Jürgen Habermas believed it" doesn't make it true -> there really has to be a separate one for Existentialisms and bourgeois ideologies because of how they see themselves as fundamentally and utterly separate from Marxisms and can easily start assuming that Barack Obama saying something makes it mandatory to believe. let me spell it out: if Barack Obama believes something and that doesn't make it true, and it happens to be false in practice, but he believes it anyway, and you have to vote for the lesser evil, you are telling people {{em|it is good and mandatory to believe and spread false information for some reason}}, for some particular unsaid ulterior reason.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}"Stalin believed it" doesn't make it true / "Stalin believed [statement]" doesn't make the statement true / "Mao believed it" doesn't make it true / "Lenin believed it" doesn't make it true / "Trotsky believed it" doesn't make it true / "Luxemburg believed it" doesn't make it true / "Xi Jinping believed it" doesn't make it true / "Deng Xiaoping believed it" doesn't make it true / "Che Guevara believed it" doesn't make it true / "Kim Il-sung believed it" doesn't make it true / "Malcom X believed it" doesn't make it true / "Huey P. Newton believed it" doesn't make it true / "Marx or Engels believed it" doesn't make it true / "[particular Marxist theorist] believed it" doesn't make it true / "LG founders believed it" doesn't make it true -> super-case of: meta-Marxism is a concept, not a person.
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, EC|Q=618}}"Stalin put [statement] into practice and it worked" makes a statement Stalin says true -> this is the funny thing about claims that "Communism doesn't work". a particular statement being contained inside Bolshevik ideology depends almost entirely on whether that statement works!

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Communicative rationality is no better than religion -> so. I talked about this a bit in my recent [[R:MDem/5.2r/0999 findings|letter]]. but I just had it hit me again from another angle. so, you know how in Dragon Ball some characters fall through the golden cloud? and these characters are described as "not pure of heart". that's basically what communicative rationality is. it starts from the flawed assumption that morality is something that basically has an objective truth value — as much as nobody wants to phrase it that way — and the universal truth value of what is moral can be found just by a few people agreeing on it as a consensus. Dragon Ball, intending to be funny, presents the concept of "pure of heart" as if it's something that is inherently obvious and easy to understand, as if everyone will intuitively come to the same answer on what is a really complicated topic, and then the golden cloud suddenly reveals that if you... honestly I forget what the actual standard was, it was something like if you respond positively to pornography or something like that, then you fall through the golden cloud. the joke lies in there being a gap between people's model of how discerning morality works and what the "real" truth value of morality is. and you see a similar gap between the theory of communicative rationality and the results of communicative rationality. go to the Community to get judged on whether you're pure of heart, and you'll unexpectedly find that everyone agreed that pornography is a danger to society or everyone will wear hijab at a level greater than in Christian populations or that nobody ought to speak Arabic or Japanese instead of Korean in order for all the individuals in society to protect themselves from other individals, but everyone is happy with that outcome except for the new arrival. Dragon Ball's model of "pure of heart" is a commentary on religion, but communicative rationality doesn't really rise above that to get better results, it basically fails the original Kantian task entirely, like most of Kantianism except the stuff about the noumenon really.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}{{book|Lord of the Rings}} is neoliberal nonsense / Because {{book|Lord of the Rings}} is based on World War I, when it uses the metaphor of the One Ring, what it is essentially saying is that no European country "should" have won World War I and taken over the continent, but this is an anti-Materialist position that does not understand the reality of how global empire is established and how realistic it is to expect that anyone could prevent it — this is evident when looking at the global hegemonic power of the United States in later decades — which in turn means in context that the destruction of the One Ring is effectively a metaphor for reasserting the global dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie while [[E:Arceism|framing its creation as the creation of an anarchism]]; this is to imply that if {{book|Lord of the Rings}} were accurate, the destruction of the One Ring would cause all the smaller rings to effectively become able to turn into the next One Ring and nothing would have been accomplished

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Stalin expanding over Europe like octopus [https://canadashistory.ca/getmedia/b1f07cd3-b63c-4a59-93ce-efe19357344f/ExpMilNATO75PoliticalCartoon768x620.jpg]

{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=ML onto DX|Q=618}}Khruschev's economics came from Yaroshenko -> I always tended to frame Khruschev or Trotsky as the major symptoms of things going downhill in the USSR but, you know, that explains a lot. it was baffling to me how Stalin could write such a good critique in 1952 right before he died but then Khruschev and all the opening-up stuff happened. so Yaroshenko and his weird class-collaboration theories were part of the lever, huh? [https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdnsv2n1/Yaroshenko.html] despite making a bunch of intentionally stupid propositions about "Yaroshenko being right" mostly as a joke I am wholly unsurprised.

{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=MX onto DX, MX onto IV|Q=618}}Yaroshenkoism leads to Trotskyism / Trotskyism is true but in order to get there it is mandatory to transition over half the world's countries to Deng Xiaoping states

{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=MX onto DX, MX onto IV|Q=618}}Because Bukharin was "profoundly influenced by Bogdanov", and Bogdanov was one of the people who folded relations of production inside productive forces, [https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdnsv2n1/Yaroshenko.html] this is to say that Bukharin's understanding of Marxism was basically Yaroshenkoism and if he had attempted to realize Trotskyism it would have turned into Deng Xiaoping Thought -> wow, I didn't think I'd actually find textual evidence for a link between Trotskyism and Yaroshenkoism so quickly. 
I mean, I guess it's one of those things like "theories being ironic" where capitalism or transition out of capitalism only has a few possibilities and after the vast array of small scale actions people can take the large-scale results always get pulled toward them. but still. 
god no matter what Yaroshenkoism never ceases to be funny

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}Global anarchy is possible through theocracy / Previous history has "shown" that Bolshevism tends to crumble as individuals fail to consider themselves a permanent part of national populations or supranational federations free to be traded and placed just anywhere to build industrial structures and facilities required by the overall society, and that Liberal-republicanism tends to fail because subpopulations of people never have the ability to intelligently design what other subpopulations of people do and don't agree to do, [[:Category:Yaroshenkoism ontology|but ultimately]] one of the most powerful things in the world is [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|chunks of people free-associating together into large "continents" of people powerful enough to crush anyone who oppresses them]] as long as they stand together, thus anarchy will be achieved by individuals at the edges of countable cultures culturally selecting what individuals get to join them and be part of their countable culture; the content of countable cultures will be improved and a capable subpopulation of anarchist allies that can secure a dictatorship-of-the-anarchists created through assigning authority to some kind of global cosmic Good or mandate of heaven that accumulates and is inherently associated with all previous determinations of what is Good -> I don't think this is likely in reality but I do think it would make a severely interesting metatransitional science-fiction story. everyone is forced to convert to neo-paganism and magic ritual practices of "re-enchantment" on pain of total isolation from society so a new society can be created without statism or prejudice and there can be anarchy. there may be a few things that go seriously wrong on the way there.

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=MX onto DX, MX onto W, MX onto ЯР / Yaroshenkoism|Q=618}}The functional purpose of the petty bourgeoisie is to create national independence -> this is why it's so hard to tear countries away from them. countries actually need to continuously maintain national independence every day to survive and not just get totally trampled over by other ethnic groups before they can ever have crimson socialism or "democracy". on the flipside of the same thing, individuals tearing out of Bolshevism to form a tiny new population when they really don't fit into it because they don't produce at a high enough volume or simply don't fit well into the environment of any of the specific state businesses and maybe function better in a tiny village co-op etc is another form of national independence. the petty bourgeoisie as small farmer or novelist or academic etc basically exist to perform the purpose of tearing populations into smaller chunks and dismantling fraught relationships from individuals to larger people-groups to create new people-groups.

{{li|I=S2/ES|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT|Q=618}}Trans identity isn't politics, it's just life -> this is true if you're [[E:North-Koreans can be gay (law)|Kim Il-sung assessing gay people]]. it's not true in a Liberal "democracy", where all truth and facts are [[E:communicative rationality (Habermas)|subject to human consensus]] before being approved, and religion or [[E:The glass ceiling is made of men|membership]] in a [[E:Filament (meta-Marxism)|hostile cluster]] of [[E:The fear of Black criminals comes from the need for White capitalists to protect their earnings|White businessmen]] altering that consensus.

{{li|I=S1/JC|Q=618}}North Korean news and LGBT rights -> I went on KCNAWatch and searched both "homosexual" and "gay" to try to find a source on the claim that the WPK had supported legalizing homosexuality. I expected for all the world for this article to come up that was like, Kim Il-sung and his descendants are so wonderful, they understand human rights despite what the United States says, look how the WPK legalized homosexuality and they were right there. that was absolutely the article I thought I was going to get. (and don't get me wrong, I would have been fairly satisfied with that article. I'm fine with the odd ways North Korean reporters frame things as long as they have a good stance on the issues; I understand North Korean characteristics.) but I was a little surprised to find that most recent mentions of "homosexual" have been very negative, often coming up as a generic insult hurled at officials in First World countries oppressing North Korea. [https://kcnawatch.org/newstream/1451904652-719055996/us-should-apologize-for-its-anti-dprk-conspiratorial-document-kcna/] [https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-idprk/reportofthe-commissionof-inquiry-dprk] one of the only times I found that was positive was a claim that the United States was "full of discrimination" because people in the United States had complained to the FCC about a Spanish-language talk show saying prejudiced things about women and gay/lesbian people. [https://kcnawatch.org/newstream/1451891869-195414965/hispanic-groups-in-us-complain-obscene-spanish-language-talk-show/] this has the form of something that was said not because the person actually believes it and supports the values themself but because it generically supports the concept that it's time to undermine or dissolve a foreign country because the people in that foreign country are dissatisfied with being connected to it. Trotskyism without content; orange anarchism; [[E:Zinovievizing|Zinovievization]]. it is strange to me how much North Korea claims to be unaligned to any bloc of countries and then like, so many articles are quietly chock full of this subtext of "dismantle the United States". are they really actually non-aligned at that point? or are they non-aligned in the same sense [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialists]] are non-aligned, claiming to have no formal affiliation to any larger structure but then waiting for the day when suddenly a bunch of non-aligned people or non-aligned countries suddenly come together for just one second and crush the thing they were too afraid to openly stand against that's actually their shared enemy? that seems to be the general pattern of absolutely all politics these days, from anarchist street protests to creating a Marxist state that 'ostensibly' isn't connected to a Communist international. "decentralized" factions are the most powerful, but they are powerful specifically because they are completely unaccountable to anyone including themselves and gain their power from spontaneous physical force and the ability to out-survive others, this Darwinian principle of irrational force always overcoming reason if enough individuals are there and enough force is applied. it's like Existentialism can only be defeated by anarcho-[[User:RD/9k/Q22,13|Yaroshenkoism]].

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}North Korean mass media is amongst the most strictly controlled in the world [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_North_Korea] -> claim found on Wikipedia page. this is a very misleading framing. it's accurate to say that Korean state media is 'a monopoly' or there is a limited number of media producers. but this is literally [[E:Stalin became mandatory due to limited availability of education and experts|due to the wealth of the country]]. it's an underdeveloped country that only develops slower with every sanction, thus by Liberal-republican poststructuralist [[E:separable multiplicity|pluralized]]-wealth-equals-freedom standards becoming ""less free"". 
you start to see how disingenuous this is when you realize how common Western-Marxist rhetoric has become and how much every single political movement becomes about "moral panics in mass media" and "representing things correctly in the media". in North Korea you don't have that problem. the one good thing about the state monopoly over what mass media will be is that mass media never becomes this wild uncontrolled thing that can just go spontaneously spreading racism at the drop of a hat when nobody expects it. the Existentialist-Althusserian-Trotskyite axis basically created that problem and then proceeded to push all other issues under the rug while badly trying to solve the problem it created.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}framing conflict over environmental protections as human versus human, cities versus rural areas, rather than as human versus animal [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/blaming-threatened-species-media-portrayal-of-humanwildlife-conflict/1368C6FFEEE7F944A3A3C7186C31AB03] [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9622530/]

{{li|I=S2/LLM|Q=618}}The biggest bottleneck to building AI is energy use (2026) [https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/computing-power-is-no-longer-the-ai-bottleneck-its-energy-production]

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}He who is not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares to unhorse the emperor (Mao) -> this feels like it might be quoting a previous thing from hundreds of years ago. will have to check that later [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch27.htm]

{{li|I=S2/JC|Q=618}}The most powerful weapon for a party that is waging a revolution — in fact its one and only weapon — is ideology (Kim Jong-un) [https://archive.ph/imx12?url=naenara.com.kp] -> this is one of the most [[E:Fisherism (meta-Marxism onto Western Marxism)|Western-Marxist]] things they've ever said

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}United States strengthening South Koreans to destroy North Korea -> it's like. Trotskyism's evil twin. Existentialism exists as this big monstrous malignant-anarchy lurking below borders and extending through every industrial country and then then whole Existentialism carefully picks off defectors from Third-World countries and uses them as weapons against national independence. nothing is really a simple matter of "the proletariat" and "the bourgeoisie" any more because the overall object the bourgeoisie control effectively outnumbers any tiny area of people who won't be absorbed into their gigantic spatial-slot-hierarchy and pick on other countries. 
you can't deploy Frantz Fanon against this because no matter how close people are bound together by violence the army sent in against them will be always be so much bigger and stronger it's a bloodbath. but you can't deploy theories of ""democracy"" against this because once again, if a small number of people try to get their voices heard but there's a bigger number of people who don't want to hear them under any circumstances, the bigger number of people will drown them out and govern the whole population. it's like there is only one way to win and that way is to absolutely out-live and out-exist and out-Existentialize Existentialism until proletarian civilization has covered the earth as much as Existentialism does right now and Existentialists just don't {{censor|fucking}} exist any more. if we hypothetically imagine Richard Wolff's co-op theory was right then the co-ops would have to trade with Cuba or North Korea etc and refuse to stock all the most reactionary businesses in the United States at a level equivalent to the incoming goods, basically Boston-Tea-Party their income. the structure of which businesses are connected globally is almost as critical as trying to have a country exclusively full of workers. like, that horizontal production relation of what city buys what city's goods and causes the productive forces to build up is the real thing that defines country borders now and whether a country survives. the bourgeoisie got their power by actually selling goods and now they maintain their power by abruptly pulling goods and jobs and an area's entire socioeconomy. the only way to defeat embargoes and perhaps the very concept of sanctions might just be radically ferrying goods to other countries as if the embargo doesn't exist in spite of what they do to you

{{li|I=S2/JC|Q=618}}North Korea is preventing a second Korean War every day it maintains nuclear weapons [https://web.archive.org/web/20201231091757/http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/index.php?ptype=cfougi&stype=0&ctype=0&page=1&lang=eng&mtype=view&no=401] [https://web.archive.org/web/20201231072258/http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/index.php?lang=eng&ptype=cfougi&stype=0&ctype=0&page=35] -> well. it isn't not. there may be subtle problems in this statement but like {{em|it's not wrong}}. 
god, like, the similarities between the way real North Korean reporters talk and the setting of Undertale until the human falls in....

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Every narrative, primarily among fictional narratives, whose main subject is crime contains politically-charged ideology -> I'm just thinking about the concept of Nabokov arguing for his disgusting story while other people in later decades argue that stories should accurately present harmful things as bad, and China having a regulation that crime shows aren't allowed to glorify crime. is that deliberate censorship or is it a consequence of the fact that every single story about crime effectively pushes a politically-charged agenda about what crime is and what we should think about it? isn't {{book|Animal Farm}} making a statement that Bolshevism should be illegal worldwide because it's harmful and "criminal"? isn't it the case that every single time a furry-fan draws {{censor|two Jack-London wolves banging}} they are accidentally making a descriptive non-fictional statement about how we should sociologically understand {{censor|the concept of real-world zoophiles}} and where they come from and whether art does or doesn't endorse or create them? every single piece of art that talks about something that is a crime in the real world for even a second has an opinion about that crime.

{{li|I=S2/P4|Q=618}}The United States republic does not deserve to be dismantled because it always protects White people of British, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, or South-African ancestry and gives them economic abundance and a safe place to be no matter how many people around the world they hurt -> this is what I have always heard everyone in my area implicitly say. but let's be honest, this is a proposition that belongs in what I call "[[E:Identitarian fascism|Identitarian fascism]]". it's this idea that when Hitler and Stalin are in the same room Hitler says that although he has the best skull shape his population is corrupted by the inferior culture of Bolshevism so the Nazis will win because they have the superior Social-Philosophical System of culture and politics while Bolshevism must lose because it doesn't build thriving empires. what the United States believes about Communism in particular is literally no different from what Nazi Germany believed.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}People living in China are deceivers who act to destroy the United States by undermining its cybernetic power of Free Will because they're all required to serve the agenda of the central government and they couldn't possibly be thinking for themselves {{YouTube|bidsXATlClk}} -> I can't believe people will say this in zero irony and yet think it's stupid for the historical Soviet Union to have hope in its system and tell people not to let outside forces convince you it's failing. either Stalin can tell the whole country of workers and peasants to have hope and reject foreign narratives or nobody can.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The CPC periodically audits university professors' houses every three months to demonstrate dominance {{YouTube|bidsXATlClk}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The CPC randomly inserts midterm exams into school lesson plans to demonstrate dominance; this is to imply that the authority of the government of China over the area of China unfairly dominates teachers {{YouTube|bidsXATlClk}}

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Kantianism is the shovel dream of chunk competition / Kantianism is the shovel dream of Filaments of Existentialists stuck within chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy driving out other chunks of people and forming an exclusive dictatorship-of-the-Existentialists in which they can make whatever rules they want

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Storing guns is not the same as owning guns {{YouTube|n-Kg42aoWuc}} -> this is really funny. it's one of the many moments you're totally confused why the United States has the political questions it does until you realize that the real issue is whether states or cities should get to make laws. there's no such thing as a country simply having "democracy", it always comes down to the republic and the local-state and the city arguing about {{em|who}} should get to vote about making the laws.

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}I don't care what you want, KMT invader -> the channel I found this on in a nutshell. respectable position. bold, but fits the facts about what the bourgeoisie are, so, yeah. 
The bourgeoisie are one possible root of all colonialism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Aa|Q=618}}If the only person I control is myself, then how can I ever expect that anyone will ever be able to organize anybody into a movement? / If the only person you control is yourself, then how can you ever expect or predict that you will ever be able to organize anyone into a movement? (be able to contribute to building a movement; meta-Marxism)

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=EC onto HAS, ML onto HAS, MX onto HAS|Q=618}}Every memoir anyone has ever written about real-life non-fictional experiences takes place in the same universe / Trotsky's autobiography and The Motorcycle Diaries take place in the same universe / Trotsky's autobiography and every anticommunist memoir take place in the same universe / {{book|The Long Walk}} and The Motorcycle Diaries take place in the same universe -> this is why "metaverses" of different fictional universes crossing over into each other don't really bother me. it is one of the most capitalist things to say they can't and that like, the people that wrote all of them don't in fact occupy the same shared "multiverse of books" themselves.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}{{book|My Life}} (Trotsky 1930) -> I forget whether this is an autobiography or a memoir but it does exist

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{book|Kimba the White Lion}}, {{book|Animal Farm}}, and {{book|Warriors}} all take place in the same universe
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{book|Kimba the White Lion}} and {{book|Warriors}} take place in the same universe -> I guess this would be based on the manga versus the books? I'm not sure. evidence: despite having fantasy elements both works take animal populations rather literally rather than using them as metaphors.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{book|Kimba the White Lion}} and {{book|Animal Farm}} take place in the same universe, although possibly in different time periods -> evidence: both works feature animals implausibly learning human language.

{{li|I=M3/Fy|Q=618}}What if {{book|Animal Farm}} took place in the Russian Empire? -> I don't think it does but it's a fun thought experiment to think about what would be different.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}duplexing something a million times / duplexed a million times (sense label)

{{li|I=S1/DFy|tradition=LR, PT|Q=618}}war is peace ({{book|1984}})
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}freedom is slavery ({{book|1984}})
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}ignorance is strength ({{book|1984}})

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES onto LR, ES onto ML|Q=618}}running is bravery -> it's been so popular to quote 1984, but I feel like modern anarchisms have introduced so many more logical contradictions than that book ever did.
{{li|I=S1/A |tradition=A onto LR, A onto ML|Q=618}}hiding is freedom
{{li|I=S1/W |tradition=W onto PT|Q=618}}conquering is postcolonial / taking is generosity
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES onto ML, ES onto DX|Q=618}}unity is inhumanity / unity is antisocial

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}fictional anarchist dystopia -> I don't know exactly what swatch this should be. like, I guess it could be brown. for me it would be red or violet because those are the philosophies that criticize anarchism constructively. I'll leave it charcoal for now just to be very literal until I find a good example. or, dark green.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}Existentialism has been disproven / The main early-existentialist proposition or propositions have been disproven because whenever any individual or group of individuals in a Third-World country try to assert something about their place in the universe or their hopes for the future, First-World countries will come along and say they are making entirely the wrong meaning, and make that judgement a reality through use of force 
field: entropicism.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}communicative irrationality -> I love to make up words sometimes. this is.... the motif of two people attempting to reach a consensus understanding but where nobody actually wants to agree on a shared morality or shared concept of "emancipation" and as a result you have a process that has the opportunity to be "di-rational" but where every moment of rationalities coming together is warped by one of them relentlessly standing in a powerful or dominating position. 
communicative rationality + instructions unclear = communicative irrationality

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=MZ onto LR, MZ onto PT|Q=618}}showing up partway through movie about Algeria confused why the FLN attacked the French [https://web.archive.org/web/20250629235019/https://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2023/12/settler-colonial-projection.html] -> amazing. one of those things that is a hilarious white card from its unnecessary specificity and clear series of train-wrecked events, if it weren't harmful and tragic. I love a good reasoning disaster as long as people aren't getting actively heated about it.

{{li|I=Z1/MZ|Q=618}}{{book|Methods Devour Themselves}} (Sriduangkaew, Moufawad-Paul) [https://glose.com/book/methods-devour-themselves] -> on the interaction between philosophy and fiction

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}People newly joining Israel are a violent [[E:herd-of-cats effect (meta-Marxism)|herd-of-cats]], taking on a formal role of having to secure ill-gotten borders against nearby populations

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}Comprehend the world from below / Comprehend the world from the position of the oppressed and exploited rather than from the position of the oppressor and exploiter (J. Moufawad-Paul) -> this... is mixed. when you already have a Materialist understanding of reality you'll be able to apply it properly. but I think this is one of several vectors by which people slowly distort their way out of Marxism and into Western-Marxism and into critical theory and into post-Marxism and into Existentialism and all the way back into Liberal-republicanism. when most philosophies up to now lack a proper existential materialism, a few people like Lenin and Stalin excluded because they manage to get a crude exmat in there when they talk about things like never being able to rely on the bourgeoisie, it's really easy for people to get lost in these traps of I-believe-that-everybodying people that will never ever listen and then going down long spirals of how through analyzing "culture" or "attitudes" or "media" to 'actually' get the I-believe-that-everybodies to work.

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}There is no real division between people and the state under any Marxist analysis -> well said. even in meta-Marxism the division is between {{em|people and people}} that exist in [[E:separable multiplicity|plurality]] and The State basically lies {{em|embedded into}} the border between them — if not simply embedded into the subpopulation that has the ability to generate armies and cops.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Populations have an entropy measure in the same sense that rooms of oxygen versus frozen blocks of oxygen do
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The higher a population's entropy is, the harder it is to achieve democracy practically

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Post-Marxism casually accepts neocolonialism / Post-Marxism is the shovel dream of [[E:retail empire (meta-Marxism)|retail empire]] / Post-Marxism is the shovel dream of a republican society-object expanding its outer edges over the world until its peripheries have been tossed into Third-World countries and the whole society is not fully contained or fully functional within one society / Post-Marxist ideas are rooted in the development of the neoliberal era, which had led to destruction of labor organizations, outsourcing, and the arrival of post-industrial social structures in Europe and the United States (Lotz 2018) [https://christianlotz.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/lotz-sage-handbook-frankfurt-school-critical-theory-postmarxism.pdf] -> the funny thing about this is that they very nearly said the problem with their philosophy out loud themselves. nothing undermines Existentialism as much as Existentialists' own writings

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, ES, LR|Q=618}}Politics never ends inasmuch as all levels of societies are constantly churning / The political con-stitutes the most encompassing level of the organization [of society] ... veiled in the visible (Gauchet) / We have to assert the primacy of politics in the structuration of social spaces (Laclau 2006) [https://christianlotz.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/lotz-sage-handbook-frankfurt-school-critical-theory-postmarxism.pdf] / Political activity is not mere superstructure generated {{em|out of}} the socio-economic base and the mode of production, but permeates every physical scale of the entire society -> this is correct but not for the reason post-Marxism thinks it is. it's correct in the sense of [[User:RD/9k/Q19,10|Stalin quoting Marx]] and saying that at every moment different things rise, fall, join, and [[E:sublation|transform]]. 
field: existential materialism, post-Marxism.

{{li|I=S2/HM|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT|tradition=MX onto HM|Q=618}}Gay rights prove communicative rationality / Because mainstream Marxism-Leninism tends to sort a population into people who are helpful to a society and people who are harmful to it, which leads to the problem of people who are not already integrated into society continuing to be pushed of town facilities and forced to become petty bourgeoisie after which they are double-demonized, gay people are only integrated into a population because gay individuals become directly socially linked to other individuals or unique socially-linked graphs of individuals that agree in groups of one gay person and one ally at a time to care about their problems, and the acceptance of gay people into society provides evidence for [[E:communicative rationality (Habermas)|communicative rationality]]

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=MX onto HM|Q=618}}Critical theory is molecularized (Habermas) / Because it contains the concept of communicative rationality as seen in Habermas, critical theory is a molecularized theory; this is to imply that it is probably a pseudo-MDem, not a Molecular Marxism

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=HAS / anthropology, A|Q=618}}The state of nature for the human animal is to form into localized cooperative populations such as tribes or villages
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=HAS / anthropology, PT / Hobbes, PT / Toryism, MX / exmat|Q=618}}The existence of localized cooperative human populations such as tribes or villages does not prevent war
{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX / exmat, MX onto IK, MX onto IV|Q=618}}Because the state of nature for human beings is to form into localized cooperative populations before getting to the stage of organisms competing and killing, The only way to actually remove humans from a state of nature is to create a global government -> this is a direct consequence of applying Kantianism, but as it's something very few Kantians would actually admit, it's an almost uniquely Trotskyist proposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If human beings cared about being colonized the Soviet Union would not have been dissolved and sold to capitalists; however, it was
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If human beings cared about being colonized Black people would not have spread across various regions of the United States around the time the Black Panthers were dissolved on the actual timeline; however, they did

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Human beings are neither rational nor moral, and all they care about on a mass scale is individual survival 
this + ?? = Colonized populations don't care about being colonized unless they're being flogged.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto unknown|Q=618}}Colonized populations don't care about being colonized unless they're being flogged / Colonized populations don't care about being colonized or about remaining a population unless they're being flogged -> I really hope this isn't true but there's so much horrible evidence it is true.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Foreign empires care about neocolonialism more than colonized populations do, because they logically must care about their goal in order to physically achieve it

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Economics equals primitive accumulation / Primitive accumulation is economics / Primitive accumulation is a form of economics / All the world is just a bunch of resources to be controlled by the people most capable of using them, including country territories, all possible business territories, slots for immigration from Third World countries to First World countries, science positions in universities, and political parties occupying an office; this is to state that Israel is expected to take over Palestine when it is more capable of acquiring and using the resources -> I think a large number of Tories believe this. this is the proposition that won the Cold War, and the underlying reason Tories hate only Mexican immigrants and yet not Indian immigrants. everyone has been poisoned with economics and it changes the way they judge absolutely everything. 
the funny thing is that if this were actually true, it would necessarily mean that economics {{em|is}} a moral issue because significant numbers of people die in a lot of incidents of primitive accumulation. and failing that, the statement that it's not okay for poor people to be controlling the resource of housing instead of "better" people is itself a moral statement. everything is morality now. everything has been tainted with economics and then secondarily infused with morality. 
Primitive accumulation is a form of economics + ?? = The Peter Principle.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The {{TTS|tts=United States|U.S.}} is composed of direct action / People have been performing anarchist direct action at every second since the founding of the United States (blue-anarchist direct action; Existentialist direct action; direct oppression; {{TTS|tts=meta-Marxism onto anarchism|MX onto A}}) -> charcoal anarchists are going to hate this but it's the only good way to explain people believing nonsense like "anarchism is acting like you're already free" and "putting the right owner in charge of Twitter is direct action". 
this is part of the definition of [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]] — how it realizes itself and what it looks like materially or how it operates in practice.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto ML|Q=618}}Democracy is forged of non-democracy / Democracies require undemocratic materials / Republics were made out of republic before they were made of democracy, both in Liberal-republicanism and in Bolshevism -> Liberal-republicans have this weird aversion to the entire concept of a society being made of republic before it has Democracy. but this is ahistorical because the parliaments of France and England formed only after a monarchy formed, and before the republic took over. there was always a stage of undemocratic stuff that was necessary before there could be Democracy, which was required to set up Democracy. so why are people so scared of Bolshevism forming a structure which is pure republic before putting democracy inside it? 
I'm going to say it again: Liberal-republicanism is an anarchism right now. Liberal-republicanism is a period of anarchist transition in the exact same sense that Bolshevism is a period of socialist transition.

{{li|I=S2/AC|Q=618}}Disalienation will come from refusing to consider their reality as definitive (Fanon) [https://antipodeonline.org/2021/08/18/frantz-fanons-geographies/] -> it confuses me how this dude that actually glorifies violence has seemingly been so successful in seeping into Western Marxism and all the theories that are strictly nonviolent. it's like they didn't really understand the inner cause and effect of his theory.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES onto AC|Q=618}}Fanon's geographies cannot be theorised as enclosed or contained [https://antipodeonline.org/2021/08/18/frantz-fanons-geographies/] [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> Fanon's whats cannot be what? 
I think half of this commentary is revolving around the idea of "Black Lived Experiences", so you have to read every word through that. and I think what's being said in the surrounding paragraph is that because the text comes from Lived Experiences it isn't constrained into some highly specific academic philosophy like it's only schizoanalysis or only post-Marxism or only Lacanianism etc — I think that's what "his writings can be discussed collaboratively" is getting at. which.... says a lot doesn't it. I always wondered why Lived Experiences were such a big deal in recent philosophy and, yeah, if your academic philosophies are so dreadfully siloed they hardly interact with anything Lived Experiences are going to seem like the most groundbreaking thing ever because {{i|oh my god, we got actual real-world data!}} it's. this misguided attempt to sort of almost get to Materialism and recounting real events as a shared reality, but stopping just a bit short of quite getting there. 
when they say "reification" they seem to mean White people realizing a particular structure of French towns over here and Black Lived Experience that's suffering over there; just that it's a real system that exists on the ground and not just a "narrative" in people's heads, which would otherwise be super appealing to frame it as so I guess they have to say "reified" to clarify that you can't just Reject Narratives to escape. (they did say "narratives" though after also saying "embodied" and "reified" a bunch? unnecessarily mixed messages there.) 
okay, yeah, geographies is about the totally different conditions in the French town and the colony proper. and also about how radios break up the normal relationship between Europe and the colonies and make the division between the two populations more important than actual geography. apparently.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}black livingness -> synonym, add to "lived experience" 
gosh they come up with the funniest words, gotta add this one

{{li|I=S2/AC|Q=618}}a socialist regime, a regime which is completely orientated toward the people as a whole and based on the principle that man is the most precious of all possessions (Fanon) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> the commentator says that Fanon is 'bafflingly inconsistent'. but I feel like the problem is right in here somewhere. he defines "socialism" as "man is the most precious of all possessions". which really sounds like the same thing as [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]] to me, not like Marxism. sure, China and New Democracy exist and countries like that talk about 'the people', but they don't talk about 'man' in a general sense, they always try these weird little strategies of claiming that academics are actually workers and stuff. Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't abandon class analysis and try to posit some kind of universal The Subject that all people in a country are. but this mention of 'man' and the concept that 'the class struggle has become less important' said out loud seems like Fanon is sliding into some kind of Enlightenment Liberalism or something which is all about tent of freedom poles and defining people as these identical bags of freedoms even though not everybody can use them. as well as that phrase 'redistribution of wealth'. maybe he's talking about something kind of like "Black Economic Empowerment" where whole plots of land were handed over, I'm not sure. but my diagnosis from just these quotes is he is hiding Existentialism or Menshevism inside the word "socialism". he's just twisting "socialism" over into the category Stalin called "reformism".

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=Trotskyism onto Fanon|Q=618}}Assuming that violence itself binds people together in solidarity will cause your movement to back reactionary forces that allow capitalists to re-take power [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> the delicious irony of a Trotskyist actually figuring this out but still being a Trotskyist. like tell that one to Zinoviev....

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Compared with peasants, the Soviet proletariat will not side with foreign empires (1910) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> that's become a little questionable over the years. it seems like when the country was mostly full of peasants they were eager to side with Stalin but as there came to be more and more workers they became entitled and started skipping work and complaining that there weren't enough consumer goods and providing so much data for endless anti-communist arguments. so... was Fanon actually right? the Soviet proletariats {{em|did}} kind of sell out the country to foreign colonizers, just like he said. is the proletariat actually revolutionary at all or do revolutions actually happen precisely when there's one swath of backward people that are useful only for their numbers (the peasants) and a smaller swath of more educated people (the European bourgeoisie; the proletariat, the theorists) that are useful only for leading them?? one reason that might not be true is that this genuinely didn't really happen with China; people largely remained loyal the whole time with only a few interruptions in that. you don't really get the Chinese proletariat defecting from the party in notable proportions, they mostly actually have loyalty. even when people leave for another country most of the time they don't really endlessly obsess about the CPC as the reason they left, you only really get a handful of those "career defectors" and then shockingly, a lot of Chinese immigrants are just, normal.

{{li|I=S2/AC|Q=618}}The national bourgeoisie are no help in liberating under-developed African countries, so it is not worth even creating them (Fanon) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> that is hilariously bold for a non-Marxist, I like it. but I do question if it's true when now literally all national independence is coming down to having corporations before foreign countries try to install them.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Third World countries can enter Bolshevism and skip past the capitalist stage [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> all these years later this is at least half true. somewhat literally. what workers' states have actually ended up with is half the country public and half the country private.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}Third-World poly-Trotskyism / poly-Trotskyism formed on the basis of whole Third World countries being productive forces -> the motif of a large government formed out of several national Leninist movements, at least one of which is bright orange, and all of which are in Third World countries that formed together to resist the First World because each country functioned as the First World's productive forces. it probably does not consist of every nation-state in the world although it may hypothetically be as big as the entire Third World.

{{li|I=F2/MX|Q=618}}Fanon proposed a form of Trotskyism / Fanon's Marxism is a form of Trotskyism (sic) / Because Frantz Fanon posits [sic] that entire Third World populations function as productive forces to First-World owners, this logically means he is positing a form of socialist transition where multiple countries join together to revolt against the First World in order to free the productive forces from the relations of production into a new combined socialist mono-structure with a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat around it, and therefore, he is positing a form of Trotskyism -> I'm pretty sure this is wrong but I couldn't tell you why it's wrong. 
edit: he did sort of say entire countries are exploited in other words, but he didn't say multiple countries. and he didn't say Marxism, not really. I casually threw way more Marxism into what he was saying than he intended. I "should" delete this proposition entirely but I won't because I did really get onto another level even if it was another level of wrong and funny

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Fanon is not a Leninist (Trotskyism) / Trotskyists do not consider Frantz Fanon a Leninist [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> so I'm specifically reading an IMT blog here. I think this is some kind of answer to my question of whether he's a Trotskyist (no) but as for whether he's a Marxist I don't know whether this is good or bad. 
...bad apparently, because he actually stepped away from classes.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, MZ|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought will successfully transition to Bolshevism through a revolution

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Capitalism requires Shovels to program people / Capitalism doesn't program employees to support the bourgeoisie directly through Ideas and Conditioning, instead it only achieves this end of giving people new ideas by first physically arranging them into a {{TTS|tts=Wasp|WASP}} Swarm which then generates particular ideology by virtue of the physical constraints on its operation -> this is one of the major points where Western-Marxism goes off the rails, and why it believes that "culture" and "conditioning" are such a big deal.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The United Nations cut off nearly all imports to North Korea -> and we're to believe that North Korea "killed" millions of people when one of the major differences between North Korea and South Korea is what countries decide to be friends and all simultaneously trade with it? it's this dumb game of recursive definitions where people that don't fit into something for its own arbitrary reasons are deemed inherently bad and blamed for not being chosen.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}Obama doing deal with Cuba to win capitalist reversion

{{li|I=F2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}Humanity unquestioningly worships technology {{YouTube|C04B-GGaBEU}} -> this video was like, Existentialism bingo. it's so many stupid things people commonly say all crammed into one video like it's profound. 
this statement is just dumb because the reason people leave technology unquestioned is that technologies are made by separate chunks of people but we don't question or attack the separate chunks and make them do different things out of the belief they deserve inherent Freedom. that's it. this allows people to go study technology knowing they are Free and will never be attacked as long as they follow the Existentialist rules of trying really hard to predict exactly what other people are currently driven to buy (whether they truly want it or not) and agreeing they will have wasted all their training and effort if nobody buys it and they have to go gamble thousands and thousands of dollars and time they don't have on another degree. that's it. that's all technology is. technology is [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketism]].

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}Existentialism bingo card -> while many of the entries on here are very serious, we can still have some fun sometimes. 
let's see, there are 25 spaces on a typical bingo card. A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 
A) Somebody is stealing your time; Somebody is stealing your ability to manage time or attention. B) Everything runs on technology, not capitalism; Everything runs on "technology", not bourgeoisie or corporations or chunk competition.
{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}Trotskyism bingo card -> this should only contain the stupidest things Trotskyists shouldn't be saying that they still keep saying. 
<s>A) Cubans are secretly Trotskyist.</s> A) Stalin wasn't a Leninist [false] B) Trotsky didn't attack CPSU [false]. there are definitely 25 of these, fill them in later

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}Marxism is about personal responsibility / Marxism isn't about orchestrating "[[E:revolution (abstract quality)|revolution]]", and it isn't about drumming up "[[E:resistance (abstract quality)|resistance]]", it's about making individuals aware that they are still required to do everything in their own lives but they are required to act in tandem with other people to achieve anything, including acting in tandem with other people to build all the specific elements of a republic or

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Reactionaries reject narratives / Reactionary conspiracy theorists — specifically within categories such as anti-vaccine advocates, trans-exclusionary feminists, and people who believe mainstream media to be some kind of secret anarchist or Gramscian conspiracy to create a social transition — are just people who reject narratives (conservative conspiracy theorists; Tory conspiracy theorists; refuse to believe narratives; refuse to believe ontologies, which are narratives; meta-Marxism) -> I don't know how it took me this long to word it this way. 
by one definition, postmodern philosophy is {{em|definitionally}} a kind of conservatism specifically because it allows people to reject true accounts of things for the reason that they're "narratives" or "grand narratives".

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Philosophies that reject true accounts of objects or processes may be conservatisms -> I have to say "may be" because there are edge cases like Marxisms failing to show up with true accounts of homosexuality or gender identity and causing harm. in that case, what's going on is rather complicated. it's a collison of two plural and countable philosophies (a Marxism, an identity movement) that each contain steps forward and steps back such that neither one can really be characterized as progressive or reactionary and they are both simply {{em|alternate}} and {{em|plural}} to each other. you can call the Marxism a conservatism only if and when you're a top-of-the-barrel [[E:Q92|violet Marxist]] that knows exactly how to unify Marxisms together with each other or other movements toward an international scope without any of them splitting from each other. which is really really hard. so don't go assuming you must be at that level already, because I'm not even sure I am. judging this correctly every time requires a super theorist who probably doesn't yet exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society is an ecosystem of humans / Society is merely an ecosystem full of nothing but human beings -> you hardly ever hear this from Marxists. you may occasionally hear it from right-Liberals and Tories with an implied positive or neutral connotation. (that's not the connotation I mean it in. god no.) but until several countries are {{em|actually}} in an era of Bolshevism again it's a hard truth I think we all have to swallow. 
appears in: {{book|MDem}} 5.1(?), {{film|The Lorax}} (2012) 
Society is an ecosystem of humans + agriculture = corporations as people farms. 
Society is an ecosystem of humans + garden of Eden = Arceism. 
Society is an ecosystem of humans + meme theory = Identitarian fascism. 
Society is an ecosystem of humans + monopoly (economics) = corporate ecosystem (Apple, Microsoft).

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto DX|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is neither a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat nor a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie / Deng Xiaoping Thought is a dictatorship-of-the-unified-country / Deng Xiaoping Thought is a dictatorship-of-the-[[E:Careerist layer (meta-Marxism)|Careerists]] / Deng Xiaoping Thought is a dictatorship-of-the-petty-bourgeoisie

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto DX|Q=618}}Socialist transition has three stages: pre-Bolshevism, Bolshevism, and post-Bolshevism -> this is the most generous reading of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the fact basically every workers' state ever that hasn't died has turned into it

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}{{book|Childhood's End}} is backhandedly accurate / By portraying a world where many small subjective intelligences have merged into one mind, {{book|Childhood's End}} is backhandedly accurate to real workers' states in that it has portrayed a world where many small fragmented things (businesses or chunks of people) have merged into one thing (a Marxist party-nation)

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}Cuban exile terrorism {{YouTube|d_LcevNFHP0}}

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Media have power over people purely or specifically because capitalists, the people who control the bulk of a population's wealth, territory, ability to hire people, and ability to act first, control them -> there is so much effort in Western-Marxism to obscure this simple fact for unknown reasons

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fisherism is a form of anarculture / Because Fisherist formulations of Western-Marxism concentrate on single specific surface offenses all the way at the end of an [[E:relativistic determinism (meta-Marxism)|emergent process]] and attempt to crudely pluck out the final symptom to solve the entire problem, there is some chance that hypothetically or [[E:epistemic possibility|epistemically]] they could be anarchism, and either way, because they focus on plucking away the immediate influence of surrounding culture on people in hopes that surrounding culture is itself an immediate source of Domination and its removal will immediately create Freedom, they qualify as an instance of anarculture

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}Moral panics serve a political function (Stuart Hall) [https://thesociologyguy.com/2025/10/27/stuart-hall-understanding-the-media-power-and-representation/] -> that's probably true. the impact of media on creating this is probably really overstated though. I mean, you don't need any TV sets or radios just to spread a rumor through an Alabama town and get people to organize a {{censor|lynching}}. people do that kind of thing just on the basis of knowing and trusting each other and doing whatever their friends tell them. and that's also basically why people keep listening to Fox News: they see Tucker Carlson as a friend. I am not joking, that is a real line I heard from my reactionary relatives. people form into Community just because they like each other and know each other, then they start exploiting each other's trust to mobilize each other against other ethnic groups because "but you are my friend, aren't you? those non-friends are going to hurt our friends". that's how it really works. it isn't media bias that generates nazis, it's [[E:Twilight Sparkle|the magic of friendship]].

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}heuristic definition of anarchism

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}Anyone who was allied with Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg was a member of early Trotskyism -> this graph-theory style of definition is just about the only way to define and distinguish ideologies that isn't at some point going to fail in comical ways.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto A, MX onto ES|Q=618}}Anarchism is crude republicanization / Anarchism is mere-republicanization / An anarchism is a sociophilosophy that removes some highly specific pain point in a spatial hierarchy (such as a king, duke, nameless petty noble that rules a town, or perhaps a business territory owner or landlord) and crudely molecularizes its model of the rest of the structure in order to figure out how to keep the same structure standing with minimal change -> this sounds superficially like a good definition until you see what it leads to and then it's bound to ignite some controversy. 
Any ideology which would toss one specific Archon in prison to fix a population and change nothing else is an anarchism + ?? = Anarchism is crude republicanization. 
Anarchism is crude republicanization + ?? = Christian theocracy is an anarchism.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Christian theocracy is an anarchism / Christian theocratic-monarchy is a form of anarchism because it takes global empire and puts "God" in the spot of emperor, effectively creating a global empire with no emperor at all that rationalizes its existence through the fiction of a morally-justified emperor

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Tories equal grand narratives / It is impossible that great narratives have already ended because every time somebody thinks that has happened a bunch of people unite into proto-fascism under a grand narrative and proceed to rule the era through being stronger and more difficult to control than any group of people that believes that there are no great narratives

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}War will end fossil fuels / Humans will only stop using oil because of war / Everything except imperialist war at the national scale over national sovereignty or territory is ineffective at changing fossil fuel use; real sustained climate movements will only emerge through conflicts between First World and Third World countries over oil that, as countries become deadlocked in cutting each other off from buying any oil in order to kill industry or lock up all their oil and refuse to sell it overseas in order to price-gouge and become the powerful controller of a rare resource, become so intense that nobody wants to buy or sell oil any more -> my dad used to say that the world would keep using oil as long as it didn't run out of oil and I don't think that's true but in a weird way it may be backhandedly true as countries "run out" of oil through all oil becoming locked behind war and then everybody increasingly stops using it.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The Cuban people don't like Deng Xiaoping Thought [https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxcKCAdjIcqoVp3HFtoVG3CMRMKu3oLIKJ] -> this is fairly common every time a country turns into a Deng Xiaoping state. many people don't really like it. 
but I really wish Trotskyists would stop saying that must mean people are Trotskyist allies.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, foreign-aligned oil companies in Cuba refused to refine oil from the Soviet Union [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1930, the United States loaned money to its companies to gamble on Cuban sugar production
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, the United States refused to buy sugar from Cuba if it was not produced by U.S. people [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}American-made in Cuba / American-made in Vietnam / American-made in Cambodia -> the motif of efforts to "make things in the United States" being inherently connected to efforts to put down United States corporations and corporate owners in Third-World countries. 
thankfully "American-made in China" is something of a thing of the past, but there are a ton of countries that haven't escaped that fate yet.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}Copyright preserves national borders (Ocean Press) -> this is a rather Deng-Xiaoping tactic. it's always confused me a bit whenever I see the copyright notices on Che Guevara works.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Economics and politics are one / Economics cannot be separated from politics (Che Guevara 1961) / This is far more than an economic discussion ... it is a demonstration of the capacity of free nations [Liberal-republicanism] to meet the human and material problems of the modern world (John F. Kennedy) / Delay in accepting the responsibility ... to defend the essential values of our civilization [at the economics conference] ... would signify irreparable damage to [Liberal-republican] society and the imminent danger of the disappearance of the freedoms enjoyed today, as has occurred in Cuba

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxists can't orchestrate revolutions / Revolution cannot be exported (statement that expecting Marxist theorists to invent and initiate revolution rather than predicting what local elements and processes the bulk of a revolution will form out of is anti-Materialist)

{{li|I=F2/PT|Q=618}}Slave chunks belong to Jefferson / Chunks of humans belong to Thomas Jefferson / Thomas Jefferson has the right to breed chunks of humans for his own purposes in order to harness the power of multiplying chunks -> generally rejected now; that almost goes without saying. the really interesting thing to examine about this though is, has humanity really moved beyond particular individuals owning chunks of humans and benefiting from their reproduction?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Every ideology of national scope goes through a phase of being an anarchic ideology centered around direct action, vaguely conceptualizing a new future or set of principles, and [[E:Zinovievizing|dismantling the current statism]] before it's a statism; this means that all ideologies that fail to change society remain anarchisms, and suggests that many anarchisms are anarchisms by virtue of being failed attempts at revolution / Every ideology of national scope is an anarchism before it's a statism -> this is one of the only good explanations for blue anarchisms existing and continuing to flourish without anybody ever realizing they're stupid. oppression alone and culling out Communists alone can't explain why people actually continue to fall for blue anarchisms, nor can so-called "capitalist conditioning". the fact that people will keep constructing nonsensical ideas of "resistance" as soon as they see a history book where Black people died and they don't stop doing that no matter how much anyone tries to obscure things shows that people are able to tell the difference between different social processes and are definitely thinking. it's not like people aren't smart enough to identify blue anarchisms as a particular set of ideologies and distinguish them from Liberal-republicanism or Marxisms.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republican direct action -> this sounds like an oxymoron because Liberal-republicanism commonly defines its scope specifically to the construction of local states and federal governments. but if that were really true, how would there be color revolutions? somebody has to be performing Liberal-republicanism at a tiny scale of two or three people or a hundred people before a Liberal-republican government gets created. and I posit that this behavior constitutes anarchic Liberal-republicanism or Liberal-republican direct action 
Every ideology invents a form of direct action + Liberal-republicanism = Liberal-republican direct action.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Soviet Union and foreign goods smugglers / blat (in sense of forming Community unofficially beneath the table so that people can trade for black market goods whenever they want) 
Liberal-republican direct action + Deng Xiaoping process = Soviet Union and foreign goods smugglers.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}The Twilight movies veered into epic fantasy plots because Bella died {{YouTube|YOwj6tmIi4I}} -> there is a specific reason for these kinds of theories coming to be. there's this tension between Materialism and the creation of fictional narratives as models of real-life phenomena with this bridge in between that separates reality from religion, mythical narratives, and fantasy stories. when different parts of the narrative match really badly we start wondering if part of it is an inaccurate model rather than the reality

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}union-made quality -> claim increasingly seen on goods. appears to be an effort to make everyone believe that consumers can regulate capitalism.
{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}reverse anticommunist sanctions / sanctioning Third-World countries for not transitioning to socialism -> wholly hypothetical situation that came into my mind when I thought about what the world would look like if "union-made quality" actually worked. like, the best way to make sure goods are made in a union is to only import goods from "North Koreas" that sign everyone up for a union as a policy. it's weird to imagine any workers' party approving that though. they usually have a principle of

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Gene Sharp and nonviolent resistance {{YouTube|K22OouNvVvM}}
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}"Nonviolence" models color revolutions (United States) / The window of nonviolent resistance has closed, because the entire modern concept of nonviolent resistance in the United States was based on capitalist reversion in the Second World and color revolutions rather than the actual conditions that United States people would be resisting {{YouTube|K22OouNvVvM}} / There is no difference between color revolutions and stopping Toryism (generic) 
Nazism and Bolshevism come from the same cause + revolution (abstract quality) = "Nonviolence" models color revolutions

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=unknown, MX|Q=618}}The United States civil rights movement wasn't complete without a defensive army {{YouTube|K22OouNvVvM}}

{{li|I=F2/IV|tradition=HAS, IV|Q=618}}A global culture of teaching empathy is better for stopping human rights violations than examining human rights through foundationalist rationality (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> I feel like this has been shown to be false after so many people have been talking about empathy empathy empathy and it still leads to horrible abuses on workers' states which are readily supported by "nice" people. 
it doesn't really help that this guy is a Trotskyist ally and like, they ended up supporting a lot of those abuses. I hesitate to bring that up immediately when he at least had some humility enough to say (jokingly? seriously? don't know) 'I'm a bourgeois liberal' in reference to writing a bunch of philosophy books that sound like deepities and being a literature teacher. but independent of that context the problem is still there

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}A particular layer of mediators (media) take hold of individual lives (lifeworlds) to enforce the division of rationality into three major spheres of science, arts, and law and the division of societies into contradictory industries and careers, thus shattering people's underlying capability of multi-sided Socratic reasoning (intersubjective rationality) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is a very unusual anarchism. it at least isn't falling into the usual dumb tropes many of them do but man this is weird. it's trying to take the classic notion of a faceless "{{caps|They}}" that caused everything and it's made the They very complex but it's still something kind of specific. it posits that there is this process of people coming together onto a shared conversation but the awful Mediators came and broke it up. I actually kind of like the way it complains about fragmentation as opposed to complaining about "centralization" or "totalization". fragmentation is the real problem ultimately, and a lot of anarchisms just reinforce it. if all the other ones would be more like this I would be way less angry at them

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Do human beings ever get "transformed" into thing-like beings, or were they always thing-like beings as well as humans? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)] -> I lean toward the latter. I feel like the concept of people being something more than animals is a little overstated sometimes. mainly when anarchists are trying to sneak anarchism into theories of society and they have some very articulate descriptions of things and then suddenly there's a weird assumption about Domination or state apparatuses in there and it's like, I feel like we're overcomplicating this. people expand over each other chunk competition bad

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}We can no longer give substantive answers to the question "How should I live?" (Habermas) -> correct. but only because both Stalin and Trotsky can exist, throwing off the prospect of all countries transitioning to one specific sociophilosophy, to solve a few of society's questions anyway. Habermas gives a lot of propositions that are right for the wrong reasons.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}intersubjective Materialism / doing Materialism on an intersubjective basis in which two different parties lock onto a shared increasingly detailed understanding of the world as it actually functions -> intersubjectivity in reasoning isn't really the problem I have with critical theory. like, intersubjective rationality would be an okay idea if it wasn't based on weird anarchist standards of how to assign truth values rather than just describing things as they are.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Socratic dialectic in critical theory / communicative rationality / intersubjective rationality / di-rationality (sense Habermas) -> the concept of two people reaching a conclusion though attempting to present arguments without force while seeking to reach a shared understanding. this just sounds like Habermas reinvented the Socratic dialectic to me. is there something I'm missing?

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Intersubjective rationality may not be possible in practice because individuals' position in society may lead to coercion or exclusion before the process properly begins [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_action] -> that is actually a good criticism. critical-theorists probably don't know how to fix it but I'm going to ignore that because this {{em|is}} true

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Communicative rationality is not utopian enough (Kompridis) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_disclosure] -> I have no idea what this is intending to say, but it sounds fascinating.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=ES / phenomenology|Q=618}}The ontological understandings and internal experience of other people behave like noumena, which will have to be strained through a particular person or group's ontological understandings and internal experiences / The alien cannot be fully incorporated into the lifeworld as-such (Husserl) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeworld] -> this is actually true. the notion of treating reality as a bunch of lifeworlds usually drives me up the wall but this is fine, it's just saying that each countable culture or Social-Philosophical System will inevitably strain everything else through its own worldview and individuals do the same thing. well done Husserl, you're one of the only critical theory affiliated people to achieve violet

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Society is made of language (Habermas) / Language is a foundational component of society, to the point a theory of language can be inserted into Marxism; it is implied this will be inserted in the context of societal systems or psychology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> "don't do this to me," I say to myself every time I have to read just about anything about critical theory and what critical-theorists believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=HM|Q=618}}It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy|Q=618}}True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}postanalytic philosophy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postanalytic_philosophy] -> a lot of Wikipedia articles on philosophy just feel like garbage — by no fault of the people writing them, it's just that the stuff they have to read and cover is garbage — but this seems like a legitimate category

{{li|I=Z1/IV|tradition=HAS / Social Gospel movement|Q=618}}{{article|Trotsky and the wild orchids}} (Richard Rorty) -> so this is a biography but gosh it sounds juicy in terms of Christian theological propositions 
so for an Ironblood story I had made up this movement in irony that was trying to gradually replace US Christianity with Trotskyism but it wasn't religious, it was just sort of secular-humanist and trying to do its part to get people onto Marxist values of the power of humanity. and wow. it's such a find to see Christians actually trying to weave together Christianity and Trotskyism, or somebody like Rorty who is actually taking this position, and what would have been the surrounding historical context. 
gosh I am going to have to add him to my 'cast of recurring characters' in propositions and {{book|MDem}} chapters. even if I might not like his position on basic ontology and logic, he has one of the most interesting positions on religion and literature I've ever seen

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=HAS / Social Gospel movement|Q=618}}Philosophy is what sits between Trotskyism and aesthetic beauty / Philosophy lies in the reconciliation of the celestial beauty of orchids with Trotsky's dream of justice on earth (Richard Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is one of those propositions that sounds like an absolute drug trip, like it is on so many planes above anything that makes sense and that's what's wonderful about it. I think the thing that is the most hilarious about it to me is that most of the dumb propositions about Trotskyism on here I made up in some kind of irony as a thought experiment to prove some specific point, but this one I didn't make up myself and that was made completely seriously (by my standards anyway*) happens to be the most bizarre one yet by far. 
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Rorty has this weird thing about not actually believing anything but I'm just going to ignore it for now. he is not one of the believers in the movement, he was a literature professor.

{{li|I=S2/Fy|class=field_horror|tradition=Fy|Q=618}}Pokémon fighting each other is comparable to feudal Japan ({{film|Drawn Together}}) -> none of the characterizations of main characters in {{film|Drawn Together}} are all that good, except for Foxxy in the first few episodes. especially Ling-Ling. but I'm gonna try and save this. let's look at the statement being made by creating Ling-Ling and see if it's good or bad. Ling-Ling's character has a few steps to it. 1) kaiju are about violence. technically true before Pokémon 2) violence equals feudal Japan: Kurosawa's films, etc 2b) violence equals Japanese global empire, attacks in either direction during the WWII era 3) Ling-Ling is that legend about swordsmen killing a random person to test their power 
the portrayal of the proposition on the show is a little lame. but distilled down to its essentials it's actually not that bad. console RPGs in general are often based on medieval fantasy stories which are often based on history books. so the line through from Japanese history to console RPGs is straighter than you'd think. Pokémon Conquest / Pokémon × Nobunaga's Ambition is an awfully telling bit of evidence in this, in that it was strangely easy to just transplant Pokémon into the timeline of feudal Japan and use them as units. 
another point of evidence is examining the portrayal of the relationship between Japan and China in {{film|Drawn Together}} and then in {{game|Pokémon}}. in {{film|Drawn Together}} we see the United States exploiting China and Vietnam, we see Ling-Ling being a tryhard with the vague implication he is striving to be read as Japanese instead of Chinese or at least that he is like one of those really competitive parents you still find in China. in Pokémon there is like this comical avoidance of bringing up China in a serious way until gen 8 when the Silk Road Pokémon finally appear. fans are convinced that this is because Game Freak wants to avoid the games being banned or edited for China. which, it probably wouldn't be censorship. I wish censorship was split into two words so that one of them was in reference to Ideals and tradition and one of them was in reference to social-scientific facts and updating incorrect information. it's probably the most appropriate that {{i|censorship}} gets the tradition one because the concept of censors dates back to ancient Rome and what did they really know scientifically back then. there was a bit of time where {{i|revisionism}} would have been an appropriate word but that one has really slid and taken on entirely different meanings within Marxism. uh who's the person who updates the actual facts for government but who doesn't do original research. theorist? director? librarian? archivist? historian? I'm gonna come up with another word so it's possible to stop calling factual corrections censorship. I swear that when stuff got censored in {{book|1984}} it wasn't even getting censored and it was the other word. that's the crazy thing, that Orwell's book about censorship isn't even about censorship.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, ML|Q=618}}The material resolves the immaterial / The immaterial resolves in the material / The material calculates the immaterial / Whenever any two groups of people come together to argue over something strictly immaterial which is not simply a fuzzy description of the material, the immaterial is more or less completely arbitrary and the interaction of strictly-immaterial concepts relies on interactions between strictly-material things to decide what its resolution is going to be -> this is basically what Marx did to Hegel but said much more clearly. I might change it to crimson if I find a Marx or Engels quote, etc, that matches it close enough

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}All ontologies are merely narratives (are just narratives; are simply narratives) / When people form mental models of what "a friend" is or what "normal" is they are essentially writing fictional stories which are either hypothetical or counterfactual [https://psyche.co/ideas/your-life-is-not-a-story-why-narrative-thinking-holds-you-back] -> Existentialism, stop it. 
when you unpack this into what it practically means, it's easy enough to see why somebody invented it. in one sense, all mental models {{em|are}} hypothetical. but that doesn't mean they're wrong! like, Trotsky isn't wrong because he has a hypothetical picture of what will happen. he's wrong because the reterministic operation of real elements of material reality against each other is the real calculation of what happens, and the calculation he's doing of how history is formed doesn't line up with the real calculation. but there are correct calculations for all physical objects whose definition has been given as entirely material and not immaterial. the immaterial is arbitrary and finds all its resolutions in the material. like, every time, this is why Protestants and Catholics had to fight wars before coming to an agreement, and why Liberal-republicanism is more of a war than a proper process of reasoning and it keeps progressively breaking down because it doesn't even work. the transition from Liberalism to Bolshevism on the other hand is very sensible. the biggest change that occurs politically is that progress is something everyone constantly participates in through regular activities, where it's possible to create progress by physically aligning more and more people together; instead of voting at elections, people vote just by going to work in a particular way. the whole "Kim Il-Sung put out a ballot with just a 'no' on it!!" accusation is actually a good thing, in concept. because if you do it right the notion of resisting progress becomes more pedestrian and less violent. you no longer have reactionaries trying to kill people for 'taking over The Real America' just because they are trying to bring different Ideals to the nation's biannual Idea Fight, instead the whole process becomes about the central government picking what it believes to be correct answers and actually collecting the reasons that people don't want to accept them to start negotiating about them in a material way and hopefully pulling some people back in. 
god you know what gets me about this "non-narrative thinking" bullshit. {{i|"viewing our lives in such a narrow way ..."}} - here the psychologist is trying to get rid of the concept that "you're the main character of a story" but completely undoes that entire exercise in a second by saying "our lives", which gives the implicit assumption that everything that happens while you exist happens inside your head and has anything to do with your individual choices. if you truly believe people aren't main characters then stop saying "Life" and "Our Lives". you have many other options such as "the world", "material reality", and "history". so why do they always fall back to "Our Lives"??

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, LR, Aa|Q=618}}"tacit knowledge" as euphemism for intuition [https://psyche.co/ideas/your-life-is-not-a-story-why-narrative-thinking-holds-you-back] / tacit knowledge (Existentialism) -> I swear right-Liberals use this word to launder non-supernatural superstition about the economy, linguists use versions of it to launder non-supernatural superstitions about meaning, reference, and learning that ultimately led to people thinking building artificial intuition into large language models was the only way to get better at modeling knowledge, and psychology and psychiatry are also misusing it somehow. 
tacit knowledge (Existentialism) + ?? = unsupervised machine learning. tacit knowledge (Existentialism) + ?? = large language model.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|Q=618}}weak-to-strong generalization -> it doesn't work because LLMs aren't practicing intelligence

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618}}Mx. Stills can choose students' vote (who students vote for; exmat) / If some arbitrary individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills is a teacher, and they and the school board go to school and teach some particular curriculum, grade school teacher Mr. or Ms. Stills can choose who all their students will eventually vote for (teacher Mx. Stills; existential materialism) -> nearly everybody in the United States gets this one wrong.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The German language was unintentionally designed to promote Marxism (was accidentally designed; linguistics) / Because the development of written German texts went through various stages as texts were distributed to people of different social classes, noun capitalization spread across speakers of the language as each social class began to become aware of its existence as a class until every identifiable social class was capitalized, leading in turn to the majority of all German nouns being capitalized in modern times, but still leaving behind a rather obvious history of the existence of various social classes fossilized into the overall corpus of older German texts; this is to suggest that for a German speaker such as Marx and Engels or even Trotsky and Luxemburg, etc., the act of conceptualizing statements in the German language makes the presence of social classes and class processes more immediately obvious than the act of conceptualizing statements in other languages [https://deutsch.wtf/german-nouns-capitalised/#the-fascinating-history-behind-capitalised-nouns] -> there is nothing special about languages that inherently changes the way you think {{em|except}} the tiny rituals that ride along with speaking language like having the option to use deliberately gender-neutral words or marking social classes every single time you say a sentence. 
this is ultimately why I designed color swatches and the experimental in-text highlighter system for this wiki, so that just by writing sentences you can start tagging nouns by their approximate class association and start to really think about what each class of people is doing each day within the overall structure of society and historical processes. I made it based on factions rather than classes per-se as a matter of phenomenology and epistemological caution, so things don't get labeled with the {{em|wrong}} class too quickly as that can be [[E:attributing minority identity to the bourgeoisie|very damaging]], but yeah, tagging things red, orange, or blue is supposed to help get you thinking about what ideologies come from what classes by starting at the more general point of what ideologies are most worker-friendly, the distinction between red, orange, mauve, and violet versus blue, with strawberry kind of oscillating in the middle. you can go further into believable arguments that only crimson is actually any good while orange and strawberry are just nothing and mauve and violet vary in quality from good to bad (on violet a lot of the "dumb" propositions are just purely experiments that I don't defend as truth, but I might improperly think a couple of them are more likely than they are, and then they're wrong), but again, I didn't want to make the swatch system take a hard position on that too quickly.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anarchemistry is a blue-anarchist concept because of how closely associated it is with "regulating the power of capitalists"

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Because gaining immortality by taking something away from others is immoral, if God gives people who kill Palestinians immortality in heaven (for believing in God but being against Arabs or Muslims), then supporting God is immoral -> this is why I hate all discussions of fictional immortality. it's a deepity! while this is the good stuff.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}The worst dystopia is one where everybody's happy and there is no catch but all of it comes at the expense of killing off or enslaving all of the world's other populations; this is the worst form of dystopia because nobody would ever want to end it

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Arguments about immortality are a deepity compared to arguments about the maintenance of First-World conditions -> First World people are entirely mortal, First World countries are destructible, and yet they can go on and on and on and on anyway at great expense to other populations. this is a much more profound question than how bad it is for a fictional being to drain other things to achieve an immortality that is impossible or how to prevent that

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to AI / Social-democracy generally relies on capitalism existing, and taxing capitalism, but one of the limits of capitalism is that its [[E:mode of production (meta-Marxism)|core purpose]] is to add new people to a population as a population grows, and to do this, it has to keep adding more and more categories products to society, which it has to do to prevent the population as a whole from losing interest in buying more products and thus preventing corporation growth and preventing employment and preventing population growth, but unfortunately, First-World economies are now maxing out on the sheer number of categories of products they can get investors for or make Third-World factories produce without people realizing that countries have so many unnecessary products it's beginning to become tacky and annoying, and this has caused an explosion in First-World corporations putting all their money into LLMs because they are one of the only things that is genuinely new and that society doesn't have, in turn meaning that a lot of economic production is going to just become making LLMs, that a lot of corporate income is going to be based on LLMs, and that social-democratic policies for nationalized health care and housing are going to come from taxing LLMs, meaning that everyone is essentially forced to use and live with LLMs just so everyone can have health care and housing and the country can still continue to operate on capitalism; this is to imply that unequivocally negative uses of LLMs, like in creating intelligent unmanned bomber planes to attack Palestine, are almost necessarily required to exist just because a country wants to have both universal health care and housing and also have capitalism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to expensive health care -> if LLMs are defeated, whatever brings the most income will become the new foundation of society. it could be the process of continuously producing rare and expensive pharmaceuticals and new types of surgeries, to the benefit of people's physical health but to the dismay of right-Liberal economists who want to believe actual health care prices could be made less expensive 
I swear that macroeconomics is a great new untapped subgenre of science fiction because you could get the craziest predictions about the future of society just out of the consequences of how economic phenomena actually connect materially and what widespread socio-cultural consequences are inevitably going to come out of them. crimson or sky, people say culture doesn't come from the economy, but it depends on how large a scale you're defining "culture". on a scale of national phenomena it almost definitely does

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}If gold is actually better than fiat currency, then why are there multiple national currencies? -> these things seem unrelated at first but actually have everything to do with each other. the supply of a valuable item is inherently related to whether people can be pushed into using or selling a completely different item. when one valuable resource is split in two, it effectively both avoids going through an undesirable value ceiling where [[E:dragon process (meta-Marxism)|relatively few people have it]] and it's a severe status symbol, and also avoids going through a value floor where there is too much of it for it to be meaningfully valuable. the solution of staving off inflation by splitting currency in two sounds insane, but it's actually quite logical when you think about the fact that one of the purposes of currency is to divide human activity into finite slots and divide society into particular areas of products and corporations. one of the best ways to keep video game consoles from becoming too abundant to drive interest in new games was to create multiple console brands. one of the best ways to keep people from realizing Bitcoin wasn't going to work out was to divide it into multiple currencies. this could be true of all national currencies in general. plurality in a pool of objects dividing that pool in two

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean 
the one that stands out to me the most: Trotskyists generally subscribe to "Society are singular", but that doesn't reflect the historical events of the Trotskyite conspiracy. if the interests of all workers of the world were the same, then you'd expect the interests of all the workers in the Soviet Union to be the same, but if the interests of all the workers and peasants in the Soviet Union were the same (at least per class), then you wouldn't expect there would be two clearly distinguishable groupings of red workers and orange workers, red peasants and orange peasants. the existence of the Trotskyite conspiracy and a few disillusioned workers taking Trotsky's side but a large number of them not would seem to disprove that Trotskyism across multiple countries can ever happen without first creating one orange country.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}The Trotskyite conspiracy proves that Trotskyism cannot happen in multiple countries without creating Trotskyism in one country one or more times

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Defeat imperialism by telling White people they matter / Contrary to intuition, White people are not actually arrogant beings that believe they are important,

{{li|I=F2/ES|tradition=ES, DG|Q=618}}Rhizome is the shovel dream of marketism / Rhizome is an idea generated by the marketist mode of production 
Rhizome (schizoanalysis) + shovel (meta-Marxism) = this.

{{li|I=F2/ES|tradition=ES, DG|Q=618}}Anything which can be packaged up and sold as a self-contained product is inherently objective; something is objective because it can be sold for money to further Lived Experiences that ostensibly make a connection to it only out of Free Will and Freedom, and not because it accurately describes several biased subjects each stuck within material objects (physical human bodies, or larger groups of people in particular arrangements) without taking any of their individual perspectives specifically; something is objective when it takes all individual biased perspectives at once without criticizing any of them -> this is the fallacy which kept coming in with all early attempts to criticise Marxism, and to a lesser extent with Althusser's failed attempt at creating meta-Marxism. 
I swear this is why people think gigantic media series like Pokémon inherently serve the people that keep buying them, and why people think Liberal-republicanism is at all functional. 
on a different note, I've basically created this propositions project as the world's last-ditch effort to hijack people's bias toward self-contained products as "objective" just because they're self-contained, and turn that around into a way to steer people to appreciate the statements that actually are correct 
Anything which can be packaged up and sold as a self-contained product is inherently objective + shovel (meta-Marxism) = marketist mode of production.

{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=618}}Socialist Alternative 
Socialist Alternative + ?? (divisive issue) = Revolutionary Workers.
{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=618}}Revolutionary Workers (circa 2023)
{{li|I=Z1/IV|tradition=IV|Q=618}}Kshama Sawant [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant] -> marking her orange only because she was a {{em|member}} of Trotskyism, can update swatch depending on actions and positions 
Kshama Sawant + ?? = Socialist Alternative. Kshama Sawant + ?? = Revolutionary Worker.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A, IV onto A|Q=618}}Bookchinism suffers from the problem that capitalists from multiple cities can team up at the state level to prevent anything passing in individual cities; each city that wants to try anything has to be prepared to act at state legislatures, and overcome state-level attempts from other parties at the same pro- city policies bill [https://www.socialistalternative.org/2025/07/16/behind-enemy-lines-lessons-for-elected-socialists/] -> Trotskyists demonstrated something really cool recently. this is exciting. finally I have like nothing bad to say about them, just that as small-scale as this is I'm impressed. 
I wonder if we're eventually going to get any information on orange chunks out of this. this is a lot of information already. we know in general that chunks of capitalists take over everything if they can, but other kinds of chunks can take things over under the right conditions — crimson dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, Deng Xiaoping state. orange group almost succeeded at something by stopping capitalists from pre-emptively taking up legislature at higher levels; the higher levels are really hampering the smaller levels from doing much of anything.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML onto LR|Q=618}}The point of winning Liberal-republican elections is to implement policies and to stop the wrong policies from getting implemented, not to put in the right party and have the wrong policies / Your job isn't to support the best you've got, but to change the circumstances so that something better is viable {{YouTube|AvOmhEqaDO4}} -> a statement that's somehow obvious to everyone except the people who actually vote.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto ES|Q=618}}U.S. democracy is just a market / First World countries operate on an anti-politics that resembles a marketplace; people are programmed to wait for politicians to be spontaneously produced like commodities and then help the politician-producers push for everyone to "buy" them {{YouTube|AvOmhEqaDO4|lc=UgxASVhMXGBy5e1GXn54AaABAg}} -> couldn't agree more. good going commenter, I think this statement is violet.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/Fy|tradition=HAS|Q=618}}'Pataphysics describes creativity (arts)
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=EC, MX|Q=618}}Using 'pataphysics to describe creativity is embracing the ways of thinking that it was intending to make fun of (using for art; Materialism) / 'Pataphysics has two major interpretations, unironic-Idealist and ironic-Materialist; the former easily originates from layers of bourgeoisie realizing that embracing Idealism and abandoning the limits of physics gives them endless possibilities and freedom that understanding the material world could never provide, thus they put themselves into the shoes of the 'pataphysician characters created for parody or satire and unironically take on their perspective -> a harsh but true statement about the podcast that gave me a lot of historical context on 'pataphysics. 
there is a bright side to this, though: the chosen content and ideologies {{em|portrayed in}} art before editorializing are subjective. it isn't a bad thing if and when you entirely know what you're doing and are only doing it as a deliberate aesthetic or narrative choice for the setting or assumptions underlying the art rather than an out-of-universe ideological choice. Communists can write medieval fantasy or Westerns; when you know about real history and have more facts you only have more options rather than fewer. if you are responsible enough to handle endless possibility without "being so open-minded your brain falls out" then you can have it.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto IV|Q=618}}Acting like you're the true owner of a region of land and the only people ever justified to govern it, purely because you're the most moral group of people according to your own logic, is the colonizer attitude (is colonialism; is imperialist ideology; meta-Marxism onto center-Liberalism) -> this statement implies that early Trotskyists were imperialists but I don't see any problems there. it also implies that tribal populations can perpetuate imperialism if and only if they insist on forms of philosophy that are solely based on making other people accept their own Lived Experiences and internal reasoning. if they simply point out historical facts or ask for remedies on a material basis of transforming what currently is into something that's better, that doesn't fall into this particular trap, and it doesn't count. but if Israel tries to present itself as the only people justified to govern Palestine because Israelis inherently have the moral high ground and that's all you need to establish a government over any arbitrary group of people who "might commit crimes", that's a problem. Tories treat Palestinians in a way they'd never treat 1930s Trotskyites. like, if "committing crimes" or "taking someone's country" is so bad it's worth remedying with imperialism, then Stalin is justified to shoot as many Trotskyites as he wants, and for barely any reason compared with the more solid justifications he actually would have used. they really didn't think that through.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MZ, MX, A, W, ES, LR, IV, BP|Q=618}}The justifiability of enforcing government on any particular individual or group of people depends not on whether some external party believes it's justified, but on what are the observed results of enforcing it (consequentialist ethics, existential materialism) -> this seems to be part of a lot of different ideologies, but I think historically you can most legitimately pin this one on Mao. you find versions of this in anarchism and right-Liberalism and indeed Trotskyism but none of them are very good. whereas Mao and Deng are like the only ones that have {{em|ever}} made letting people loose when they complain about things work out. Western-Marxists like Althusser have never both denounced Stalin and been able to prevent neoliberal policies across their entire country; Deng Xiaoping achieved far more than they ever did. he is like the only good strawberry theorist, which is part of why I put Deng Xiaoping Thought and Western-Marxism in the same swatch.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IK|Q=618}}Marxism is a less bad basis for forming new populations than Kantianism -> I think there's a pretty good argument for this. {{em|if}} the United States exists because of Kantianism {{em|then}} people expanding over the continent and putting down an American flag wherever they like and calling it the domain of the U.S. constitution exists because of Kantianism, because this was a crucial part of the development of the United States — after all, 2/3 of the United States and all the things that go on inside the United States wouldn't exist without this potentially unnecessary process of making more and more United States. therefore if Kantianism is going to take responsibility for the United States it has to take responsibility for westward expansion and brutal frontier wars. but, historically, Marxism has generally been about defending territories from empire rather than taking them. part of this difference is historical, not ideological. but either way, you can't really justify Kantianism these days, in this historical period, as a philosophy that's not morally bankrupt. while Marxism shockingly holds up a lot better.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No legitimate or useful philosophy has been attached to the term {{i|meta-Marxism}} before the year 2020, therefore it is acceptable to reclaim the term for violet Marxism -> I hadn't realized how many bad but thankfully obscure philosophies had tried to be "meta-Marxism" before now. there were like three or four. but they were all very bad. so bad I think most Communist theorists would flat-out want to forget them. but the bright side of that is that if nobody remembers them the term can just come to mean something much better

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Aa, MX onto PT|Q=618}}The United States is worse than the British Empire because the British Empire only expanded onto North America in order to multiply but the United States threatens to create colonies simply because it believes other countries are no longer qualified to have sovereign governments and will "commit natural crimes" if they

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Al-Qaeda is psychoanalytically wrong, therefore violence on another country is justified -> why psychoanalysis and Kantianism are not harmless.
{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Vietnam is psychoanalytically wrong, therefore violence on another country is justified

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}The right-Liberal political compass exists because both center- and right-Liberals want to believe that there is no meaningful boundary between different ideologies and all ideologies within Liberal-republicanism are instead part of a single ideology -> the problem is that it really isn't true because charcoal anarchism and Toryism really are separate, additional ideologies.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}The right-Liberal political compass contains critical theory and psychoanalysis -> prosaic statement about whose theories were used to create it. just so we know what identifiable things are actually represented on the chart.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Gender-criticals are extremists / Gender-critical "feminists" are extremists (United Nations) [https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/un-women-calls-gender-criticals-an] / TERFs are extremists -> that is... a very blue analysis. to believe this you have to first believe there's a single mandatory ideology everybody in an entire country can't stray from. sounds kind of [[E:Leninism (top-level category)|Communist]] out of context, until you're told it can't be against the values of Liberal-republicanism because it is Liberal-republicanism.
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}How would one know that transgender rights are not competing with women's rights? / How do you know that transgender rights are not opposed to women's rights?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why do LGBT+ movements threaten civilization? / Why do LGBTQIA+ movements threaten civilization? -> if we're going to question why transphobia is bad then it goes both ways.

{{li|I=Z1/LR|Q=618}}Richard Stallman -> one of the only right-Liberals that doesn't double as a Tory. Stallman, Masnick, and Paley inadvertently made me question all of capitalism and end up down the path to Communism just because they tried way too hard to present capitalism as a rational system and accidentally revealed unfixable cracks in it.
{{li|I=Z1/LR|Q=618}}Larry Lessig / Lawrence Lessig
{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=LR|Q=618}}Nina Paley -> she gets the Tory swatch for committing to transphobia
{{li|I=Z1/LR|Q=618}}Mike Masnick

{{li|I=Z1/PT|Q=618}}gender-critical movement -> I'm not coding this to make it more legitimate. I'm coding this to permanently associate transphobia with the brown Tory swatch.
{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}Objectivism (Ayn Rand) -> this is here to be used as an ideology code. an ideology code for neoliberal {{censor|tts=[BS]|bullshit}}. to be honest, I still don't understand what "objective" actually means within this word. it absolutely doesn't mean "objectivity", as much as it's easy to get fooled into thinking that from the context given by {{book|Anthem}}. each time it's used it sounds like it's some variation on Jungian psychoanalysis which is like, only for Tories; they've taken a diagram of society and labeled {{em|themselves}} The Real. is that what it means?

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}A Leninist party allows Marxism to break from ideology (Lukács) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q21,29|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/IV|dimension=F2|Q=618}}A Leninist party allows Trotskyists to break from ideology -> the best I can remember from the last Trotskyist text I saw I {{em|think}} they were trying their best to claim the whole thing about Marxism not being ideology also applied to them. so this can be an orange proposition. 
it's a little conceptually funny you have to give Trotskyists totally different advice about how Marxism works than you have to give other Marxisms, but when they tend to have trouble actually understanding things changing and developing, and you do have to break through their revisionism on basic concepts, it's not like it doesn't make sense. this is [[E:existential materialism|existential materialism]] at work.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=PT onto HM|Q=618}}A lot of why U.S. people become progressives is to enhance their reputation without doing any of the productive work necessary {{YouTube|ex-bUC1wXyg}} -> Jordan Peterson says something backhandedly true. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean what it weirdly sounds like he's saying, I think he's trying to push some argument that only capital owners contribute anything to society and are the real society. I see that all the time. but it's conceptually funny to imagine that what he really means is that critical-theorists don't bother to do all the work to be Leninists and he wishes people would at least have the conviction to be Communists again.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}U.S. leftism is little more than video essays on toxic masculinity in kids' shows -> I mean, true. the interesting thing about this statement is that you could replace the observation with the category it's talking about, critical theory, and it would still be broadly true. the "U.S. Left" is mostly critical theory, a.k.a. anarchism beneath a trench coat. that's just what it is.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Democracy is when a society/government is beholden to the will of the people, while voting is merely the means to achieve that goal -> this is one of the only definitions of democracy I find semi-reasonable. 
it still has enough problems that I'm beginning to become convinced that the entire concept of democracy is incoherent nonsense created by anarchism, and only material models of how individuals assemble into society-objects are actually going to be able to create better socio-economic systems. like. people don't even have a will really, not individually and not collectively, because external threats can always start trying to engineer it and make you choose survival over what you really want or think.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Republics will work (anywhere) if the government, military, courts, and police are entirely sworn to the protection of democracy and the integrity of democracy as well as the constitution over {{em|all else}} {{YouTube|CJVHO1gNauY|lc=UgyFHNbwbvJo-eLw4Ht4AaABAg}} -> this feels terribly moot when individual wills can always be engineered through torture. 
there have been a lot of operations to just flat out destroy countries' civil society and make people move elsewhere, in theory to all be replaced exclusively with individuals who vote for capitalism or the interests of First World countries. when you change out the whole population for one with a different ideology, through coercion or neocolonialism, is there any way to protect "democracy" at that point, or to make it mean anything? 
what does "democracy" or love of democracy even mean in the context of a whole country getting stuck with terrible living conditions and being told to read a bunch of stuff and obtain materials to build education systems that surely cost something instead of supply basic needs? 
amorphous as hell. if this fails it spontaneously transforms into new systems whenever people don't get along, constitution be damned. if it succeeds, this is the ideology of a country that was fenced in by ten people who are determined to run it on a particular set of Ideals until the end of time but don't care if it has any residents other than the statesmen who own the nation and require you to believe certain things to connect to them and use their property. this is Gramscianism but on crack

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ML|Q=618}}Bolshevism is a mode of production / Bolshevism is a mode of production — it is a specific way of adding new people who recently were born or arrived to a country in a particular numerical or spatial order without immediately stirring up chunk competition / When Lenin or Stalin led people to construct the Soviet Union what they created effective at the end of the revolution was a different mode of production -> this statement follows from the way I've defined capitalism as a mode of production. I think Lenin actually did say this in the second form here, but there's an important nuance to this proposition that it's defining mode of production in terms of population growth and the threat of competition between populations, such that the concept of a mode of production either defines or lingers after class society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Existentialists believe that all behaviors and mental models are metaphysical sliders because they cannot conceive of personality or behavior characteristics except in the context of one-on-one relationships and the concept that keeping those relationships is inherently always better than losing them — despite the fact they will quickly tell you that not all relationhips are worth keeping {{YouTube|T1gUR2KzP0Q}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}You can't make a bully happy without making their victim sad -> bold statement from Existentialists. probably a total deepity in practice.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}What is the difference between Jungian solidarity and Deng-Xiaoping-state solidarity? -> meta-Marxism: where there's room for really really sophisticated questions and analyses, but because things get so detailed and precise, sometimes there are holes to go back and re-examine.

{{li|I=Z1/ML|Q=618}}{{book|Socialism and War}} (Lenin)

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, MX|Q=618}}Marxism sets out to describe transformations that can happen in any country, thus it is not a cultural value of any specific country -> this is weirdly contested even by sky-blue people, although contesting it is to everybody's detriment. 
one reason I think this happens is the insistence that philosophy is always subjective. this doesn't make sense, because if philosophy can only turn objective by becoming science, there has to be a point where it was still philosophy but turned objective enough to create science before it actually created science.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}People will always choose the amount of freedom and human rights that is the least unaffordably expensive

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kantian ethics is one of the definitions of statism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is just Existentialism but imperialist

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition = MX onto LR, MX onto A / meta-Marxism onto Bookchinism|Q=618}}Any micro-sized Liberal-republicanism is a form of Bookchinism / Any micro-sized Liberal-republicanism attempting to do the exact same things as the United States constitution but consisting of less than about 200,000 people is a form of Bookchinism

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}equivalent military power (meta-Marxism) -> the abstract concept of a numerical metric which determines how likely a country is to win a cold war. this concept would represent a country's overall capacity to fight off 1900s-style military invasions as seen in the early Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Korea, impending enforcers paid by a mountain of capital as in the United States, unconventional weapons such as poisoned clams, blood-exploder vaccines, attacks that take down electromagnetic networks and power grids, and powerful sovereign citizens who simply decide they are going to bend reality to make it follow them and not obey any form of regulation, as in the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and select parts of the United States, as well as the threat of 25 external rich countries all joining together and attacking your civilization as a team. 
China would score well on this, the historical Soviet Union would score good but not the best (it was easy for other countries to engineer disasters), BlackPantherism gets a score that is a little bit nonzero, and most anarchisms would score abysmally.
[MX onto DX, MX onto BP] A country's equivalent military power is what determines whether it gets to keep its internal form of social organization, not whether that civilization is effective internally or whether its Ideals are the world's most morally righteous Ideals

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The only way to successfully vote third-party in the United States is to move to another country and align with one of that country's parties (and vote for; meta-Marxist hypothesis)

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition = ML|Q=618}}Hollywood ideology (Marxism) {{YouTube|NjQgn_CBi44|lc=UgxrDERRa1c2WB7mHjJ4AaABAg.ATpUkQ6YFsqATpxUJw0BMK}} -> I don't have full context on this term but it seems the idea is something like, improperly applying the concept of heroes and villains to ignore the actual material conflicts in the world and the historical reasons why they happen. colloquially calling the best or least bad outcome "heroic", ok, makes the act of Soviet ministries commissioning propaganda easier. actually treating history as operating based off Good and Evil like in the Narnia books, Hollywood ideology.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition = ML, ML onto DX|Q=618}}As long as a viable people is held in bondage by a foreign conqueror, it necessarily directs all its strength, all its efforts, all its energy against the external enemy; thus, its inner life remains paralyzed, and it remains incapable of working for social emancipation (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - On Poland) -> seems weirdly applicable to Deng Xiaoping states in a different way

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The world of {{cite|Naruto}} is very normal / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} is very normal except for the fact "Japan" uses ninja as its military; businesses exist, and ninja are only a small part of the country, in a world of several countries (Kishimoto) -> I don't have a link to the actual interview right now because I found this in a video comment but I believe this as something a manga writer would say. they don't think too hard about the logic behind things sometimes.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{cite|Naruto}} is designed without respect to the [[E:historical materialism (general-sense)|historically-understood]] [[E:historical materialism|material development]] of technologies or the relationship of technologies to other technologies 
{{cite|Naruto}} + anarchronistic technology = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What does the (not-) United States look like in {{cite|Naruto}}? -> this of course doesn't refer to the literal United States, it refers to whatever the counterpart is, like how Pokémon introduced Unova.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What does (not-)China look like in {{cite|Naruto}}? -> this is quite a legitimate question to ask because as I remember Rock Lee & Might Guy literally bring up traditional Chinese medicine and are designed like they came from another country, so China totally exists, that is not disputable. but this opens up a can of worms, because we have the statement from Kishimoto that the world of Naruto is "basically like our world". and in our world Communism existed. so, like, did Lee and Guy flee the CPC or what the hell happened in the history of these two countries
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Does the {{abbr|tts=Communist Party of China|CPC}} exist in {{cite|Naruto}}? -> this question sounds silly but is a legitimate question as far as how the series conceptualizes history.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Did the Soviet Union exist in {{cite|Naruto}}? / Did the (not-) Soviet Union exist in {{cite|Naruto}}? -> people have pegged Naruto as taking place in "the 90s" so I suppose "did" is a somewhat more appropriate word than "does". it's gotta be asked though

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains radios / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains radios
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains TVS / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains television sets
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains VCRs / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains VCRs
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains {{TTS|tts=air conditioning|ACs}} / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains air conditioning units

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}Sasuke is an anarchist (Naruto) / Sasuke wanted to kill the Kages and lead a mass revolt against the system -> for a long time I thought nothing could make Naruto interesting enough to me at this age to add propositions about it but this made me laugh so here we are. nobody in Naruto is going to be a Communist because there's no modern industry, there's not going to be a Marx. and if I remember anything (maybe I have this wrong?) Sasuke and Itachi hardly have any principles. right? it was like the only thing they believed in was power if I remember right. this overall sets them up to be anarchists if they are going to be anything, because to be an anarchist you only have to assemble an almost bullshit tiny list of values of just freedom and destroying what already exists. certainly the more credible anarchisms go further than that but that's all you need if you want to be an orange anarchist. an obsession with freedom and a knife. I think Sasuke might just have that.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What is the social significance of the term "cult behavior"? (United States)
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What is the social significance of the term "cult behavior"? (Japan)

{{li|I=S2/Zv|Q=618}}media Trotskyites -> the motif of people who believe that media series will improve specifically from a lot of criticism and negative coverage as opposed to direct attempts at competition and disconnection
{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=LR, ES|Q=618}}media Existentialists -> the motif of people who believe that media series will improve specifically from fans disconnecting and refusing to engage with the new entries or connecting to entirely different series and jumping over to a different fandom to punish the first fandom

{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=MX, MZ, DX|Q=618}}Avoid creating martyrs (Marxism) / Marxism must avoid creating martyrs 
Marxism must avoid creating martyrs + ?? = Don't turn religion into a martyr (Lenin) 
Marxism must avoid creating martyrs + Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group = Don't turn Trotskyism into a martyr (meta-Marxism)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Don't turn religion into a martyr (Lenin) / Marxists must propagate atheism among the masses, but not make it a legal ban, as that would turn religion into a martyr (Lenin) -> I feel like you could take this sentence and cross out "atheism" and "religion" and replace them with other things such as "anti-Trotskyism"/"Trotskyism" and it would turn into a surprisingly viable violet proposition. that's New Democracy though, that's Mao's violet proposition
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Don't turn Trotskyism into a martyr (meta-Marxism) / Marxists must propagate anti-Trotskyism among the masses, but not ban Trotskyism legally as that would turn it into a martyr (meta-Marxism)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality (Article 118)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure (Article 119)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Citizens of the USSR have the right to education (Article 121)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Women in the USSR are afforded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life (Article 122)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Equality of rights of citizens irrespective of nationality or race is an indefeasible law (Article 123)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens (Article 124)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech (Article 125) -> I think there's an implied "under certain conditions" in there but, wow, what's that doing in there

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}The Soviet Union failed on all its guarantees by 1960 -> the original instance of this claim didn't give a year so I'm going to take a guess on what year is most reasonable

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=PT|Q=618}}Global superpowers rise and fall in a 9-stage cycle (Ray Dalio) / ([[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/KimIversen|rating sheet]]) -> one of the most darkly honest models anyone has ever had without endorsing war or genocide. not bad, really.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Arceism is part of blue anarchism {{YouTube|OsUFNGY1rcY}}
{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto A |Q=618}}Arceism is part of charcoal anarchism

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}The existence of small businesses regulates big businesses -> hasn't been true for a while. it can be that tons of independent products exist and not a single one of them will cause the bigger products to change. one of the only things that has is taking Nintendo to court for using the law in a way that shouldn't be legal — essentially accusing them of a would-be legal wrong. 
I know this is a classic part of Liberal-republicanism, but.... it's very weird when you think about it. it's asking for an unregulated process to regulate other parts of itself by running normally.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}The economy filling up with corporations and not letting any new corporations be created is exactly like ecosystems losing diversity {{YouTube|OsUFNGY1rcY}} -> no. humans literally exist inside an ecosystem. they are a single species still competing against other species; "one species monopolizing resources" happened well before a single corporation existed, much less before any of them got "entrenched" or "big". it may feel boring to point that out and crush metaphors under the brick of literalness, but ecosystems and species aren't the same thing, and it's very important to understand that to understand either of them. in ecosystems, it's normal for one species to kill individuals of another species and eat them one by one. it's normal for a fox to catch a rabbit, break its neck, and eat it. but foxes and rabbits are individual organisms, like human beings. foxes commit homicide, or in this case predation, to make sure populations don't "monopolize" an ecosystem, or perhaps more accurately that there are not so many rabbits that they are wasted because they die in some remote burrow and won't be eaten. so here's the thing. human individuals multiply at the same time corporations grow, almost but not entirely in step with them — kill some human individuals at one corporation, and you'd probably limit its growth at least a little bit. this generally isn't allowed. the next best way to limit a corporation's growth is to toss people out of employment. this, again, is almost a weapon you can use to kill people. you could forcibly take workers or subsidiaries away from one corporation and assign them to a different corporation, but there you run into the problem that the actual structure of each corporation builds up because of its use to the rest of the structure. it's a bit like tearing an arm off a body and expecting the arm to be as functional as a body, under some kind of cartoon physics where it doesn't actually die but still can't do much of anything. the real problem is the sheer process of leaving corporations alone to assemble themselves without any interaction or cooperation. it doesn't leave any way for big corporations _to_ decide they've gotten too big and shouldn't take on any more workers. just like biological evolution doesn't leave any way for species to decide they've gotten too big and shouldn't destroy the environment; the environment can't actually talk to humanity, and it can't overpower humanity after humanity has already attained the traits that make it more powerful. competition ending in a bunch of corporations that are big and stable but about equally sized is about the best outcome you could ask for. competition is competition, and competition going on for a long time doesn't make it any fairer, it only really makes it less fair. if you try to encourage any more competition at that point, you only risk getting fewer corporations that are bigger and more powerful. it's only stopping competition and recognizing that the big compartments are basically there forever barring an accident that can actually stop the individual compartments from getting fewer and bigger. 
here's the danger of believing this kind of thing. if you believe corporations shouldn't get any bigger, people will keep being born, and it's entirely possible for the country to fill up with small businesses before it runs out of people who need businesses. at that point, every time someone tries to "compete", entrenched or new, some number of people are just plain going to have to accept that they don't belong in that country and they have to go to another country and start the whole "competition" thing all over again. that's if your population _isn't_ so crazy they're turning into nazis and wanting to kill those extra people and have what's there for themselves. if your population _isn't_ crazy, the more it believes in "competition" the more it will become colonial, trying to carve bits out of other countries and try to somehow justify that it's really the one who deserves to own that country, not those nasty other-country people who were there before. Chinese people are doing civilization all wrong you see, you're not supposed to let the corporations get big, it's time to boot those nasty [[E:Drawn Together and racism|Orientals]] out and fill the area with Americans so all the businesses can be small like they're supposed to be. do you see the problem? first you have right-Liberals claiming small businesses are the gateway to freedom and it's tyrants and The Left with their Too Many Genders that believe in big businesses. the next thing to happen will be this. an attempt to fill everything up with small businesses and Arceism that absolutely doesn't work but keeps eliminating other ethnic groups in pursuit of one day suddenly discovering the key to always having small businesses. sometimes it's bad to [[E:Idealism|keep believing in your dreams]]. 
this + ?? = Arceism

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=618}}If one business is milking the system then, strategically undercutting its prices, another business will surely out-exist it and make it go away / ([[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/KimIversen|rating sheet]]) -> note the theme of the most powerful actor in the system crushing the others before the system can be reset or the "imbalance" "corrected". 
the pattern of Wal-Mart putting its prices way too low and driving out all the others and enjoying a monopoly is awfully, bizarrely similar in shape to the way things are "supposed" to work, if not perhaps the exact same shape. 
what if everyone was interpreting Liberal-republicanism wrong and every case of antitrust laws and supposed defeat of businesses that violate Arceism was actually just another case of a business becoming the most powerful and then using The State to eliminate the others in order to reset the system

{{li|I=S1/LR|tradition=LR|Q=618}}I don't fall in line when the line leads to bullshit (motto spotted on news channel) {{YouTube|@=UCoJTOwZxbvq8Al8Qat2zgTA}} / ([[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/KimIversen|rating sheet]]) -> if that isn't the most Liberal-republican thing I've ever heard. {{i|conform conform conform conform conform conform you're stupid you're stupid you're stupid for saying anything I don't already believe I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so have you really seen all of them black-and-white thinking prejudices is that really always the way it is I don't think so I don't think so I don't think s— oh god where did I end up I don't believe in {{caps|That}} thing I am a reasonable rational person who only believes in sensible common sense things not Bad things you see so I always come to good decisions I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so extremist how could you ever think that way I don't think so I don't think so holy shit why is our president demanding to use LLMs to pilot military vehicles I didn't ask for that}} 
it's never the assemblages of people or the individual positions on issues that lead to Liberal-republicanism being doomed, it's... this thought process. whatever {{em|this}} is.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Deng Xiaoping Thought|Dengism}} is better-molecularized than Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought is currently better molecularized than Trotskyism because it contains a description of large strawberry chunks — whole countries with central parties that as a unified object are in a somewhat campist(?) arrangement — while Trotskyism does not contain any useful definition of orange chunks of any size that would contribute to creating the level of success that Deng Xiaoping Thought has achieved -> I'm thinking about that probably brown-aligned guy who laid out a kyklos theory that focused on global superpowers. I do think he's kind of sort of right a little bit if you don't take the theory as having a partisan character toward one ideology or country. but the thing he didn't acknowledge is that {{em|if he is correct}}, then global Gramscianism is possible, and an era of socialism similar to or containing Deng Xiaoping Thought could just take over the global empire slot there's always been without being a traditional aggressive global empire and bring the cycle to an end by making sure all further contradictions happened inside it. global empire stops crumbling and being replaced by becoming global structure or global republic. 
this is quite boring compared to Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky's theory of world transition to an era of socialism. but it does acknowledge the fundamental realities that countries and subpopulations of workers can just be scattered or destroyed through the fact that workers are precisely the groups of people who are worse at reproducing themselves and taking over everything as fast and more vulnerable to dying. the true gap between owners and workers is the ability to chunk-compete each other off the face of the earth. so in some ways the best way to win a world that's better for workers is to make sure that blue or brown countries that are absolutely aggressive and whose large-scale behavior and expansion are too much for workers are controlled beneath the power of several very large strawberry regions of the world inside of which the workers actually can survive. is the actual first era after capitalism? not Bolshevism, but sheer defense against imperialist control and populational scattering, which is not hostile to Bolshevism.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is currently better molecularized than Trotskyism -> {{i|"straining when you try to separate the parts of a whole structure so the owner end you drove out to another country just goes angrily crashing back into the factory end"}} (MDem scrap "accountability")

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Campism is truer than Trotskyism -> to be honest, I still don't entirely know what campism is. I'm recording this proposition so I can find out before I investigate the proposition further 
also: the Trotskyists in South Africa who attempted to stand up to external capital are at least half exempt from this accusation. rarely you find the only good form of Trotskyism.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump to city: let's build / Mamdani charms Trump with "let's build" / Trump hates affordable housing until he can take credit for it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA6Oze5yyDg] -> this does not feel real, it feels like something somebody created to make fun of Trump

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HAS|Q=618}}"Nadezhda" and Catholicism -> I was wondering why like two important people in the history of the Soviet Union were named Nadezhda [https://min.news/en/history/4749be6a40004e831fd40d3f2a0b3bef.html] — why is everybody named Nadezhda?? — and the answer seems to be that it was associated with three saints named after "faith", "hope", and "charity". you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The United States is taking advantage of the dollar's status as global reserve currency to print more dollars and have whatever foreign products it wants [https://min.news/en/world/7c21690aefd7c2bb593c5262c0478ac3.html] -> god I love min.news, it's far from perfect in terms of framing things well, but the questionable claims coming out of it are incredibly different from US news sources. 
it's... fun. I went about 6 years where I wanted nothing to do with the entire concept of news and suddenly I actually want to read news again. I no longer believe there's any such thing as a neutral news station or that any news station delivers facts as opposed to entertainment, but now that I can start sorting them by ideology in a fine-grained way it's at least become much better entertainment

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Only industry, food, energy, and technology are true hard currency [https://min.news/en/world/7c21690aefd7c2bb593c5262c0478ac3.html] -> sounds mostly true but I doubt the last one because it's frighteningly easy to devalue just by a circle of capitalists seeing they can't make any more profit and arbitrarily deciding something is no longer trendy.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Capitalism is an anarchism / Capitalism — not Liberal-republicanism — is a blue anarchism because it is composed of molecularized socioeconomic processes which form [[E:The State is the apparatus of ideological state apparatuses|before]] formal government is [[E:Pillows are not ideologically neutral|generated out of them]]; the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition is the ideology of capitalism-proper, spat out of the daily operation of the blue anarchism sitting below Liberal-republican government; this is to vaguely imply that all successful anarchisms are [[E:garbage MDem (meta-Marxism)|pseudo-MDems]], thriving on molecularized physical processes but neglecting to model the physical generation of government out of a molecularized economic Base or mode of production -> this makes a lot of sense but the one question it leaves open is what the true relationship between anarchisms and anarchy is. is [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] only the [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements (meta-Marxism)|stationary combination of heterogeneous elements]]? are there other materially definable things that can fairly be called anarchy? where is anarchy in the pseudo MDem? what part of the pseudo MDem is anarchy? it clearly isn't the lack of a formal oppressive State. if anarchy exists {{em|inside}} capitalism-proper there has to be some weirdly specific thing that it actually is that many people neglect to label correctly. 
what I'm thinking right now is that maybe Arceism is the anarchy inside capitalism. you see it turn up in capitalist theory, you see it bafflingly turn up in Liberal-republicanism totally unexplained, you also see a more violent version of it used to supposedly explain international relations. personally? the violent global-scale version is the only version I believe to be materially effective. every other version is hiding something, it's too good to be true.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Mass shooters were created by the government (conspiracy theory)

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Tories insist you vote Republican (United States / Tories want you to vote Republican only (United States) / Tories and right-Liberals are never actually going to believe that center-Liberals and Menshevik types support "Our Democracy" or "United States democracy"; they believe only the Republican party to be the actual United States

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}China can't innovate / Why can't China innovate? (rhetorical question) -> this was a particular article I saw once, so it's important to find actual articles explaining this proposition

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxisms marked with the strawberry swatch are Marxisms that tend toward addressing things too slowly -> this applies in somewhat different ways to both Gramscianism if you think the United States is currently doing it, and to Deng Xiaoping Thought. Deng Xiaoping Thought is afraid to disrupt chunk competition, Gramscianism is afraid to disrupt the existing process of the United States splitting into two nationalities and is kind of just passively waiting for it to happen
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxisms marked with the orange swatch are Marxisms that tend toward addressing things too quickly -> sometimes I have trouble explaining what the difference between the orange and strawberry swatches are because it was all based on these phenomenological patterns, but I think this is one of the actual material differences. the orange-swatch Marxisms go too fast, even if what they're saying may be technically correct

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES,LR|Q=618}}tacit knowledge -> this is one of their new favorites for justifying "decentralized decision-making" and The Free Market. 
but there's a big problem. a lot of tacit knowledge isn't knowledge; a lot of stuff people do and decide intuitively is wrong answers. so if you think decentralized loci are inherently good at deciding compared to "the government" or "the capital city" or "the ministry" then you run into the problem that decentralized loci can have their decision-making abilities corrupted just as easily. and if those screw up they're completely unaccountable for their mistakes; there's no person-constitution you can invoke on a person. 
okay, also? tacit knowledge is what tells a fund with a whole lot of money to buy up all available houses because the more money it has the better a bargain having all the houses is and the more houses it has the more money it can make. this is perfectly logical but it benefits nobody. people believe that decentralized decision-making will ultimately lead everyone to converge onto the same reasonable decisions, such as in open competition supposedly dropping prices (it doesn't, it just makes products go out of print) and in elections supposedly teaching people to converge onto better candidates (they don't, they just result in the worst candidates with the fewest policies that are the best at nothing but winning, and the more candidates are reduced to solely being about winning the more people hate each other and refuse to compromise). but every time people make decisions there are always decisions that are more "powerful" and that have the ability to destroy all other decisions whether they're good decisions or not, and those are the decisions that tend to win the entire game.* those "winning" decisions simply become so powerful that nothing that tries to regulate them and reset the system back to the beginning is necessarily going to work, and they pretty much just get to smash the system whatever you do. the only bright side to this is that sometimes Communist revolution has that status as the "powerful" decision and then you're set because at least everything from before isn't coming back. 
<nowiki>*</nowiki> wow, that game theory phrasing makes me wish there was a video game or tabletop game that had {{em|that}} as its premise because I swear it would be more interesting than Deltarune's premise, the craftsmanship of the rest of the game aside

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}city control of food and housing — the people who want to destroy you and own everything -> it's very interesting how Tories conceptualize this. "the people who" already implies that everybody who wants affordable housing is a separate population. "destroy you and own everything" implies that the Socialist nationality is actively chunk-competing with the Tory nationality, one of them lives and one of them dies, one of them multiplies and one of them dies. Tories don't see themselves and the Socialist subpopulation as even being a single population, nation, or "democracy" at all.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}What is socially-necessary labor in the arts? / What is socially-necessary labor time in the arts? -> in any other industry socially-necessary labor time is partly defined by which products and corporations other people want. but there's a very entitled attitude in the arts that you should just get to make whatever you want and force people to decide between what there is. how do you apply the concept of socially-necessary labor in light of that?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Because productive forces are defined or characterized as connections between human beings, basic needs, and the material world, the concept of productive forces can be used to construct a concept of socially-necessary labor in the arts; this is to imply that if there is a situation where somebody "needs" to create a particular form of art themself but cannot it is transformed into socially-necessary labor

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production (Ayn Rand) -> now that Deng Xiaoping Thought exists that isn't even true. it's also debatable whether any European country's capital "wasn't acquired by looting". in Europe, World War I happened when all the European countries tried to steal from each other at once as the easiest way to grow. in the United states the land had to be cleared of other people groups before it could be "productive". the US used force to gain better access to Vietnam and Vietnamese factories, which is its own kind of wealth. force is a vital ingredient in capitalism. the reason workers' states fall apart is they {{em|don't}} put much force on people to make them stay. 
Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force + primitive accumulation (early Marxism) = Capitalism is a system where wealth is first acquired by looting or force. 
Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force + Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory = Deng Xiaoping Thought is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production 
The universe revolves around you + ?? = Capitalism is the only system where wealth is acquired through production

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}North Korea is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production -> these propositions are hilarious because of how much more meaningful and insightful they are. on the surface, they're more true than the original. but the more you delve into them you see that weaknesses in each of them can be used to try to prove the other one. oh, no, see, China acquired wealth by force because something something Mao and landlords something something Tibet, so, you see, North Korea is better because they were only ever defending their population. but you can try to disqualify North Korea on technicalities like that it hasn't had excellent production or something. so both of them are viable candidates as "the only" good system, in exclusion to each other. 
certainly there are other workers' states and edge-case government efforts, but like, you couldn't really use South Africa for this cluster of propositions because you can argue on a technicality that wealth was "acquired by force" to distribute the land to Black South-Africans. there's not a strong argument that that's bad, but the original proposition disqualified the use of force, so, no Che Guevara forcefully fighting capitalists out of countries in these propositions.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}To increase the availability of houses, just build more houses without disturbing capitalism -> a lot of houses have been built, but every time they get built somebody immediately buys them, knowing that houses are inherently desirable and if all the houses are owned the few parties with money that own all the houses can price them the way they want. or turn them into Airbnbs just as another way to make money. 
once there is enough wealth the whole concept of supply and demand breaks because for the parties with the most wealth the same supply looks like infinite supply and zero demand, they can buy as many things as they want and mark them up to make money all they want, but once they buy them the demand goes way up and the supply goes way down for everyone else. the only limit on price becomes how small a margin the owner is okay with making on the houses by having fewer people to sell them to.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Competition leads to planned obsolescence -> 
producing things always costs money, so won't there be a point where competition causes a bunch of businesses to go out of business because they're making very little money or losing money? 
I feel like this is why a lot of technologies like VCRs and DVDs and laserdiscs and movies made without CGI have gone out of use. but when competition drives prices and profits way down and forces new products to be made, eventually people end up with products they didn't want, like live service desktop applications and phones and doorbells that spy on them and generative AI. is that a good outcome of fighting Communism?

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Nothing can be a right if it must be provided by someone else -> but literally all human rights are provided by someone else. even when the United States military is attacking a country because of human rights they're being provided by someone else.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}enshittification (Cory Doctorow)

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Building affordable housing is enshittification -> there are a lot of Tory propositions where I should be mad but I just start laughing because when there's actual creativity in them they're weirdly funny 
enshittification (Cory Doctorow) + affordable housing / The Projects (United States) = Building affordable housing is enshittification.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The problem with center-Liberalism is you eventually run out of taxes and there isn't enough money to win the rest of the non-Tory vote -> harsh but probably true.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani should have to live in affordable housing -> honestly? that's actually fair. the early CPSU lived in basic housing so I support that one

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Affordable housing causes Detroit -> no. 
this is the kind of thinking that has led everyone across the United States to gut the proletariat and leave literally no proletariat. not "the labor aristocracy profiting off the Third World individually". this.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Housing prices came from too many regulations; this is to imply that the Massachusetts plumbing fixture roster and the lead paint inspector requirement made housing unaffordable -> god why are their arguments this bad. this argument is so bad it could be like a South Park episode or something. look I bought a new house for cheap... dude that house is chock full of lead. lead poisoning becomes butt of joke

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority but a republic is decentralized and doesn't do that -> then why does the United States have a president, and why are there political parties?

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Menshevik types come from wealth and comfort, while people who created businesses are less privileged
{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}People vote for the Democratic Party or Republican Party due to their membership in class subpopulations, but the Republican Party holds all the granting nodes and the Democratic Party holds all the receiving nodes (Toryism) -> there was effort put in here, but, I don't think so. this is a similar error to Trotskyism thinking the internal structure of the Soviet Union is to blame for everything they hate about Stalin instead of the interaction between First World and Third World countries. I think that by about the year 2000 or something class structures are genuinely not the reason that people sort into United States Liberal-republican political parties.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's better to tax hedge funds than tax New York City -> that could actually be true. the problem is that whenever you try to do federal taxes you get wild pushback telling people to do things as locally as possible. then someone actually starts doing things locally and people lose their minds.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Tories believe New York is full of proletarians -> should we trust their assessment, or are they factually wrong?

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=M3|Q=618}}How can I own my body if there are no property rights? -> okay. I mean, that question is stupid, but it's also legitimately thought-provoking, so sure, let's add it. 
my answer is that property in relation to land is not actually ownership but the right to drive other people away from something. so unless people are living inside your body the concept of land ownership in particular doesn't apply to it. 
whether your body is part of ordinary belongings is a more complex question. in practice, belongings are usually materially owned by houses; you don't actually have much control over your belongings if there are disputes over your housing, which can happen for a lot of ordinary everyday reasons unrelated to "crazy" mayors being elected. is your body materially owned by your house? arguably. you are safe from all of civil society in there. but your body being forced out of a house doesn't really mean somebody owns it already. it only really turns it into something of a disputed territory, where you may be fighting someone else over your body but you can only really die in that, nobody ever actually wins that.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning workers' states as stealing other people's money? -> if they think this way about landlords then there is no reason they shouldn't say the same thing about stealing state capitalism. whether the Bolsheviks stole anything doesn't matter when we're talking about the raw course of historical events.
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning the Soviet Union as stealing other people's money?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Chinese sovereignty as stealing other people's money?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Cuban sovereignty as stealing other people's money?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Chinese sovereignty as slavery?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Cuban sovereignty as slavery?

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Claiming the right to use a landlord's territory is slavery -> the more I fail to block every single {{censor|fucking}} news article ever written and let a single sentence by a right-winger slip into my feed the more I question whether human rights were a {{censor|fucking}} mistake and some people just {{em|shouldn't}} get an equal right to exist in the first place. this is why you can't tell somebody like me to use prescriptive "I believe that everybody should" ethics rather than descriptive historical theories of meta-ethics — there are going to be some very nasty "I believe that everybody" statements relating to landlords and specifically the ones who say this

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Territory is the only thing that can make people free 
People use property to gain freedom + ?? = Territory is the only thing that can make people free.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Lowering the value of people's houses is the same as seizing physical objects -> this can't actually be true.
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Lowering the value of people's houses is not taking physical objects because case law, and because Agins v. Tiburon -> oh boy. on one hand they're thinking. on another hand. court cases don't mean much. they get overruled by other court cases and the other branches of government a lot. I feel by now like a large portion of US voters don't think they're legitimate at all. you see disproportionate weight put on state legislatures, when they're just as unstable. maybe [[E:horizontal balancing (meta-Marxism)|horizontal checks and balances]] were a stupid idea and we actually should have had 100 constitutional amendments with a bunch of back and forth for a bit and then permanence
{{li|I=Z1/ES|tradition=LR|Q=618}}{{i|Agins v. Tiburon}}
{{li|I=Z1/ES|tradition=LR|Q=618}}{{i|Lingle v. Chevron}} -> ruled that regulating rent is taking property, overruling {{i|Agins}}

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=Aa|Q=618}}Communists only blame the wrong people for problems, and that's why they turn around and harm their own allies -> this is true for like, five people in all of history. you can single out Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Bukharin as {{em|maybe}} being real cases but yeah otherwise this is nonsense

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES onto MZ|Q=618}}assuming that Mao's concepts of contradictions, knowledge, and practice apply to "life" in the sense of an isolated individual and the contradiction between murky, abstract Ideals [https://min.news/en/culture/89b1033bd324a12bcb97a3c01d21dae3.html] -> it's so abundantly obvious when you read Mao texts that he's talking about multiple material objects operating together and how to understand your place within a larger object. but when you search and find pages about "Mao's philosophy" you rather quickly get hit in the face with [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]] 
looking at this site... the perspectives on China are pretty good but everything that isn't a personal experience is just Existentialism. very blue site. the article that compared the stock market to Buddhism (?) was both maddening and funny

{{li|I=S2/MZ|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}It's not time to implement democratic reforms in Tibet (1955) / In 1955, it was not time for the Communist Party of China to pursue democratic reforms in Tibet [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm] -> I need to know what exactly democratic reforms means here. are they talking about, like, taking a relatively medieval structure and trying to republicanize it, but the Tibetans might be upset about implementing democracy from the outside in at that time? I don't even know. but this is one of the first believable statements I've ever found about Tibet that I know isn't a lie.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}The {{abbr|tts=Communist Party of China|CPC}} has no reason to reject other parties if they are actually willing to serve the people and show up in difficult times without stopping halfway (1955) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm] -> Mao's justification for allowing the eight comically similar Liberal parties. a basically violet statement from Mao. New Democracy was one of the major influences for meta-Marxism so any number of propositions related to it can be marked violet as long as they don't contradict some of the most important meta-Marxist methods such as [[E:existential materialism|exmat]]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}correct ideas pampered in hothouses / correct ideas pampered in hothouses and never exposed to the elements [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm] -> what a phrase. funny enough that I'll admit I'm guilty of it, it's not insulting to put the violet swatch on this, it's just true 
gosh you could use this as a proposition truth value. imagine that

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}hypercorrecting "non-revisionist" to "dogmatic" [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm]

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}For Communists Han chauvinism is intolerable (1953) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_25.htm]

{{li|I=Z1/ES|Q=618}}{{article|Where Mao Went Wrong: Epistemology and Ideology in Mao's Leftist Politics}} (Womack 1986)

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}the good Mao and the bad Mao [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2158774] -> I just can't get over some of the things bourgeois writers say. some of them are maddening, some of them are just plain hilarious like this one. it sounds like he has two little sprites on his shoulders telling him about Liberal-republicanism versus Bolshevism or something 
edit: what's actually going on is the article identifying Mao departing from Maoism, but it appears to be implying that wanting Mao to go back to early Maoism is wrong, so there is an idea of good Mao and bad Mao in there as much as the article is attempting to say it ironically

{{li|I=Z1/ES|Q=618}}In the United States, the accepted way to oust ruling classes is to spend another whole population's money on an army and violently beat them up -> this is the great irony in everyone acting like United States Liberal-republicanism is "nonviolent" and "more civilized than a revolution". at best, the United States existing {{em|is}} a violent revolution, against the leadership of every single other country than itself.

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}It's bad to be a traitor to your country / It's always bad to be a traitor to your country / It's usually bad to be a traitor to your country (generally bad; Toryism, monarchism) -> appears in: Space Battle Lunchtime, The Divine Comedy (? this is from memory), Valle Verde 
one of the easiest ways to deliberately create a stupid argument in irony is to create a statement containing "always" or "never" and then delete the outward manifestation of those words while silently keeping them in there. you see many people half understand this when they pick up the concept of "logical fallacies" or "cognitive biases". and then you see the same people still creating their own "hidden always" statements over and over such as "democracy is good", or further abbreviating that widely generalizing value statement to the single word "democracy"
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider Al-Qaeda your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider the Trotskyite conspiracy your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider the Nazi party your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider the Republican party your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (United States)
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider West Germany your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/ML|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If you consider East Germany your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/Fy|class=field_fantasy|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If Goku considers earth his country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (Dragon Ball)
{{li|I=S2/Fy|class=field_horror|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If you consider the Saiyan empire your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (Dragon Ball)
{{li|I=S2/ML|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If you consider the Soviet Union your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=UM|Q=618|Q2=618}}Manifesto of the International Communist Current (1975) [https://en.internationalism.org/manifesto-1975]
{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=UM|Q=618|Q2=618}}Manifesto of the International Communist Current (1991) [https://en.internationalism.org/manifesto-1991]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}It is more feasible for a revolution to happen on the basis of joining only one First World country to many exploited countries than on the basis of joining the workers of several First World countries together / more feasible to join one First World country to many exploited countries than to join several First World countries together (abbreviated) -> Sometimes I bite off a gigantic proposition I'll never be able to falsify. but I just have to do it because it's important to discuss all the possibilities versus each other.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}The way to reject culturally fabricated narratives is to move to another city and get a different job or business / "More and more people are reflecting on what they want out of life, they're quitting their job, they're moving cities ... Once you wake up and feel that lie you've been fed and see it for what it is ... you stop optimizing your time and you start owning some of it ... What's authentic to you?" -> the most honest and blatant statement I've seen of this pattern, yet everything I've been underlining in other things ironically because it was questionable was put together and said perfectly unironically.

{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Economics isn't conformity {{abbr|tts=versus|vs}} individuality / The category of economics doesn't contain conformity versus individuality / "When I first wrote this video I thought it would be about economics, but it was really about the entire structure of life" -> this is like Mike Masnick claiming economics is "not a moral issue". would you say either of those things in the historical Soviet Union? most people wouldn't. they'd immediately start claiming both that economics is a moral issue and economics favors individuality just so they can shatter the Communist mono-structure that was very much part of economics in that period. you can't just say that's not economics without denying [[E:I am therefore I am|the {{em|physical existence}}]] of millions of people who are okay with the concept that it is.

{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}In life there are no answers -> this is just bogus because while no, there usually aren't going to be any big ones, there are always a lot of small ones. most people who become researchers at universities go there to slowly answer things there previously weren't answers to. what is the use of educating everyone if it doesn't leave them with more answers to how to live their lives than if they weren't educated? teaching people that vaccines are safe and lead to a better life is giving them answers on how to life their life. it may sound like I'm taking this hyper-literally, and I am, but I feel like it's necessary because if anyone truly believed there weren't any answers to life they'd definitely overlook areas where there were answers and make bad decisions either factually or morally.

{{li|I=M3/MX|dimension=M3|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}If there are no answers in life, then why are there therapists? -> think hard about this. there would be no psychotherapists if there weren't at least sometimes correct answers to how to live life.
{{li|I=M3/MX|dimension=M3|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}If there are no answers in life, then why is there Christianity? -> it doesn't make logical sense to both believe there are no answers in life and believe that God can identify anything as being a more correct answer morally or otherwise. one of those has to go.
{{li|I=M3/MX|dimension=M3|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}If there are no answers in life, then why are there elections? -> if there are truly no answers in life then you would be equally happy or equally miserable with anyone who got elected and you wouldn't need democracy. so why don't you go around telling everybody democracy is unnecessary? you probably believe there are at least some correct answers in life.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Therapists exist / In the United States and Europe, from approximately to 2020, therapists have existed -> this could be useful for any number of chains of reasoning, actually.
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}The United States constitution can be amended / In the United States, there are constitutional amendments (statement about possibility)

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Because the greed of class society has slowly destroyed the bulk of First World populations to leave only the upper classes, and thereby begun to balance out the comparative numbers of populations across the overall world, Arceism is technically true

</li><li class="field_BPP" data-tradition="BP" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The world is a single civilization (BlackPantherism) / The world is already a single civilization / reactionary intercommunalism proposition (BlackPantherism) [https://viewpointmag.com/2018/06/11/intercommunalism-the-late-theorizations-of-huey-p-newton-chief-theoretician-of-the-black-panther-party/]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Money was made off of the strife of others, which, simply put, is wrong [https://fnewsmagazine.com/2019/03/the-modern-day-blaxploitation-behind-black-panther/] -> I clicked onto this article looking for something else, but this is an unexpectedly powerful quote

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LGBT / meta-Marxism onto queer theory" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gay characters in movies are Evil because antinormative queer theorists give themselves the same definition as Evil

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=ML, DX|Q=618}}stay together like a pomegranate -> I was looking for physical objects that could be used as crayola-style names for the swatches, and one thing that occurred to me was "pomegranate". I looked at it and was like, huh, when you think about it, it keeps things connected together like a central party. and then I saw on Wikipedia that (it claimed) the CPC had also said that. and I was like, wow. so that's just obvious, huh?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There have been two major types of ideologies that have existed both before and during the time of republics: ideologies which physically act through the state, and ideologies which physically act through individuals or small localized formations inside civil society; it is possible but not necessary that the first category are called statisms and the second category are called anarchisms -> this statement is subtle, but very important, because it's setting up the idea that creating republics doesn't stop people from totally forgetting they're in a republic and generating localized ideologies that are specifically the shovel dreams generated by civil society itself as a material object while government itself generates different ideologies. this is one possible "origin story" of how Liberal-republicanism became weirdly molecularized and birthed Existentialism, as well as how Toryism turned totally secessionist as it became uninterested in compromising with center-Liberalism and allowing democracy to meaningfully exist

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Che Guevara has been coopted by postcolonial theories -> how is it that everybody hates Marxism and yet you see him brought up anyway as if he wasn't a Marxist. something is off here. it also confuses me why people bring up the Black Panthers and hate Marxism; Malcom X was very much like Stalin, he was basically an unlikeable bigot by modern people's standards (anarchist standards) except for the mitigating force that he was a Marxist and it made him open up to criticism

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=MX onto ES, MX onto LR|Q=618}}blue multipolarity / Arceism (violent international version where everybody in a sea of blue chunks is supposed to respect each other As Equals but ultimately the process of blue chunks destroying a blue chunk that got too powerful can only be achieved by one or more blue chunks also becoming Too Powerful temporarily or permanently in order to take them down) -> the motif that multipolarity of blue chunks where all the blue chunks fight each other the moment they think one of them is too big or too powerful or "doing something unfair" is enough to ensure that a free-floating sea of blue chunks is actually regulated. 
I feel like a lot of fantasy stories run on this. the assertion that destroying something useful for evil is trivial and easy but where in practice somebody has to become terrifyingly powerful themself to actually destroy the terrifying power used for evil, with no actual need to justify that they're good people or that it's okay for them to use their power literally however they want to even if they do something bad because in the end there's no actual abolishing power and no actual regulating what the person or group powerful enough to destroy power does.
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=MX onto DX, MX onto LR|Q=618}}By Liberal-republicans' own logic, global capitalism should be broken up into many plural capitalisms fully caged inside self-contained workers' states in order to uphold the Liberal-republican value of blue multipolarity where no one party can chain everyone into the same universal structure they control — a problem which has happened with axes of First-World countries or global mountains of capital many times over -> they love it when you break up populations and give pieces of them the ability to stubbornly object, but for some reason they never apply this to the problem of having material objects that stretch around the earth that can actually hurt people.

{{li|I=S2/ML|dimension=ML, MX|Q=618}}Despair is a form of capitalist ideology -> heard this one many times before. this is one of the only things that kept me going when I was locked-in working on the book, that the first sliver of Molecular Marxism was always creating hypotheses with meta-Marxism, charting out the Lattice model, and not giving up.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}Analyzing the economic structure of the US is a good way to see where the world is heading -> I really doubt _that's_ true. feels like it ignores the concept of country characteristics. there are at least two kinds of countries, the countries full of retail stores and the countries full of factories.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}using Humpty Dumpty to change the constitution -> ok, the people who write these things are clearly Tories but this one got a laugh out of me. I'll let them point it out only because a lot of center-Liberal arguments today just don't logically cohere together regardless of whether the end goal is good. center-Liberalism is eating itself to everybody's detriment. don't try to "Vaush" this. it's really actually so ineffective that believing in it and wasting time on it is causing harm and killing people. nobody needs it. there are rare seconds of the day when I'll decide that center-Liberalism is so terrible I _hate anarchism less_ than it, although I don't really _like anarchism more_.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Holy Roman Empire was a series of self-contained Social-Philosophical Systems in the form of principalities with a specific religion as their Philosophical System

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}Iraqis have been committing imperialism against Kurds [https://rojavainformationcenter.org/background/key-facts/] -> this is what it sounds like when you take religion out of it. 
is the problem with Iraq and the concept that Marxism supposedly needs Islam that people in Iraq are as stuck in the middle of imperialism as the United States and can't see it?

{{li|I=Z1/W|Q=618}}Kurdistan Workers' Party -> defeated.
{{li|I=Z1/W|Q=618}}Democratic Union Party [https://thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/kurdish-democracy/rojava-democracy/] -> these parties have temporarily been given the strawberry swatch due to containing both at least crude Marxist principles and things that stand out as charcoal anarchism. it isn't common to see strawberry and charcoal together, it's more common to see strawberry and blue, but either of them counts as strawberry.

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}Rojava will end war in the region on the basis of Democracy -> seems doubtful.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Rojava is evidence that revolutions are more likely to occur on the basis of nationality or demographic identities than on the basis of simply not believing in the things that currently exist -> anarchists will keep denying the idea they believe in nothing but whenever you talk to them they're like, protests bring people together, revolutions bring people together, it's best not to believe in anything at all until the people united by resisting shit win

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}black-ball white-ball demonstration -> it won't work on anyone now it's documented but oh well
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A meta-Marxist wouldn't be fooled by the black ball, white ball demonstration -> if you have the ability to model different sets of material conditions side by side, you'll understand that it's possible for locality to produce different results that don't come from "perspective".

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}Because anarchists' outward behavior is not predictable from any material model of reality, every value anarchists try to have is in effect an arbitrary narrative -> this is important to point out when it's become so common for blue anarchists to focus on "narratives". to actually get away from arbitrary narratives you'd have to throw away Idealism and make a physically, materially correct model that predicts the real world. at least on the level of how quantum mechanics does it with a bunch of fuzziness. physics which is finally aware of retermination is the only thing that can actually be nonpartisan and not impose potentially harmful or limiting narratives. even things like nebulous squishy definitions of gender that claim not to squash The Subject impose narratives inasmuch as they fail to be predictive. what is objective is what can be physically known. probabilistic wavefunction or otherwise. what is objective contains no debatable or partisan narratives in and of itself.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX|Q=618}}Russia is the country equivalent of a college dropout -> in this metaphor, the Soviet Union is college, and China and Cuba stayed in college.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}How can anarchists have free time if combating prejudices is a full-time job? / If anarchists want a world with time open for mostly leisure, and they want it as fast as possible, but writing good philosophy about gender identity and anti-racism and other prejudices or forms of "domination" takes a lot of hard work, and yet it's necessary to ever achieve a functional anarchism where people aren't bigots, how will anarchists have time for leisure instead of getting stuck with effectively a day job of working on getting people to stop being bigots for 40+ hours a week with no way to negotiate fewer hours or time off? -> the whole idea of being able to collectively bargain on labor and have any say about the specific conditions of it is a very modern thing that emerged with capitalism and large businesses. abolish capitalism and you're left with a whole lot of tasks of building a country all over again from the beginning that are back-breaking in their amount but non-negotiable. I would know this, as much as these are smaller things than a whole country, from having to build large parts of a giant database plus visual theme and large parts of a linux distro from nothing just to get an experience that contained no disappointment. the sheer state of something not existing yet can be tyrannical because nobody is going to give you a day off until you get a lot of people to see how good it is and put in gigantic amounts of work before you get people to actually use it and maybe finally care about you. it's possible to be exploited more than a worker in terms of the crude numerical ratio of how much you work versus how much you're paid or rewarded. try "you don't have a single damn thing you can be paid for and are constantly trying all day to construct the equivalent of a business to work at or public facility that serves people and always failing".

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}Would it be more just to forcibly break Russia up into multiple nation-states? -> it sounds like the way things are, the governments of Russia don't care about the people and the people don't care about the government. for previous historical periods, people complain that the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union was too big and bloated. but really, Russia is still about that geographically big and as much of a logistical nightmare. the only factor left an Existentialist can "fix" to try to break up Generalized Authoritarianism and take power away is to forcibly chop up the country so the sheer number of connected people isn't able to produce as powerful a government. from here, the claim would be that because Russia had a hard time getting through Bolshevism and everybody only really understands the notion of quietly subverting rules and not playing along, the only way to save Russia is to get rid of overarching authority itself, but because nobody really has the strength to do that right now and some people don't want to, somebody has to break up the country by force.
this is the reason I really don't like rhetoric usually in the context of fiction that if there is a locus of power that can hurt people it's easy to solve the problem by destroying it. like, holy cow, that's like saying that because Liberal democracy can be used to legislate against trans people and Mexicans it's necessarily to abolish Liberal democracy and make sure there will never be a Congress with power over the whole United States region as opposed to a tiny part of it. in the real world you pretty much need more power to be able to destroy power, and then when you destroy power you've just given someone more power.

{{li|I=M3/Fy|Q=618}}How do you know what a Digimon will turn into? / Given a particular Digimon, and a stage which for some reason you know has characteristics of the base form, how do you know what other characteristics are going to be part of the design of that stage, and predict an Ultimate stage with Piyomon characteristics? / Given a particular Digimon, how do you know what seemingly unrelated Digimon will be chosen as its evolution instead of another? -> silly question to make you think about the concept of things transforming into other things while retaining what they already were. it helps that it applies to beings that are essentially civilized or artificial and not to natural ecosystems. it's like asking a question about a country transforming, only fractalized down to the individual. normally I would say that's an improper form of analysis but the shows don't actually define real consequences for only one Digimon reaching the next stage versus a lot of them, so like, it's within canon as written, if not within what's generally a good form of analysis for the real world
{{li|I=M3/Fy|Q=618}}How do you know what a Pokémon will turn into?

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}the other side of Bolshevism / post-Bolshevism (historical period which succeeds and further develops Bolshevism) / era of communism (generic) / upper-phase communism (generic) / crimson anarchism (generic) -> the motif of a general category of things that happens once Stalin's Marxism is "complete" but isn't any of the things from before that stage including capitalism. it's clear from history that 1920s predictions about what might happen here weren't necessarily correct. but also, it only seems more likely with time that it was possible for Bolshevism to actually transform into something, and for even Deng Xiaoping states to transform into something. what's unclear is what either of them turns into. it's like trying to peek past an event horizon, or see into a wave function; you have no idea what's on the other side of there unless you were somehow able to mathematically start out inside there instead of enter from the outside.

{{li|I=S2/Zv|Q=618}}Russia was never going to get all the way through Bolshevism to the other side -> there are a lot of historical facts to go over here. I'm not sure what the most appropriate conclusion is. I know it's popular to try to claim the few people qualified to administer the Soviet government were too powerful and did nothing to change the power dynamic that had existed before. I know from another, more reasonable angle you can say that the country was under too much strain to hold together without coercion. but what's the actual answer to how people should have descriptively predicted the history of Russia going in 1920? starting in 1920, what's the actual best outcome that could have happened, not synonymous with "the outcomes Lenin wants to happen"? is it Russia becoming a Deng Xiaoping state and all the border states flying off it and possibly forming separate associations? what is it? 
I obsess about the trajectory of the Soviet Union because I don't want to hate Russians. it's so easy to if you assume that everyone in Russia simultaneously chose the way it generally is today, like what kind of fucking asshole would choose that. it's convenient for everyone that that is literally not what culture is or how it functions and in fact all things referred to as national culture are produced through a heterogeneous soup of processes and strata. but yeah these are the stakes of not {{em|materially succeeding}} at anarchism, everyone hates your entire nationality and thinks it's going to kill them so you had better fucking get it right if you don't want millions of people to be perceived that way effective the day you get it wrong

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If you can't promise someone that all Australians are nice people who want to follow a particular ethical principle, how can you know that all human beings in existence want to follow that ethical principle? / If you can't promise someone that all Russians want to follow a particular ethical principle, how can you know that all human beings in existence want to follow it? / Australia rule (ethical proposition) -> this is based on a conversation with [[User:Vidak]] from I think over a year ago where he determined that there were too many bad Australians to build a workers' state. which is a funny thing to say out loud especially out of context, but I'm only exaggerating or skewing what was said a tiny bit.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, A, PT|Q=618}}Communism as ignoring reality / if the Party says that it is not four but five — then how many? (1984) [https://mimiandeunice.com/2018/11/07/1984/] -> it's very common to act like workers' states ignore material conditions and _if they could only see the reality_... no Communism? it's often unclear what exactly people think the reality _is_ and what kind of whole-country system they would realize instead. (Arceism?) "democracy" doesn't explain anything, because the ultimate point of democracy is to select actual policies, so there has to be some material outcome you actually want to vote for over something else - if all policies were qualitatively the same you would be equally as happy if there was no democracy at all.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Trans suicide is basically BPD / A transgender person verging on suicide is basically the same as someone threatening suicide to try to take active control of the fear of abandonment [https://mimiandeunice.com/2018/11/07/abusive-relationship/] -> well. this one's at least creative. you usually hear gender identity compared to wanting to cut off limbs. to come up with an assertion that sounds accurate to a DSM entry is at least more interesting

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}What you defend against you make real [https://acim.org/acim/lesson-170/there-is-no-cruelty-in-god-and-none-in-me/en/s/576] [https://mimiandeunice.com/2012/08/07/what-you-defend-against-you-make-real/] -> so it seems this page was trying really hard to teach people not to be bigots without saying anything specific that might upset them. but... I don't think it succeeded. this is a bunch of nonsense that doesn't really make any sense in a physical world. it assumes that there is no such thing as relationships or people that aren't in relationships and that everyone has literally a million friends. that's simply not true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}A world full of newly-created anarchisms would be a horrific world filled with war -> the first thing to remember about anarchism is that what anarchisms say is their ultimate goal is different from what their material process of anarchist transition from a fledgling anarchism to a completed anarchism will be. and personally.... what it seems to me is that anarchism wishes for total sovereignty of countable cultures unfettered by Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism, such that the world would be a patchwork of separate countable cultures neatly separated at the borders of arbitrary socially-linked graphs (Social-Graph Systems). the problem with that is that if any SGS did anything bad according to any other SGS, this would effectively open countable cultures to Darwinian selection where some of them would obliterate each other through bigoted military invasions, sanctions, or other means, and only some of them would survive. one strong pattern throughout history so far is that when you get rid of spatial hierarchies instead of transforming them, or no joined structure forms, they're often replaced by groups of people existing in mutual exclusion and trying to totally eliminate each other. I feel like suddenly turning the whole world into anarchisms would lead to a lot of that. the individual anarchisms would be lawful inside themselves, they'd create internal peace like any society, but they'd have basically zero respect for any other anarchisms outside them because every anarchism simultaneously believes in forming a tiny local Community that transitions to serve itself and has a rather dogmatic list of demands for every other place on earth.

{{li|I=S2/Zv|tradition=MX onto Zv|Q=618}}People prefer unaccountable systems (anarchism) / People prefer systems that are fully unaccountable to them to ones that are accountable, because seeing a human in a position of power with the theoretical ability to reason and empathize approve bad things even once is especially insulting, while when you see an inanimate object perpetuate bad things it is impossible to connect it back to any concept of morality or ethics and therefore people are forced to just stop shouting at an inanimate brick and let it go -> I think this is the true reason people prefer Liberal capitalism to Bolshevism. the concept of having humans in charge of your country that can be removed with a little effort instead of unstoppable inanimate objects is inherently terrifying, and people are predisposed to only be able to conceptualize [[E:Zinovievizing|crushing and exploding systems out of fear]] to save themselves before they ever think of new ones to build to prevent the old one from coming back and occupying the same space.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The Democratic Party is Communism lite {{YouTube|yNeDhTPE7bA}} -> the Democratic party isn't even Gramsci or Malcom X or Picasso. at "worst" it's Marcuse, who qualitatively is an anarchist.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, LR|Q=618}}The CPC controls China but isn't the real China {{YouTube|yNeDhTPE7bA}} -> how do you even determine what the real China is? really think about that. back in the time China had emperors some people probably thought the emperors could be the real China. so why is it that now in the age of republics people are so obsessed with with finding the real United States or the real China like that actually means anything? it's one thing to try to construct the concept of a generalized dictator and try to get rid of that, but I feel like people who outright say "not the real China" at least partly mean exactly what they say.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=ES, PT|Q=618}}BRICS is one big conspiracy by an alliance of Generalized Dictators -> by this point, people who argue against China are so fucking unconvincing at putting together a coherent point that makes any sense that if China actually was oppressive I still wouldn't believe them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Gender identity should be like freedom of religion [https://mimiandeunice.com/2018/11/12/meanwhile/] -> this is why freedom of religion is a traumatic concept for me and I don't like it when blue anarchists try to inject it down to the Spanishness Office layer as a part of the bill of constitutional amendments all humans are bound to follow when they're born. normal people really have no barrier between political beliefs, religion, and ethnic traditions. tell them to respect gender identity and they'll get offended you didn't accommodate all Cultures and nearly call you racist.

{{li|I=Z1/LR|tradition=LR, PT|Q=618}}Mimi and Eunice [https://mimiandeunice.com/] -> there are a lot more TERF comics on here than I remember. oh well, they do get a lot better when you swap out the third panel for one of the other comics

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If speech isn't offensive, you can never prove it deserves free speech protections -> it's weird how most of the time free speech discussions revolve around speech that outright offends somebody, and how when something is offensive it always seems to have a slam dunk case to prove it's okay. people who don't really like South Park suddenly got behind it when it was slamming Trump. Drawn Together got to air basically because it was offensive, while many other things that are similar to other things get hit with lawsuits, and few of them ever get an adequate defense.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}TV channels with total free speech are generally safer than social platforms with total free speech -> I think this is true, at least mostly, but it's worth asking why. I feel like to some extent something that's an entire business like an animation studio or a room of TV executives has an incentive to think about what is worth creating — what actually has a point to keep putting out week after week, and what betrays the overall goal of the organization. the same isn't really true for arbitrary individual human beings, who will never have a Spanishness Office inside them that's inherently accountable to outside forces.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}If the earth was populated by immortals, capitalism would be okay -> this is a weird consequence of the way I argue about chunk competition. I've created a scenario where in conditions not very similar to reality my arguments might not hold up any more, and you could only really get through it with anarchist arguments that Domination is bad because {{em|it just is}} {{censor|dammit}}.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}It's impossible for anarchists to have charcoal allies who are not part of the core demographic of anarchists -> if true, this is a double-edged sword. from the anarchist point of view everybody who is an anarchist is equally an anarchist. but {{a|in practice|E=Having everybody equal in the United States means an inferior position for entire populations of people in other countries}}, it means that if there is any segment of the population that is [[E:Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures|not suited to be anarchists and has a hard time with the task]], that segment of the population will just be permanent enemies of anarchists that are never treated as first-class citizens or perhaps citizens at all. the exact implications of what will happen to these people are not clear, given that anarchism so often rejects any way of dividing individuals into groups other than whether they are anarchists or not. one possible outcome is Zinovievization I guess, where every single structural element of these people's society and structuring element of culture binding them together is torn apart and they are left like that without anything and forced to either build anarchism or migrate to another continent or kill each other over the last scrap of food, as in the early days of Soviet dissolution. I just watched Drawn Together and they had this nightmare challenge where the half of contestants that won the competition got all the food from both halves. that's kind of exactly what happens to Third World countries that get Zinovievized.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, Zv|Q=618}}indie culture {{YouTube|PDSYmbXwLXg}} -> what the hell does this mean. people intuitively think it's better but I can't promote it if I don't even know what it practically is

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, Zv|Q=618}}The big franchises you love were once small companies {{YouTube|PDSYmbXwLXg}} -> generally true. also generally spun into totally the wrong significance.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, Zv|Q=618}}Tencent puts money into a bunch of business, some of them succeed, some of them fail {{YouTube|PDSYmbXwLXg}} -> okay, but that's just how all capitalism works. the core process that makes capitalism capitalism is that different businesses go out and make a product although it's impossible to know if they'll succeed or lose all their money, and the only real way to mediate that is for businesses to buy each other or hand each other money. that's one definition of the entire system of capitalism: the point of capitalism is to waste huge piles of individuals and small teams finding the only ones that are especially popular and productive and then letting those go on to be the businesses that compose society.
so... China has taken capitalism and distilled it down to its most basic patterns

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}The parasite fears the visionary / Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban (Andrew Ryan) -> brought up in the context of small businesses supposedly "regulating" big businesses

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, MX|Q=618}}All philosophy is subjective / Because every philosophical text is an opinion piece, no philosophy is actually objective and all philosophy is subjective until it eventually turns into scientific models and applied science -> I don't think this is very controversial. there are ways to spin this that absolutely twist me in knots (please throw all post-structuralism in the trash) and there are also ways to play it that are more reasonable.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX|Q=618}}What exactly are socially reactionary capitalists in reaction against? / If reactionary right-Liberals seek to dismantle Menshevism (in their own country) and Bolshevism (in other countries) because they are in reaction against various countries' capable proletarian subpopulations, then what exactly are people who are socially conservative or reactionary in reaction against? -> it's super easy to disprove right-Liberalism and argue for Communism on the basis of objective observation and Materialist philosophy, but it's never easy to actually face the kinds of reactionaries the United States is full of because they always start arguing about stuff where the actual "correct" literature is absolutely nebulous and squishy and it's unclear what anybody is truly arguing about.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto W, MX onto A|dimension=F2|Q=618}}People pushing to get reactionary capitalists out of the corporate social platforms they use is Gramscian Marxism; they said so themselves -> when I first started all this around 2021 and had no idea what was going on on the inside of a lot of United States movements due to how exclusive and secretive and supposedly-not-a-movement-centered-in-a-consistent-organization they can be, I started out just listing out the outward characteristics and processes that were going on, and then just a little later, I matched that up with the description of Gramscianism because materially they really {{em|looked like}} they matched. only in 2025 was I stunned to realize that ordinary people probably don't consider these movements or ideologies at all, not even subconsciously, not even within the framework of Liberal-republicanism. 
to ordinary people even Liberal-republican political parties are not distinct ideologies but just something which is emergent — you wouldn't think this is true from how much people slam "Republicans" (or "Democrats") and the specific things they believe that "nobody" "should" vote for, but what I really think is true now from all my observations is that ordinary people believe the United States primarily runs on morality, the thing that is universally moral to all human beings is supposed to win, and people form into Liberal-republican political parties only as a matter of separating one position on an issue from another, in order to figure out which one is Good and which one is Evil, after which everyone is supposed to vote for the Good one and discard the Evil one. you may think the terms Good and Evil are hyperbolic to use there, but what else are phrases like "right side of history" and "basic human decency" supposed to mean? a great many people don't believe in objectivity, and consequently can't believe in objective morality or ethics, so that's just another way of saying "the nationally-universal cosmically-true Platonic ideal of Good". 
(mentioned in MDem v3: 3-101a_INTRO.txt, 3-101r02_elon.txt)
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}People pushing to get reactionary capitalists out of the corporate social platforms they use can only be labeled direct action; it is charcoal, blue, strawberry, orange, or totally colorless, but specifically building itself into a Gramscian Marxism is not the only possible outcome of it, and not even necessarily the most likely outcome

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}the price society forks over for false emotional reassurance (MDem v3) -> one of the few places where I totally hit the mark in MDem v3 and it carried over into MDem v4 and MDem v5 instead of being nonsense. (v3/ 2-32 "classes")

{{li|I=S2/LR|dimension=F2|Q=618}}The government is against local farmers -> false on a technicality. large farms are [[E:chunk competition (meta-Marxism)|against]] local farmers, and government only [[E:Pillows are not ideologically neutral|emerges out of the substrate of those large corporations]]. whether you consider large farms the same thing as government depends on whether your political-economic analysis is using [[E:early Trotskyism|orange Marxism]] or [[E:Molecular Marxism|violet Marxism]]. but it's violet meta- versions of every Marxism here.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Existentialism leads to nazism / Existentialism leads to fascism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Having everybody equal in the United States means an inferior position for entire populations of people in other countries; the act of making every individual equal to other individuals on paper through philosophy, constitutions, and human rights is illusory because it always takes something away from other individuals out of sight -> this is less in reference to situations like White people vs Black people or gay people vs straight people or neurotypical people vs autistic people than it is in reference to situations like Oklahomans vs Californians or philosophy majors vs or Twitter artists vs Elon Musk. it's about the notion that Existentialist totally flatten class territories and class territory mono-structures in favor of claiming everything is about a cloud of disconnected individuals with no structure and how classes supposedly only exist at all because billionaires are "greedy".

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The existence of greed is a superstition / greed as superstition (motif) / the greed delusion (motif)

{{li|I=Z1/ES|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}The Case Against Education -> tradition unknown. investigate later

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, LR|Q=618}}greedy billionaires colonizing mars / why don't billionaires solve our problems on earth -> I am so fucking sick of this talking point because it achieves absolutely nothing toward stopping billionaires and even leads people in the wrong direction away from stopping them. it's the stupidest fucking thing you can say to say "our problems on earth,,," because guess what, billionaires on mars is a problem on earth. it's the same fucking problem going on on earth that you can never solve because you refuse to understand Materialism. so put your money where your fucking mouth is and tell me what produces billionaires and how you would interrupt the actual creation of billionaires. I bet Existentialists can't do it. I bet they can't stop checking out and focusing their energy on the final results of destructive processes or the metaphysical Ideals that supposedly but not actually start them. 
you know I'm really mad about something when I start talking like Hazbin Hotel. I don't usually do that.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}Autistic men are a different demographic identity from neurotypical men / I never thought I was actually a man until I understood after reading a whole lot of books that I was an {{em|autistic}} man and {{em|autistic}} men can't be identified by the criteria of a group of neurotypical men ->
this is... a lot to unpack. if you take the working hypothesis that gender is a countable culture baked into the brain, then this statement would come across as nonsense on several levels. what's the point of specifically identifying yourself as a man if the more important thing is that you're autistic? how do you know that analyzing gender through animal data is useful if you're still going to analyze everything as personal identities and individual Lived Experiences? isn't there a mild paradox here? the speaker was initially confused about gender due to being too deeply absorbed in his own individual thoughts, but he's solving it with a bunch of personal individual identity talk which is effectively just more of the same thing, so what actually made the difference between the two? 
it's one of the great ironies that like, Existentialists don't want you analyzing identities with science but then the way Existentialism operates through individual actions, it's impossible for Community to actually accommodate all identities, and in order to every be able to leave their house and function in a way that pleases Community people are still stuck analyzing and dissecting the hell out of exactly what they individually are exactly as if it had to be done by science and perhaps more invasively because it doesn't stop at a single journal article about all autistic people, every autistic person has to dissect and probe their own psychology until they know exactly.

{{li|I=M3/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}Does your Black friend have Black friends? / Is the person pointed out as evidence against racism actually interchangeable for the people who would hypothetically be affected by racism? -> many people don't properly explain what the problem with the "Black friends" excuse is. the real problem is that any particular "Black friend" can be a terrible example of the person things are actually supposed to be tested against, or simply not know what other people want. one person simply isn't other people, in general.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}Kanye West with Black friends / Kanye West saying "I have Black friends", to the disgust of other Black people

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">horizontal balancing (meta-Liberalism) / countervailing power (Liberal-republicanism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_power] / checks and balances (Liberal-republicanism) -> Liberal-republicans like to do this supremely annoying thing of claiming that horizontal competition across the area of a country is the one and only way that anything can be regulated or held in check. this is not only untrue but dangerously false, because in real life the things that most want to stop the advance of another thing are the things that most want to eliminate that thing and take over anyway. competition in and of itself is wholly incapable of balancing things, because it asks the precise things that destroy balance to create balance. ask anybody who plays fighting games — you can program characters to be essentially equal despite having different abilities or styles, and you'll see one group of players who plays a particular character manage to find ways to exploit the mechanics to make their character overpowered to the point nobody else is able to find exploits for the other characters fast enough to change the rankings and everybody simply considers that a higher-tier character. competition did that. this is not about what is "fair". whether in the context of Liberal republics or fighting games, the presence of competition means that nothing will ever be fair per se. so, we have to take the question of fairness as separate from the question of balance. but it's hard to argue that competition actually balances anything. most of the time, the longer it runs the more you see things separate out into permanent strata of less powerful and more powerful. the Pokémon designers can design .
 
horizontal balancing + Pokémon types = Arceism. horizontal balancing + The Subject (meta-Marxism) = anarchemistry. anarchemistry + Pokémon types = Arceism. anarchemistry + Legendary Pokémon = Arceism.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">vertical balancing (meta-Marxism) -> this is the concept of sociophilosophies having antagonisms fully inside them that allow for getting rid of improper uses of power. in China this is well known: there are measures to get officials consequences, some of them especially effective carryovers from the feudal era that somehow didn't need much updating, and they operate without having to concentrate people into toxic factions first; majorities of people simply turn against the officials and the system is vertically balanced. 
a lot of people in the United States and Europe seem to like to believe that vertical balancing doesn't exist and the only way to put safeguards into a system is to create artificial horizontal antagonisms at the top layers of the system. in reality this might be one of the worst things you could do to fix a system. United States people generally love to believe that political factions are illusions and the system operates wholly on morality, "reason", and "common sense" where the competition of the representatives will surely determine what is objectively Right and Good and what everyone has to believe. however, it's impossible to do something like expect the elite representatives at one end of the country to balance the other end of the country without actually getting large numbers of people behind every representative and defeated representative such that large numbers of regular people from different ends of the country are all actively fighting each other every time the Congress starts operating; representative democracy fails to ever actually become symbolic or representative, and just turns into an all-out battle where everyone is still fully invested in the outcome and nobody actually gave up responsibility for the outcome to the people they voted for. 
ironically, refusing to divide people into parties like in China is actually a better way to ensure people don't become polarized, that they all align onto a single set of solutions to issues more often, and that the system doesn't actively try to unbalance itself and destroy one geographical section of the population's freedom to protect another part. that feels like a bizarrely charcoal thing to say, like I suddenly believe in "Community" and the notion of Rhizome fixing everything just because people in the same population inherently want to go together. but it's a legitimate, actually-functional part of any number of Third World Marxisms, at least three of them between North Korea, Cuba, and the vaguely shared Deng Xiaoping Thought of China and Vietnam. if charcoal Community is bogus, then crimson Community somehow works for reasons I don't quite understand. blue anarchism is worse than both of them inasmuch as it preaches that division and fighting is inherently good and there can't be freedom without processes that over time promote literal actual illegal extrajudicial murder.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W, MX onto MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramscian hegemony politics has been more effective than North American Maoism / Blue-anarchist hegemony politics has been more effective than North American Maoism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The concept of the "labor aristocracy" allows people to be complacent and keep contributing to imperialism; because it gives no material process of transition, it gives no way to hold people accountable or change their behavior -> I hate hearing this term because it's one of the most ineffective models you could have besides Mark Fisher's. this model makes anarchism look effective. really, meta-Marxist analysis of the effectiveness of this model gives arguments that anarchist schemes to 'improve society by forcefully booting out bad person from slot a million times' have actually been more effective. that's really bad. the more you let anarchism take over things the lower the probability you have of getting a country that is compatible with other countries' Marxisms and that doesn't hate other countries. anarchism is a death spiral that claims to be the most progressive system possible but in practice dismantles everything that acts as a safeguard around imperialism and leads everyone back around to imperialism. it doesn't just take the perfect and throw out the good, it takes Freedom and Human Rights and throws out lack of genocide.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism makes human rights materially exclusive between different chunks of people; this is to suggest that copyright is an almost prototypical example of what capitalism is, a perfect simplified test case, even if not the most representative example of the average "case of capitalism" at any given corporation
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The means of production is the means of producing more raw masses of population, though not necessarily of producing more repeated individuals, because the capitalist means of production specifically produces one chunk of population at the expense of other chunks of population being born -> this is one of the flaws in the Existentialist model of strikes. Existentialists believe strikes are about winning the human rights of an individual many times, because the only reason human beings don't have rights is someone believed they should be taken away, while the actual way capitalism takes them away is to take away the rights of whole chunks of people at a time by giving whole chunks of people those rights exclusively. it's possible to fix the problem incorrectly by giving all the workers at Alice corporation and Bob corporation rights while in the process accidentally taking away the rights of everybody who works at Zhangsan corporation and Iye corporation somewhere else. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_placeholder_names] 
{{film|Drawn Together}} got it half right in the episode about enslaving "China" taking employment away from Vietnam — yeah, in a sense that's {{em|kind of}} how it works. if you look at it on a level of income, people have the right to housing and groceries specifically when and because other people don't have them, so naïvely trying to I-believe-that-everybody your way to magicing people having rights will ultimately result in depriving someone else of rights.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The means of production reproduce the mode / The means of production is the means of producing the mode of production -> sounds circular at first but is very important

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The bourgeoisie are unemployed people who think they can tell the rest of society how to be spatially ordered if they only have enough money -> this is the crux of why Bolshevism hasn't succeeded yet: nobody has figured out the best way to get society to order itself in a relativity-based universe. this is the thing the bourgeoisie actually own. not some means of creating wealth or means of existing as individuals, but the means of ordering the population; the means of production is the means of producing the mode of production. this is why Deng Xiaoping Thought was begrudgingly tolerated while Bolshevism was slammed: Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't own the means of ordering and leaves the bourgeoisie contained in an isolated capitalism to do ordering. the bourgeoisie own relativity. they falsely take credit for relativity. but they didn't invent relativity, the universe did.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">the pirates who don't do anything 
the pirates who don't do anything + Western Marxism = the Communists who don't do anything. 
the pirates who don't do anything + eurocommunism = the Communists who don't do anything.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W, IV, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">the Communists who don't do anything -> the motif of parties or theorists who have a lot to say and spend a lot of time on media outlets or academic circles but really do absolutely nothing anybody can remember. 
you can hit me with this one, I don't even care because I know the reasons are external and they aren't my fault. I'm really doing more than I should be able to do, any "sensible" person in my position would be a reactionary.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The System is when a bunch of businesses have to compete over making exactly the same thing the most skillfully and many newcomers lose the race and go out of business, so all you have to do to get out of The System is step out of that market and make a different incomparable product that thus can make you money without all the stress and expense that comes from competition / category of one (motif; right-Liberalism) / cokegender and pepsigender (motif; meta-Marxism) ->
you may have wondered why I slammed anarchists talking about "The System" so hard on other entries. this is why. a system is just a group of parts. anyone can use it to mean anything, so it empowers the worst definitions to keep spreading around. you can tell you might actually have a useful definition of a problem when somebody gets angry. in the current historical period, when nobody gets angry about your position it's a bad sign. 
also. I just can't believe US people live in a country where both, people widely made fun of trans people and flowery language describing a million "genders" when we also have businesspeople literally going around talking about a "category of one". they're seriously just inventing their own gender flag in different words. I get Cokegender or Pepsigender, you get absolute and utter transphobia. 
oh god it's turning into a B-side before my eyes. like, an r/AmITheAsshole post or something where somebody accidentally failed to use a business's neopronouns and is working through whether that's bad. Existentialists go on about how businesses possess every human right and they almost can't tell the difference between them — "shoot, is my co-worker actually an entire overseas subsidiary?" business in China goes on the news literally as just this weird sculpture of humans producing verbal utterances by moving people around as its lips, and demands to know why Chinese businesses can't vote in the United States yet. "we really are the most oppressed demographic of person. there are only 189 million of us out of a thousand times that. we'll never have adequate representation in the CPC, they always keep giving it to those investor guys or the tiny people, so we should at least get to vote for the president of the United States. we're just asking for what's realistic." the future Republican president from Florida replaces Black history month with business history month where exclusively these weird human sculpture amalgams are the ones talking on PBS.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Molecularization isn't anarchism / "Small-scale social processes existing" should not be labeled anarchism / If anarchists don't want to be responsible for inventing capitalism, they shouldn't claim ownership of every process that is molecularized as part of their own particular theory -> anarchists have a particular way of trying to assert that society always changes one individual making a decision and taking an action at a time. Deleuze and Guattari for instance were weirdly explicit about this, going so far as to suggest that the process of an individual or tiny free-floating indiviudal group of people changing was itself "a revolution" — many tiny revolutions happening consecutively {{em|is}} the big one. it's hard to argue with the notion that this is more or less required to happen for any large-scale process to go through; sure, okay, if one bundle of workers go on strike and one business turns into a state business hundreds of thousands of times you get Bolshevism. the one thing I think it's necessary to push back on is that that localized, molecular-scale process of transition is not inherently "anarchism" or "anarchist". it's just the way any societal transition happens, including a transition from monarchy to capitalism, or historically, a reversion from a republic to monarchy (France had it rough, look it up). I feel like to a great number of self-labeled anarchists, implying "revolutionary anarchists", only charcoal anarchism and maybe orange anarchism are anarchism, and they don't even want to consider blue anarchism their own. so unless you want to say capitalism is literally a form of anarchism right now, today, already, just as much as Peter Kropotkin's charcoal-black anarchism, you really shouldn't call things changing at a small scale one by one "anarchism".

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, MX onto STM, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Climate change is undesirable / Anything that leads to global climate change is universally unethical -> I feel like it's [[E:Ethics is nearly impossible|nearly impossible]] to create an actually objective theory of ethics that isn't so biased it doesn't function to produce ethical outcomes. you can't explain prejudices to people objectively, so you can't treat prejudices as obviously, universally, cosmically bad. one of the only things you can even do to explain ethics to prejudiced people is to appeal to the material consequences of people's actions. this is why you should start out with values like "global climate change is bad" rather than values like "greed is obviously bad" (what is greed? how do you know what greed is? how do you know you got this definition from a reliable source? it's frighteningly easy for somebody to just start saying Black people and Mexicans are greedy for wanting there to be a government, at which point it's easier and better to simply throw away the concept of greed and hyperbolically say that being greedy is impossible because there are different underlying causes that produce the apparent phenomenon of greed).

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gender identity is physically stored as culture; asking where gender identity is in your body is as silly or as sensical a question as asking where nationality is in your body -> it's occurred to me within the past few years. when we try to do brain scans to identify gender, are we literally just dissecting culture? are we effectively trying to look for the biological underpinnings and signals that carry culture? if that were the case, it would actually explain why the brain scans were so inconsistent. some of them would be the same because the same signifier-based cultural content was being stored. some of them would be different because different cultural content was being stored over decades of existence despite people theoretically belonging to the same demographic.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The way to get out of the question of categorizations being defined by scattered clouds of disembodied Platonic Ideals versus objective and potentially "essentialized" definitions of what is inside something versus sheer identity sets of what things are connected to each other is to ask what commonalities are directly exchanged from an existing group of things to its newest members and back / molecularized ontology proposition -> I don't know what the best word or phrase is to describe this concept but I just had such a killer insight right now. whenever people try to define what exactly race is or what exactly gender is or even what exactly jazz music is versus early rock, it's tempting to try to start listing out essentialized characteristics disembodied from anything (especially in the music example, maybe sometimes in the gender example) but those are never what defines the category. if you try to take an arbitrary track from a game soundtrack and tell someone it has all the techniques of a particular genre therefore it belongs to it (I tried this once) people are unlikely to categorize it with detached objectivity based on the essentialized characteristics used to practically create it, and are more likely to categorize it by its console generation or perhaps its game genre. the groups things physically interact with in the actual course of history are critical to their definition as part of a group; things truly belong to identities in the form of physical groups, not to sets of performances or sets of techniques. this is to say that gender identity cannot be objectively defined without reference to whole groups of people of a particular gender as material objects. it is possible to define a dialectical (reterministic) process of new members interacting with an entire group to produce that group, but not to objectively predict what members will be admitted into that group if they never join it at all and there is no information about what will likely happen if they attempt to join it. thus, the reterministic process of group membership can be quantized into the exact Ideals, rituals, and requirements that are exchanged between the group and the new member at the time the new member is added or at the time a member is expelled. 
let me tell you, once you understand this it makes the system of United States Liberal-republican political parties look really, {{em|really}} bad.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gender binaries exist because of the fact membership in a physical group of people is largely binary / Gender binaries exist because in every intra-populational demographic (every demographic subpopulation) which is not hereditary and which requires doing some activity in an ongoing way, membership in a physical group of people usually must be in a binary state of either obtained or not present, and this characteristic of most everyday experiences of demographics is transferred over to gender subpopulations -> if you doubt this... is it possible for people to "sort of" be part of a closed spiritual practice? 
is it possible for people to "sort of" have decided a show was worth watching all the way through to the end and they want to have enough information on it to write fully lore-compliant fan fiction? is it possible for people to "sort of" be a legal citizen of a country? (I mean, normally that would exist, but Donald Trump really doesn't want it to.) is it possible for people to "sort of" be allies of Bolshevism? 
is it possible for people to be "sort of" unemployed, or do they have to be employed within a particular group to not be unemployed? is it possible for people to "sort of" not go to church, or can they only stop not going to church by fully going to church once? is it possible for people to "sort of" never have smoked, or "sort of" quit smoking? is it possible for people to "sort of" have never watched baseball?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is it possible for anyone to "sort of" have never watched baseball to the point it is impossible to select on a census whether they do or do not watch baseball?
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is it possible for anyone to "sort of" not go to church to the point it is impossible to select on a census whether they do or do not go to church? -> I don't think it is. you could say it's possible to "sort of" go to church if you have some standard on what is a little or a lot, but I don't think it's possible to "sort of" {{em|not}} go to church, because there's only really one way to not do something at all. 
now, if you have an essentialized view of what demographics are, it's easy to start splitting hairs on this, and saying that every category must be non-binary because it's possible to take every activity and break it down to infinite shades of doing or not doing, so surely there must be infinite shades of whether somebody actually is a member of a demographic or not. but that is attempting to define demographics solely through the activities and inner life of individuals rather than actually trying to observe the overall population itself in the physical world. this gives rise to strange definitions of demographics like {{censor|Kero}} getting to say he's a furry because he {{censor|actually fucks dogs}} but believes he can be "sort of" connected to the furry fandom with just a bit of belief he is, or Donald Trump getting to say he's a true American because he can be "sort of" connected to any group of United States people he wants to through the ritual of following all the rules to run for president, or , or Trotsky getting to say he was a real member of early Bolshevism because he was "sort of" connected to the Bolshevik party and "sort of" knowledgeable on Leninist theory. there really aren't infinite shades of being a member of something, because at a certain point the people who are most tightly connected to a thing will push back and attempt to create a hard threshold where some people are expelled. 
this also explains why exactly Tories are becoming so toxic as far as what citizens of their countries will be retained or killed. Tories accumulate the "existiest" people who are the best at competing to secure money, businesses, and territory and multiplying all of that on itself. in one sense, the "existiest" people are the most inherently connected to a country, because they gradually monopolize all the activity within that country to the point they're all you can practically think of when you think of it. this enables them to start controlling the threshold of what people are defined as part of the group that is the overall nationality and what people are to be expelled. they operate through the same process as all morality, friendship, standards, culture-based community, and identity formation or liberation, only they use {{em|the very process of defining society and defining what is right}} for violence. Tories very literally misuse society and Community themselves for genocide. you have to fucking [[E:Asocialism (meta-Marxism)|opt out of society and morality and friendship and standards]], if only for a second, to actually break out of their ongoing programming and stop them.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There's only one way to not do something at all / There's only one way to not be part of an optional demographic of people at all
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There are always multiple ways to stop not doing something / There are always multiple ways to stop not being part of an optional demographic of people at all, because whenever there are identifiable groups to join, there are always multiple groups by virtue of identifiable groups being inherently plural -> this is more of an axiom than something I know for sure to be true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Socioeconomic classes are the only reason that Tory and "conservative" mean the same thing

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">the compatible left -> is this the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition's real name? or are there meaningful differences in the definitions of these two things when you set them out objectively? I wonder.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Picasso was a Communist / Pablo Picasso was a Communist ally

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">growing the Yelp community -> it really sticks with me every time I see corporations try to refer to a customer base as "the Yelp community" or "the Reddit community" or "our platform's liminal spaces community" or such. (or in a smaller way, Patreon creators referring to their subscribers as "the BobExampleYoutuber community". or seemingly refusing to stop and dissect the relationship between product creator, fanbase, and "community".) why do they do this? what material factors lead to them doing this? what does it materially achieve? 
one thing I feel is that this is inherently connected to the concept of [[E:blue Communitarian chunks|blue Communitarian chunks]]. I don't fully understand the genesis of these chunks or how common they are or [[E:existential materialism|how they exist day-to-day]] over a 50-year time span where some of them will come and go.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Why didn't people invent meta-Marxism sooner? -> this question haunts me every day. 
one of the only meaningful reasons I can find is that (in the regions it was active) Trotskyism refused to look outside its own local named-Marxist models of the whole world. no other factor I've found has really been satisfying to me as an explanation. "capitalists spread deceptive ideology!" okay, but that doesn't Actually stop people from thinking and one or two meta-Marxist theorists from being produced; if that were true Marxism itself would be impossible. "the CIA cultivated the compatible left!" that doesn't explain why nobody stepped outside the "compatible left" and analyzed how it worked as its own self-contained system.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Bōbobo was created for {{film|Drawn Together}} / Bobobōbo Bōbobo was invented for {{film|Drawn Together}} and whether he is depicted as a contestant in any particular episode all the Bōbobo lore takes place within that metaverse or multiverse; you must disprove this proposition without appealing to any Doylian factors including the release dates of the animated or print cartoons, who directed them, what language they are originally in, or the chapter or episode structure of each show -> this is the kind of question that will get people to actually understand how to reason with people that won't accept facts on {{caps|Covid}} vaccines. this is, in an abstract sense, exactly the kind of reality they live in 
difficulty to refute: trivial / difficulty to falsify: very hard 
I think one of the only solid pieces of evidence you can find on this is the presence or absence of crossover characters as background gags. at a certain point of taking in all the information from each series you start to understand how things are "coded" or ontologically bisimilar — do the background characters very literally represent proprietary characters they couldn't show, or are the appearances and identities of the background characters diegetic? there are episodes where Captain Hero says Superman exists or hints he is a distinct character. the portrayal of shadowy Mickey Mouse also seems like it's supposed to be taken literally as a Disney AU where the same Disney characters exist and actually look different, much like if Kingdom Hearts and Disney cartoons really did take place in the same canon and actual Disney characters could get Nobody'd, not as if Nina Paley is drawing ink pen doglike characters who are new, different people, or like when Freddy Fazbear is on stage in a pizza restaurant but it is conceptually a separate place from Chuck E. Cheese that got worse reviews while both of them were in the phone book.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML / Communist aesthetics" value="618" data-dimension="S2">adults-only comedy for Communists / adult cartoon for Communists -> the motif of a fictional work of some kind that is presented in a writing style similar to Family Guy, Fionna and Cake, Drawn Together, whatever, you have a lot of options, but takes a sudden left turn every time anything about a workers' state or repeated historical process comes up into just saying what's actually true instead of inaccurate old stereotypes, and generally making whatever First World countries are involved look bad

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Depression and adulthood are basically the same thing -> a motif you see in a whole lot of adults-only cartoons or shows as well as their adjacent "cartoons about being 40" like {{book|Garfield}}. 
the most earth-shattering thing you'll probably hear all week is that this motif that is in absolutely everything doesn't have to exist and doesn't have to be unconsciously accepted by everyone in a workers' state, and it doesn't take something as full-on stubborn as anarchism to get rid of it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">LLMs are bad because they codify concepts and signifiers into numbered countable objects for someone's use as a tool but only a few people can have the sea of numbered signifiers for [[E:chunk competition (meta-Marxism)|producing and expanding over everybody violently]] rather than the sea of signifiers being created back and forth together in a communal social way by Commu-nity which is inherently nonviolent and nice and not destructive (rather than signifiers being audited; derived blue-anarchist proposition) -> the way normal people would probably describe this project. I'm so tired of people thinking [[E:anarchemistry|Community inherently regulates chunk competition]], but I'm a meta-Marxist, so I'm obligated to recognize all [[E:sociophilosophy (meta-Marxism)|forms of logical reasoning which physical societies use to describe themselves]].

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wooldoor Sockbat has inadequate lore / Wooldoor has inadequate lore (abbreviated; {{film|Drawn Together}}) -> I confess that sometimes I like to make propositions because a particular string of words is hilarious to say out loud. 
this is the claim that while Spongebob is pretty well thought out, it's all coherent and world-built — or for that matter, the Spyro games pass at least the minimum bar on that, when Tom Kenny voice acted them too — there is vaguely something lost in the transition from having what is a very themed character to a character that is literally in some scenes set up as unspecific. it's arguable the specificity is a big part of what defines what Spongebob is. and really the problem is not that Wooldoor looks bad visually or cannot have a good concept but just that his setting is not really very set up. you think about Hazbin Hotel / Helluva Boss and even if those shows are bad they do worldbuild their supernatural settings. I expected something kind of vaguely like those shows or The Good Place because like he looks like some kind of angel-demon or something. maybe he's actually supposed to be more of like, a fever dream or this world that fundamentally doesn't make sense. but whatever he's supposed to be, that should have been established better at every moment he's being characterized. you can tell what Xandir is supposed to be and what his setting is, or Captain Hero, or Foxxy I guess. that's approximately what all the characters should have. 
ok, honestly, I think they dropped the ball on both Wooldoor and Toot. Ling-Ling's story is like, sloppy, but if you've watched one episode of Pokémon you know what's going on, so I'll let that slide. And Spanky Ham might be the only character that could get by without any lore whatsoever, he just makes dumb poop jokes so what does it matter.
(although to be quite honest an episode about Spanky unexpectedly having lore and it not being more lowest-tier internet jokes but it being the only Serious episode that effectively loss.JPGs him with some kind of Actually Interesting "start of MLP season" plot and unlike loss actually succeeds at it would be legitimately funny. it would probably have a bunch of stupid imagery like toilets or whatever is offensive tossed over the visuals like a South Park plot but, you know, that doesn't necessarily ruin it. like oh my god do a Pokémon OVA type plot but it centers around Spanky Ham maybe with Ling-Ling along for the ride so people get the hint and make it actually better than most of the episodes but then wedge it in the middle of the show on a random two-parter episode and like that would be the best episode because of all those decisions taken together.)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wooldoor Sockbat does not die (cannot be killed) / Wooldoor has plot armor, as applying to an episodic sitcom -> he died at least twice or three times and there were no consequences.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wooldoor Sockbat can only die if he is killed in a major historical event -> so, there's this episode where the show actually tries to give Wooldoor lore, and they go the disturbing route of trying to detail a "Sockbat genocide". I'm neutral about that plot point; history is dark sometimes. but I find it a little strange that in this particular cartoon setting some characters can die permanently by being killed and some characters are basically unkillable. you don't really introduce a contradiction when characters die of old age, because that isn't the same thing as being killed. but if characters that are logically supposed to be unkillable get killed things get confusing.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every election is a repeated revolution -> this sounds stupid when you first hear a Liberal-republican say it, but then it takes on a whole new meaning when you start imagining it applying to Deng Xiaoping Thought. then you stop and go, oh... oh wait. maybe it is true. maybe it really is the case that republics are continuous processes that continuously create themselves over and over, and the key to getting to new stages is to actively stop realizing that specific process while actively beginning a new one.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Black people were conquered into the population of the United States on rationale of stopping as many human individuals as possible from being violent or destroying parts of society (houses, corporations, etc), then Black people were colonized -> this is a somewhat uniquely anarchist model of what "colonialism" is. look closely at how often anarchists claim it's unnecessary to put people into nation-states and how rarely anyone else says that. between Liberal-republicans, right-Liberals who insist that a State actually is necessary to have businesses, and Bolshevism holding that republican States are needed until people stop harmfully diffusing over the top of each other and simply stay in populational layouts naturally without being told to, the concept that populations are conquered into populations {{em|as individuals}} is not really a common one. 
the context of this statement changes entirely when you talk about Native Americans / American Indians because you can argue materially that there was a process of assimilating individuals one by one. this doesn't apply to that. this applies to the concept that basically Reconstruction was immoral to Black people rather than arguing it was immoral to Confederates. personally... this issue is very complicated but my intuition right now is you can't win that argument.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Black people were stolen as a population and tossed into the United States then Black people were colonized -> this one seems more reasonable at least if you're standing on the 1600s. I think the status of United States populations actually changed over the decades and their relationships are different by now, although I couldn't fully tell you what they currently are.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In practice, the word {{i|colonialism}} doesn't really mean anything; it has too many precise definitions by different groups of people to be useful ({{i|colonized}}; {{i|colonization}}; {{i|decolonization}})

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If two kingdoms are warring for decades, one of them is justified to conquer the other to stop the wars -> in a time before Liberal-republicanism it's reasonably easy to argue that this is true, but if it's true even at that time, then it implies Kantianism is very medieval in its insistence that the people who rightfully belong to a country are whoever is committing violence on a group of people that agree to be part of a State, rather than people who want to be horizontally associated. 
god, yeah, this was my problem with Dragon Ball. that the people of earth trying to assimilate Vegeta, even after he doesn't have any subjects and isn't really a prince any more, just because they should have the right to stop him doing violence or tracking in mud doesn't really make any sense. when you realize that his own reasoning processes and needs as a different species... {{em|would not}} be respected might be the best way to put it, it's not really like he typically makes good decisions after all, the whole idea of Sun Wukong scrambling to protect his population from outside invaders suddenly makes a lot more sense, when it shouldn't have made sense. Dragon Ball turning everything Materialist in its attempt to make things modern reveals a number of uncomfortable truths about real feudal orders and transitions out of them. wow, it's almost like the reason kings cling on to the power to conquer people and put them under questionable laws is actually to prevent a nation of people from getting forcefully assimilated into another one in a time when nobody can actually control the passive reproduction and expansion of countable cultures. it's almost like Europeans came to the New World half expecting that American Indians would have a king and a line of knights or gunmen if they didn't want to be conquered, because that was the only way to establish consent to be under a government in medieval Europe. it's almost like Kamehameha actually kind of knew general-sense historical materialism. 
it's almost like Kant and Rousseau just flat-out lied about what consent to be under a national government is (intentionally or unintentionally lied, I'm doing hyperbole because extending the reach of words is fun) because they hadn't actually gotten out of medieval thinking. and I think we've been paying the price for that in people believing that nation-states are illegitimate and it's better to be an anarchist.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">direct oppression (meta-Marxism) -> thought today: "for every act of direct action by charcoal anarchists, there are several acts of direct oppression that came before it. how do you stop people from spontaneously starting over on committing direct oppression again and undoing the whole thing?" 
direct oppression is the concept of people making spontaneous individual actions that are able to oppress people without the use of formal government or even coherent social structures. this is one of the things that causes people to invent the concept of 'overcoming the Spanishness Office'. arguably, it's one of the biggest obstacles to anarchism ever succeeding; no matter how deep you try to extend the concept of 'purging the world of domination' (sounds like something you'd hear villains say on a [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Team_Rocket_Motto Pokémon cartoon]) you never get so deep that external individuals are fully within your grasp and you can control everything that they want and are; the 'anti-totalitarian principle' of anarchism kind of basically makes anarchism realize it's bad under its own principles and [[E:Idealism forbids itself|forbid itself]]. there's no easy way to draw a line between direct action and direct oppression, because materially they operate on the same principles. the false belief that you actually can is part of what's caused Gramscianism to accidentally re-spawn in the United States after all Marxisms were eradicated. Marxism is fundamentally being generated out of disunited individual action rather than any structure or strategy that truly unites people, and most people are not prepared to work with those drastically different conditions and analyze them — even Althusser and Western-Marxists don't really get it because they are trying to act like ideology is collectively rained down on people when there really isn't anything collective, even mass media is narrowcasted and interpreted individually by each person, and not actually collective in the way they believe. basically to give a crude summary I think you need to look at the physical emergent effects like a cloud of people attempting "direct action" and regenerating Gramscianism before you look at what's generating them, because if you don't start from the effects you discard the wrong information and get the causes wrong

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="A onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every single ideology that completely succeeds ends in an anarchism of the same color that particular ideology is / Trotskyism ends in orange anarchism / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism ends in crimson anarchism / Liberal-republicanism ends in blue anarchism / Deng Xiaoping Thought, if considered a strawberry ideology, ends in strawberry anarchism / Western-Marxism, if considered a strawberry ideology, ends in strawberry anarchism / A hypothetical statist charcoal ideology would end in charcoal anarchism -> I think this is what an actual anarchist might agree to if they fully understood meta-Marxism. some of them would insist that no ideology can actually complete except charcoal ideologies, or some of them might say that everything turns into charcoal anarchism. but the ones that actually understand the material conditions of the Soviet Union would say this, and that everybody needs to {{em|accept}} the notion of most of the characteristics of their chosen sociophilosophy falling away and it turning into an anarchism

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">crimson anarchism / anarcho-Maoism is just Maoism -> the concept that something can be an anarchism despite perfectly conforming to the history and society models of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. this set of criteria would almost exclusively apply to the concept of upper-phase communism being considered a form of anarchism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S">wave machine rock-paper-scissors / wave machine rock-paper-scissors game -> the idea here is simple. you start with a basic wave machine that can take concepts and combine them, and attempts to guess unspecified results from the characteristics of the concepts inside each concept. then you add a second layer of rock-paper-scissors strengths to all the concepts, which again inherits from the concepts inside a concept unless corrected. then you just kinda look at it go, and hilarity ensues 
mainstream Marxism-Leninism is weak against Trotskyist direct action; Trotskyism is weak against anarchist direct action; anarchism is weak against the continuous realization of Toryism; Toryism is weak against atheism

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">Liberal-republicanism is just a bunch of individuals who wake up and individually decide to Dominate each other; this implies that if everyone spontaneously individually decided not to Dominate each other, things would change

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Abolishing hierarchy naturally results in approximate equality of wealth and power -> oh boy the Arceism is strong. see, my problem with this is that you haven't defined hierarchy clearly enough for this to be true. you've defined hierarchy super muddily as this vague 'domination' {{em|thing}}. where various abstract concepts of prejudice like misogyny, homophobia, racial prejudice, ableism, and The Colonizer Attitude are examples of domination and examples of hierarchy. none of these are material definitions that actually explain where the levers of power come from or how to stop them. none of these definitions explain what structures are in place now and what structures you're supposed to turn them into to practically result in a population of approximately equal people and the dissolution of old forms of power. Bolshevism can explain that: the gaps between corporations are a lever of power, you take away the gaps and make them into a mono-structure, the antagonisms between countries to fill each other with neocolonialism are a lever of power, you put a central party around the country to defend it, and these two old forms of power are gone, even if there is a new form of power. then you look at the new levers of power, and you transform those into a new structure. rifts in the Soviet Union splitting it into two parties are one lever of power. remaining antagonisms from other countries or mountains-of-capital or axes of countries that don't want to believe capital exists and are convinced they're just nice little circles of friends that beat up on other individual countries are another lever of power; that one's hard to face but at least it's materially defined. where are the material definitions inside anarchism?

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ukraine was almost freed from Communism (historical claim) -> this.... doesn't sound {{censor|fucking}} correct. for one, this would contradict against the popular claim that the Soviet Union not fully occupying Poland was a form of cooperating with Nazi Germany rather than just a matter of buying time and avoiding confrontation. it should be much better known by now than it is that Communist parties stretch over their home regions almost specifically to defend them from external military attacks; that's a major reason Deng Xiaoping Thought hasn't failed despite everything. if you oppose Bolshevism then you get the crudest systems that cover only the most basic needs and maintain potentially harsh authority over people for the sake of guarding that minimal set of needs, where one of the most basic non-negotiable needs populations have is surviving or avoiding war and disconnection attacks on the whole population to deny every kind of aid.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If under attack, an anarchism might defend itself with strategic guerilla war -> finally, the first real claim I've ever seen about what an anarchist border looks like. this is.... interesting. I can imagine it happening. I can actually imagine the North Korea or Vietnam moment for anarchism. you have the caveat to get past that if your society is built on free association, people can just all drain out of it and say they don't feel like defending it any more and they want to be wherever there's food and safety — the "bluing" of anarchism, just like the "orangeing" or "strawberrying" of Marxism. but if that ceases to be a problem for some reason and you make it to the day people are going to fight, okay. I think the biggest problem with this claim is actually just the possibility that somebody could fit 90% of the characteristics of anarchism and be an anarcho-Tory, and then you'd get one of these guerilla wars where Tories are defending their sundown towns and telling you to just leave them alone. though it's rare, whole populations of people can be bigoted at once, especially when the population is small. that's the one thing that anarchism genuinely doesn't have an answer to as far as I know.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People who move to the Second World have disgracefully strawberried anarchism (derived anarchist claim) -> here "strawberried" is a verb meaning "to desert a revolution to move to a place of safety underneath imperialist armies etc". I sort of get this impression from real anarchist writings but, it doesn't make logical sense to me with the idea that freedom of association and voluntary participation are core values. to a (meta-)Marxist, the notion of people compromising on their values and leaving to survive being a historical process that can happen to Marxist states and anarchist societies in different ways makes a lot of sense. but is there any way for anarchists to meaningfully construct that within their own theories? 
I guess logically they're going to somehow try to claim that if you literally side with imperialism that as an individual you are standing behind figures of "domination" and that in particular is the bad thing to do. but there my main problem is, so why don't anarchists think Trotsky siding with Liberal-republican countries was a bad thing? those are the loci of Domination. he sided with them. why isn't it logically better {{em|within anarchism}} if Trotsky commits to staying in the Soviet Union but somehow building Trotskyism, and thus not aiding Domination? the facts are on the table. even if you hate historical materialism and seeing countries as countable objects the facts are still right there on the table that having Trotskyism-in-one-country would be less bad than trying to push for anarchism at all costs but never getting it and only actually getting Domination and death.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fan game development is an anarchist secret operation -> this proposition is for the purpose of discussions on whether to disallow linking to fan game project pages under the project rule that anarchist secret operations shouldn't be documented. I feel like linking YouTube videos of fan games is probably okay but I am unclear whether linking project pages or wikis or basically first-hand sources is bad.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every human activity which is illegal is unspeakable -> if you think this isn't true, think about what emotion you feel when you hear something is currently illegal in a Communist country even for a temporary time and re-evaluate what you already believe "regulating" things does to them. 
this doesn't have a lot of direct applicability to most issues in the United States — homosexuality being one of the really notable exceptions. what it's actually useful for is probing larger discussions around whether Kantianism and Liberal-republicanism actually make any sense.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every human activity which is not productized is violent -> don't let people get away with talking about "originality" and "plagiarism" and "integrity" and "infringement" casually. hiding under all that is a really nasty claim that every act of creating art that doesn't become a business and turn the creator into a business owner must be destroying society.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism is an attempt to improperly carry out Deng Xiaoping processes on individuals rather than countries -> this sounds insane but follow along with me. Deng Xiaoping processes involve materially defending a populational border by filling up a population with businesses and extensive party structure as solidly as possible, so that it can't be taken over by filling it up with foreign businesses nor upset by installing individual foreign officials. escape-route Existentialism, where supposedly everyone gains Freedom from all the connections between things shifting around and changing constantly, believes that drawing a firm territory line around every individual and saying it can never be crossed is the way to peace in much the way that China becoming impregnable against outside attacks is the way to peace. there is one big problem with this: the supposed firm boundaries are terribly, horribly unstable. they can crumble at any moment, they can fail to protect individuals at any moment, chunk competition can resume at any moment. Deng Xiaoping Thought and post-structuralist Existentialism are both attempts at ending chunk competition of a very specific type — the chunk competition between nations and the chunk competition between individuals respectively — but their effectiveness at their task is wildly different. the former has been relatively successful, the latter has been a disaster.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communist aesthetics / Communist propaganda (arts) / proletarian culture (in terms of art styles and art movements) -> this is the ideology code for Items I've marked crimson just for their outward flavor. it applies most prototypically to like, the paintings of workers facing a bright future that were put up historically in various countries. so, there's an actual logic behind Items belonging to this ideology code. in my opinion, things that don't understand the actual reasoning behind these kinds of art or slogans and simply try to appropriate them don't belong under this ideology code, and instead belong under the brown swatch or such.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="STM onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ender's Game but for Communists / simulation presented as arcade game or training tool which actually turns out to be a useful simulation that helped a country win some kind of revolution or in any event solve some very difficult challenge of social transition -> aside from being a really funny image, this is kind of what I hope my [[:Category:Wavebuilder|silly combination game / math experiment]] turns into. Ender's Game except it's a building game rather than really being violent, and on the other side of the game is a workers' state that it accidentally yet intentionally built.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In the 2020s, class consciousness includes identifying when countries are already in a form of anarchism -> anarchism totally muddles everything up once it starts realizing. to understand class processes {{em|at all}}, {{em|whatsoever}} any more, it's pretty much necessary to study the actual on-the-ground structure of the full set of people who believes anarchism and look at how that cloud of people is materially behaving and predicted to behave

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What mode of production does the People's Republic of China have? -> you know meta-Marxism is getting serious when it steps out of making up new terms to describe observations phenomenologically and actually starts using the correct words and making new claims about what they practically mean in the real world.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A mode of production contains a particular economic base / A mode of production is wholly or partially composed of a particular economic base -> setting down some clear definitions of concepts whether the concepts themselves might be a bit vague.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A mode of production is partly defined by how new people are integrated into a population after birth or migration -> this wasn't necessary to point out in the time of Marx, but when critical theory has taken over and tried to replace Marxism and made everything about "prejudice" while a bunch of other people are trying to stop new developments for the purpose of stopping 'prejudice' and 'greed', it's now critical to inform everybody that far from "empathy" coming naturally, one of the only factors keeping people everywhere from being wildly "prejudiced" at the drop of a hat is the ability to put people into a capitalist structure of workers or businesses. abolish capitalism naïvely and like, no women will have jobs any more and White people will start claiming that because their small, local "Commmunity" is already complete there's no space left over for Black people or Mexicans. there's a decent argument that one of the major mistakes of the Soviet Union was taking away swaths of corporate development or development into cities that people ideologically believed to be excessive and in need of regulation and bam, suddenly everything got worse for women because with little exaggeration cities were the only thing making it better.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK, ES, LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">Kantianization / Kantianizing (parallel to "Zinovievizing") -> a generalized process where a bunch of people attempting to form a countable culture all get together and form a State that they [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)|leap over]] anybody somehow captured into the same population with them. may be considered synonymous with [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)|democulture]], or just a subcategory of possible kinds of democulture.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism formalizes the concept of Kantianization; they are actually the same concept
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism molecularizes the concept of Kantianization; they are different concepts because one is genuinely more elaborate

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Noam Chomsky is a Trotskyist
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Noam Chomsky is an anarchist -> I've heard both of these now and I don't know what {{censor|the fuck}} is true. is he an orange anarchist? is that what you're telling me?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If wages rise, corporations cut each worker down to a small number of hours to avoid having to pay health insurance or paid sick time, and occasionally threaten to fire people -> this is interesting. there seem to be a number of interactions between different scales going on here. I might have to come back to this. the thing that stands out at me the most is, it's like although [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketism]] is supposed to benefit tiny businesses it's like really big businesses equally benefit from it and are using it to become lethal and untouchable.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX, ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The point of working at businesses is so public facilities don't close -> whenever you ask me to explain how society works I have always had these kind of quintessentially Communist definitions of society. I see things very structurally. the idea that people could genuinely think that town social structures are an accidental artifact of individuals accumulating wealth in order to live and that making money was a definition of living was shocking and alien to me.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cuba cannot buy anything that has 10% U.S. made parts / Cuba cannot buy anything that has 25% U.S. made parts {{YouTube|1ykeYsIRqKQ}} -> this gets more sinister when you realize that capitalist allies gloat about everything including pencils being made across multiple countries.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Almost every country on earth voted to end the blockade of Cuba / 165/172 countries voted to end the blockade of Cuba {{YouTube|1ykeYsIRqKQ}} [https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/11/03/embargo-blockade-cuba-un-vote/]

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="UM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">During the Great Leap Forward the United States hit China with sanctions, causing a "Communism No Food" scenario -> I don't have facts on this currently but even so it already sounds uncannily like something that could have happened.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="UM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=Bricks|BRICS}} has already failed

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The threat of the United States putting other countries under siege will surely be gone if a whole bunch of countries just connect to each other and excise the United States -> this has happened so many times in history and now, even though we have all the technology and education to realize that Filamentism/marketism is the actual problem and this very statement is self-contradictory, I swear people have learned nothing.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Venezuela can't help Cuba because the United States stole the oil tankers {{YouTube|1ykeYsIRqKQ}} -> my first question hearing about "Cuba embargo level 2" was why Venezuela couldn't help if generally it had almost nothing but oil. the actual answer is crazy. the United States has {{censor|fucking}} privateers and if you want to help Cuba it's coming down to {{censor|fucking}} sea battles

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, W, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">scattered-loci-of-capital repression / scattered-locuses-of-capital repression, as opposed to capital-having-generated-a-state doing repression / "[even on campuses] ... shouldn’t we always expect the ruling class to use repression" [https://jacobin.com/2025/10/palestine-gaza-solidarity-us-strategy] -> one of the most Marxist utterances to come out of Jacobin in a while. that weird little nexus of theories where anarchists, Gramscians, Marxist-Leninists, and meta-Marxism are all unified

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="UM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Most [U.S. people] are horrified by Israel's actions but don't yet understand Palestine primarily through the lens of Zionism" (2025) [https://jacobin.com/2025/10/palestine-gaza-solidarity-us-strategy] -> this... seems like a claim that's testable against observational evidence. I don't know if it's true but when it's been a year since this article I think it's testable.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES / Liberal-republican morality" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. people can be persuaded to put money going to Israel into schools and health care [https://jacobin.com/2025/10/palestine-gaza-solidarity-us-strategy] -> uh... now this is going to sound terrible, but I genuinely don't think that would work. people are absolutely racist as hell and the overall United States populace genuinely hates funding schools and funding Medicare at all out of fear that Black people or Latinos will have it; I feel like whenever people try to fund those things it just gets taken out by Tories and put back into bombs. so, cynical as this is, I feel like if you truly want to save Palestine, especially with a "broad coalition" or a "united front", and that's one of your top priorities ever, you really have to metagame this. propose something utterly insane like handing everyone a dividend that in all likelihood is going to only pay rent for a lot of people and probably end up withheld from minorities somehow, basically improving the lives of privileged White people. that's something people would probably eat up. especially if you handed it out to each state and said states could choose to put the money into school vouchers or whatever they want that isn't weapons (so, no handing it to police or ICE). put the money into school vouchers, business subsidies, Media Representation art grants, nuclear power plants, or baseball, but not federal schools or healthcare or housing or anything that makes people think "that's a Black people thing so it can't be federal". subsidize thrift stores; pay for a bunch of textbooks to properly teach kids phonics as long as they aren't purely in state schools and are also being shipped to libraries and general retailers; pay hospitals directly to hire more staff; do absolutely anything but federally-based old-style Menshevism. you kind of have to backwards wall jump off people's prejudices to where the prejudices themselves accidentally do good. the Palestine conflict has me really tired because you really do need an absolutely {{em|stupid}}-sounding plan like this to win it. you need to basically slash the federal budget and set up a generic cash flow from federal government into states and when they get the money let the states vote on what all the government programs will be within their state plus other states that vote for the same thing, but refuse to let them vote for lower taxes and destroy the programs-fund under harsh penalties of basically like suing the top 5% of the state population in court for the taxes it owes and doing whatever bad things happen to you if you ignore a lawsuit, until people actually settle onto what programs they truly wanted when they were mad at the federal government making the wrong ones. it's like... I kind of don't think Menshevism has mass support any more, I think if you want a 'mass Socialist movement' with broad support across the population you really need to think in terms of orange anarchism, where it's all based on the idea of getting mad at the federal government and axing it as much as possible. it's pretty damn popular to hear rhetoric that basically The Government is broken but only small businesses in particular are the people and the Democracy and are oppressed. people everywhere absolutely love the idea of Our Democracy empowering a sea of Free Wills when people vote, but they hate the idea of federal taxes, so I think what would actually be popular is transitioning from a federal budget model to a model where all that budget is divided into states and you just {{em|hope}} they work together to build the same nationwide programs. it would be a mess, but you didn't say you primarily wanted to transition the United States to a better system or make people any less racist before taking immediate action on international issues, you said you primarily wanted to take money away from arming Israel. so that's the bed you'd have to sleep in. so, are you {{em|sure}} "we need to work with people we don't agree with on everything" and "we can't afford to be ultraleft" from orange anarchism?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" value="618" data-dimension="S">Kant and free will as noumenon -> second critique

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IV, MX onto Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S">denounced as ultraleftist by Zinoviev / denounced as an ultra-leftist by Zinoviev -> knowing how shaky early Trotskyists were on actually understanding Lenin's theories, this has to be one of the sickest burns in the history of Marxism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To defeat Toryism, aid Cuba / One of the best ways to defeat anticommunism is simply to make sure Cuba survives and remains functional despite [[E:marketist mode of production|marketist]] disconnection attacks — most organizations who are not connected to Cuba probably benefit more from being connected to Cuba and refusing to stop sending things there and to other allies of Cuba regardless of the penalty than they do from being connected to their own abusive First-World republics -> some of the most effective movements are movements the size of a whole national population which are not broken up by fractures inside individual countries. theoretically one unbroken country plus other populations should be even more effective, although this is often undermined by the external populations fracturing in or between themselves. as for Cuba, it's been shown time and time again that the measurement of a society's success is the ability to survive the

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, PT" value="618" data-dimension="Z">second Cuba embargo (United States) / Cuba embargo level 2

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Center-Liberals don't actually believe in realizing the capitalist mode of production, they believe in realizing the [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketist mode of production]]; this is why so many people simultaneously go on and on about "capitalism" as if it's synonymous with neoliberalism or "greed" and is only an "extreme", but somehow accept the term "capitalism" and believe in "Socialism" and 'getting rid of billionaires'; these apparent class expressions are not good omens, and actually suggest that people everywhere are unifying onto making everyone into Filaments of small businesses arbitrarily linked together by countable cultures, Kantian or Lacanian visions of ethics, in-groups versus social drama and fractures, and the mysterious, nebulous historical force of "Community"

</li><li {{IS2/IV/class}} value="618">Trotskyism and Kant -> what exactly do Trotskyists think of Kant? do they try to claim he's correct because they often think of borders as fake, or is absorbing traditional philosophy only a thing Western-Marxists do?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dissension and strife do not inhere in man and society [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952369] -> sounds great but the problem is that man are not singular and society are not singular.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Goku is utopia as a person / Goku is the human version of a utopia (sic) / A utopia is a hypothetical place that is so much not like any actual place that it is not a place; a mythical hero is a hypothetical person that is so much not like any actual person that they are not a person

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All republics are created because a population of people is oppressed -> this seems to hold broadly true for Liberal-republicanism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping states, if you consider the ongoing threat of countries being turned into neocolonies. 
the really shocking part is this: it rather neatly explains why morality is incapable of truly creating a progressive movement and improving Liberal-republicanism further. a bunch of people can congregate around morality and try to assert that they are uniquely oppressed and that means they get to put a president over the population and rule it and enforce Kantianism over it to get rid of [[E:domination (critical theory)|Domination]]. but in practice, if you build your whole philosophy off everybody being The Subject and basically being the same and Liberal-republicanism working "because we all suffer and all have empathy", there is never any actual leverage for one political party to be preferred as the group of oppressed people who forms a republic to protect against its surroundings, and materially speaking there can't actually be any objective morally-correct side or "right side of history". you can say a bunch of rhetoric about needing to get everybody to vote to "create a republic" to protect Black people and Latinos, but practically speaking everybody in the population has been raised with an ideology that seeks to eliminate the existence of the proletariat and squash everybody into a Careerist or small owner, and once that has been going on for generations, everybody basically has the same standing in terms of who can form a republic-per-se to protect people; everything looks exactly the same and everything turns to mush, nothing able to stand up as a new physical object and become distinct. you can try to assert that Kantianism is a basis for Normal People to group together and form a republic to protect against Abnormal People, but that's about all you can do, make some inherently prejudiced statement about who belongs to a superior or inferior culture and what dangerous cultures have to be conquered.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communists will solve quantum gravity -> it sounds like a joke but the reasons nobody has figured out quantum gravity are similar to the reasons most people don't accept Marxism and haven't put it into practice.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S">gravity Trotskyists -> motif Items are actually meant to be able to be really fine-grained. I just haven't been doing that so far because it makes it harder to get them all organized than if I stuck to things that seem "important".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">functions are apples being equal / gravity is gravitons being equal / people oversimplifying other disciplines the same way they oversimplify Marxism -> this is just a splendid comedy sketch waiting to happen. 
{{i|ethics doesn't work. you really think you can make all people have exactly the same values and behave exactly the same??}} 
{{i|mathematical functions? do you really think you can find the area under a sine wave with just two plus two?}} 
{{i|quantum gravity? oh, like, apples falling to the earth, but smaller? I have no idea how you'd ever pull off a theory of that. like, all the cells in the apple are basically the same, so how can there ever be differing amounts of gravity? how are there even different-sized objects like an apple and the earth in the first place? quantum physics says when you go really small there are just quarks and photons and Higgs bosons and everything is just the same. how do you ever get variety and atoms and different clumps of mass out of that? why isn't the universe just a bunch of identical red apples with identical amounts of gravity?? when I was back in college hanging out with feminists I was considering the idea of gravity but as soon as I found out about quantum gravity and all the ridiculous assertions you had to make at the smallest levels to put together a transition from things being in one place to things accelerating into each other I started to realize that gravity doesn't actually work.}} 
gosh I love the gravity one. who are the gravity Trotskyists though, is the question. wait, no, I know. those are the people who decide to claim that gravity still works because you just have to stick to Newtonian gravity, the original stuff that Newton wrote; we nearly lost physics because Einstein screwed everything up. also the string theory bureaucracy is still busy ruining it, we could totally explain gravity to people because we totally definitely understand how to teach it if those selfish string theorists would just stop gatekeeping everybody else trying to come into academia and solve the same problems better. (that last part is based on Trotskyists complaining that they're not effective enough to overcome labor union bureaucracies. it's funny because the same problem really is at play in both cases, if Trotskyists really understood how to unify workers together into a body of people capable of permanent revolution instead of every collection of 10-20 workers periodically scattering and losing all their relationships just to find a new place to be because corporations are constantly collapsing or unpredictably losing ground to each other, then at a certain point booting out the 'labor union bureaucracy' would be no problem for them. the real problem is basically just that Bolshevism could handle that unpredictability and carve things up a little more predictably or at least re-assign people, but when a country isn't unified there's kind of a continuous negative feedback loop where the division keeps scattering society keeps scattering society and like, you really just need an actual rupturing process where things suddenly go from a negative feedback loop of scattering to a positive feedback loop of unification.)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Similarities between the Russian Revolution and East Germany reveal the functional purpose of Bolshevism
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Similarities between BlackPantherism and East Germany reveal the functional purpose of Bolshevism -> it's a little... "interesting" how if you want to teach a bunch of White people about imperialism you can't really put two non-White populations in the same comparison like BlackPantherism and North Korea, or you'll get a few strawberry anarchists with Black friends absolutely convinced that the chief commonality is getting mad at White people and having racial animosity for the sake of racial animosity (substitute 'White' for 'British-French-German axis of people' or 'Japanese people' as appropriate), rather than looking at the situation honestly and seeing it as a small population of people trying to survive against a large aggressive population of people. people really easily look at the presence of separate racialized populations and race relations being a topic at all and contort it in their minds into 'people actually being racist'. so you almost need to have a population full of White people in there such as East Germany or Soviet Russia just to show that a given process of transition to Bolshevism isn't actually predicated on the concept of race relations or populations being racialized.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Similarities between BlackPantherism and Deng Xiaoping Thought reveal the functional purpose of Deng Xiaoping Thought

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Christian nationalism and Christian "{{abbr|tts=Ideological State Apparatuses|ISAs}}" don't {{em|cause}} Toryism and fascism, they come into being out of a country's obsession with individual morality and I-believing-everybody into the same code of behavior -> this is the next level of Marxism. level 1 is realizing that all philosophies and ideologies emanate from, or at least develop while locked inside and restricted by, the material arrangements of people into economic base [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|elements]] and modes of production. level 2 is realizing that current modes of production don't directly generate ideologies themselves, and speculating on how exactly new or different ideologies can emerge through methods like social graphs (Toryism), the over-application of ethics to all behavior (Existentialism / blue anarchisms), fractures in large populations (Trotskyism), improper joining of populations (postcolonial anarchisms / transition of tribes to tribal society), and the desire of a lot of totally fragmented people with no state to protect them from state violence to form a single nation-state or federation with an actual presence of laws and which actually functions together more than they want 'freedom' from each other (Bolshevism). any particular sociophilosophy operates on class structures inside it, but it isn't necessarily classes that start the ball rolling on what will ultimately be a class-based process. why do some members of the same class join together to consider a new system at any given moment while some don't? that's one of the most critical parts of the process, and class analysis can't really explain it. in my mind, exmat does finally explain it. it's the whole sum of people joining together that does anything, not individuals, not even small islands of individuals. as the islands get bigger the whole Lattice structure begins to spread knowledge about itself across itself and start trying to build accurate models of its own development and physics in order to predict the best ways for it to form fully and thus win. the capable proletarian subpopulation or proletarian Lattice never fully turns into a person but it does gain a very minimal ability to pilot its body almost like a person does only if it has collectively created and spread a map of itself. in a sense, a proletarian Lattice is several times smarter than ChatGPT. it is an inanimate object that contains an ontology of things, mainly of itself, but is actually able to act on that and respond to events based on that in a reasonable amount of time.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">center-Toryism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Homeostasis generates Idealism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The purpose of labor is to manufacture more class territories in order to turn everyone into small owners -> I like works written in irony as nickels more than unironic examples [https://archiveofourown.org/works/43773657]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Hero and villain are physical categories that materially emerge out of the stream of history; the state of being Good or Evil, Right or Wrong, is a physical process in and of itself which can be computed without human consciousnesses; this implies but does not guarantee that an actor's moral position can be calculated with a mathematical equation -> what absolutely everyone seems to believe, with a slight twist. this is what I imagine would be produced if somebody found out about exmat but didn't want to believe it could be used to invalidate [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|blue anarchism]] and tried to co-opt it into being an [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] concept. trying to turn morality into a Materialist mathematical equation in order to still get away with it in a world where philosophers are increasingly secular and physics-based.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">An LLM is a philosophical zombie -> LLMs are one of the first machines that can kind of pass a Turing test by fairly closely replicating one specific kind of human behavior, but they replicate that behavior without having any inner experience. philosophical zombies have finally been realized.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Roll a square number with square root dice / A die roll from 1 to a square number can be substituted for two die rolls of horizontal and vertical coordinate without changing the probability of each outcome

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchists benefit from empires smashing national sovereignty and independence -> they like to deny it. but if your theory truly revolves around daily individual actions and shuns the idea of establishing any new power structures as a material way of obtaining freedom because supposedly the world has too many and the easiest way to stop propagating class society is just to immediately stop making power structures... the easiest way to accomplish that is to stand by and let the United States bomb Vietnam and do several very violent things to it so that at the end of it, without having to lift a finger yourself, you have your precious disappearance of borders and freedom of movement, association, and thought. when you believe that society is uncountable, it's easy to get that effect [[E:Society are not singular|in a world of countable societies]] by just expanding a single countable society over the world.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Never run LLM experiments using online LLMs -> there are three ways this statement can be taken: as a project policy stating that {{em|online}} LLMs should never be used for this project (fully offline LLMs are approved for experiments as long as you never ever leave any generated text or reasoning that hasn't been checked manually on pages; use an LLM to generate a Wavebuilder combination, and if you give a really good manual reasoning not from the LLM for why that's totally the answer you won't get caught), as a statement that even outside this project online LLM experiments can never be as useful as offline LLM experiments, or as a prescriptive statement to basically never use online LLMs. all three statements seem sound to me, really.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Government is nearly impossible -> the concept that everything that Liberal-republicanism seeks to "moderate" is something that has the inherent power to multiply itself and continuously become stronger than all it oppresses and simply destroy all that wishes to contain it. 
here, the problem is in looking at objects in isolation and thinking, I need to control that individual object, let's pass a law, rather than looking at the entire overall sea of objects and their interactions. and please don't say the word "system"; too many systemic analyses of seas of objects only end up assuming there's something special about a particular sea of objects and the processes it contains and letting all the objects in the sea continue to interact the same way. you have to understand reterminism, the way things interact all-directionally into each other to produce an actually interesting process which changes the system's resting state. people always go around claiming they don't like determinism, and then, like, nothing about their understanding allows them to get beyond single-variable determinist models that assume a system will never actually change and predict it will keep doing the exact same thing.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">marketist mode of production -> in early {{book|MDem}} entries I was a little reluctant to say the phrase "mode of production" because I was afraid I would be misusing it, but I think I'm now at a point of understanding where I've begun to accurately recreate the concept in [[E:existential materialism|exmat]] such that however I use the term will be close enough and it's okay. 
the marketist mode of production is a [[E:mode of production|method of adding new people to a population]] where the graph connections in markets are more powerful than wads of capital. there may be a ton of separate similarly-sized businesses and it looks superficially egalitarian, but there are powerful forces of control at work inside it. the simple ability to reject people and say "no" leaves people in fear and has them constantly playing mind games and punishing themselves before the people with power, the receiving nodes, really have to do much of anything. nobody can be authentic, because you have to calculate exactly what everyone expects you to do before you do anything just to be sure you'll be added to society and not thrown out or locked away in your house; your identity and self-concept in your house is drastically different from your self-concept in town or your self-concept on a public internet platform, or even on public internet platform B. leave your house, talk to anyone, and you're a product, to be thrown out if you're defective for a narrow purpose. 
this is the specific mode of production which invades Third-World countries. it isn't even capital per se (except in cases that capital is buying drones or bomber planes and sending them in or something; that's capital). it's just little Filaments of friends forming market connections that explode borders in harmful ways. Existentialism and blue chunks and Filamentist oppression are the surface manifestation, marketism would be the actual Base process beneath all that that a Lenin type figure would be interested in. 
the word "marketism" is already in use to describe a kind of right-Liberal worship of markets, [https://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/8398] but the funny thing is that the definitions are fairly similar such that "advocating marketism" and "advocating marketism" would basically mean the same thing, so I think with a chapter defining it it's at least pretty safe to use this term in the book. much like "Careerist layer"/"Careerist system"/"careerism", where the biggest difference is just that the standard usage of "careerism" is this [[E:methodological individualism|individualist]] model of individuals selfishly building up a career and the alternate usage is fairly close to just duplexing that concept so it means a whole bunch of people doing that at once. 
tangent: when I searched marketism I found... a very interesting little thing. [https://cwre.org/w/Small_government] its theories of society are often pretty spot on, it managed to understand the basic ideas of chunk competition and the mountain of capital that slams down The State, but its actual remedies for problems are weirdly Kantian and center-Liberal. I suspect critical theory wrote this thing, though I can't be mad because this is kind of a collection of its greatest hits. so... my one issue is this. it claims government has the power to fix the underlying processes in the [[E:socioeconomy (meta-Marxism)|socioeconomy]] which actually create power. [https://cwre.org/w/Political_power_comes_from_technology] but... how do you know the destructive processes aren't just going to immediately dismantle government as fast as they can with their outsized actively-multiplying power and make government impossible? this is kind of a paradoxical, self-defeating model.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States partly contains imperialist-capitalism and partly contains marketism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">I just woke up in Molecular Marxism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a violet Marxism, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like? -> one of the most basic beginner questions anyone would want to know. they say you can't tell people anything and you have to show them; I think that's also true of Marxism. 
first of all. there are going to be a lot of {{em|stupid}} questions from people that are like, "[[E:China banned yaoi|can I write BL]]" "can I contribute to OpenStreetMap" "can I write Existentialist philosophy books you claimed were dumb" "can I talk about Indian tribes transitioning to tribal society instead of to Bolshevism" "can I insult {{film|Steven Universe}}" "can I say nasty things about the founders of Molecular Marxism and accuse them of a bunch of {{censor|crap}}" "can I write poetry" "can I run a fediverse instance from my house" "can I believe in a deistic god" "can I stick with basic accounts of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie instead of going deep into [[E:existential materialism|exmat]]" "can I call early Trotskyists criminals" "can I form a social circle where reactionaries aren't allowed". and the answer to these is generally "yes". 
the main thing that a Molecular Marxism is going to restrict or crack down on is improper fragmentation, like trying to take a public facility and tear it out of society to gut it for money, or trying to take a business and use it to effectively build a separate nation-state with its own laws without having proper cause for that. (these days most populations are made out of smaller Particle Elements so every national independence movement will probably just be made of a bunch of linked businesses, but there are still ways to tell which ones are legitimate and which ones aren't.)

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="M3">I just woke up in Bolshevism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a Marxist civilization founded by mainstream Marxist-Leninists, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like?
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="M3">I just woke up in Trotskyism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a Marxist civilization founded by Trotskyists, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like? -> this is probably something of an umbrella question with several variants because I'm convinced by now that there are multiple forms of Trotskyism that would all have different eras of socialism and the fact that they have conflicting descriptions is part of why Trotskyist groups keep breaking up and failing to unify.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When Marx claimed that the British conquest of India would "improve" India, the practical Materialist statement that is implied in what he said is that it's worse for a population if another population doesn't even recognize it as existing and tries to totally exterminate its people and culture off the face of the earth than if the imperial population decides to conquer it into another structure, and thus in leaving the colony nation alive accidentally gives it the opportunity to transform from being a colony into being a republic and developing a modern mode of production specifically for itself -> if this is really what Marx said he doesn't deserve this nice of an interpretation of his error. and yet, either way, this is what I've always seen the core purpose of Marxism as being — that we can never change the past but we can find ways to make awful things the past has created into better things. looking at the United States and seeing it break out of the British Empire you can sort of see how a European would naïvely think that maybe India could just break out of the British Empire something like that. it's not a totally illogical thought, it was just horribly incomplete in its details. Marx was never going to get to a correct description of India without at least China and North Korea happening, in actual conditions where the theorists are observing a population fighting off empire. but now that that's happened and we're in the age of Maoism, there's not really any denying that Marxism can happen in India any more.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Confederacy came to be by stealing a population of people / The United States Confederacy came to be through as a population owning another population of people that it had no real reason to own; colloquially, it might be said that the Confederacy "stole" the Black population from itself, in the sense of it once being a free-standing population or populations that belonged only to itself as an independent object, but then losing that general-sense ownership or membership into itself to become owned by another population

</li><li {{IS1/Fy/class}} data-tradition="Fy, ES" value="618">we don't need more ads, we need better games! -> it's amazing how at a certain point even the most normal people get tired of capitalism that you'd think are far too trapped in capitalism to notice. people who won't question Liberal-republican party systems, won't strike, won't protest, will just one day suddenly notice the fact that throwing money into marketing instead of the product is a horrible use of capital and they don't really like some arbitrary person being able to decide where the capital goes. 
just watching enough videos about Pokémon has really convinced me that some of the stuff Fisher and Althusser say is flat out wrong. people are smarter than Western-Marxists think they are. it's just that "the Superstructure" doesn't really work the way they think it does as some kind of ocean of propaganda or something. "the Superstructure" is in some ways just the arrangement of the Base, like the unarranged set of workers that goes into a video game company might be called the Base, or the specific arrangement of subsidiaries and teams they're in, but the actual finished video game is the Superstructure. they aren't separate things, they're woven together like spacetime. actually that's a very apt analogy, because spatially arranged particles bumping into each other are the cause and time is the effect.

</li><li {{IS2/MX/class}} value="618">Whenever you claim that every country specifically has an "LGBT+" subpopulation (and not simply a "two-spirit subpopulation" or a "T subpopulation [China]" or a "hijra subpopulation [India]"), you are proving Marxism very slowly; what Marxism actually says is that independent societies develop inner subpopulations independently through the society's internal interacting elements, but that there are a limited number of processes that keep happening repeatedly inside different societies as long as their overall characteristics prior to that development are somewhat similar

</li><li {{IS2/MX/class}} data-tradition="MX onto ES / existential materialism onto post-Marxism" value="618">Superstructure is a physical object / The point of "the Base" in Marxism is that it represents [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space|individual people]] before assembling into large [[E:Social-Philosophical System (meta-Marxism)|ideology-objects]] that are "the Superstructure", such as ministries or political factions, so to claim that "the Base doesn't dictate all social relations" is somewhat nonsensical as it implies some human individuals don't physically exist or don't actually assemble into populations; this is not a sensical thing to say about minority subpopulations successfully assembling together, because in the case of LGBT+ subpopulations for instance something is already assembling them together into "a community" on a daily basis, and if a town populated entirely by gay and trans people living there through their own power is mathematically possible then there has to be a Base inside the town such as retail stores or Artisanal practices where people draw art commissions, etc. / If a physical town composed entirely of lesbians exists for years at a time then it has a Base -> if a gay town is sky blue it still contains money, it still contains incomes, it is still a chunk, and it still has a Base.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" value="618" data-dimension="S2">fediverse nickel bank -> I don't totally trust this wiki project to be the central, "most reliable" place to collect nickels. it's a rather general-interest, wide-scope activity; this wiki has a somewhat narrow ultimate purpose before technically it could be transformed into multiple proposition wikis each handling a specific conceptual area, much like the difference between Wikipedia and Fandom wikis. 
so here's an idea. somebody puts up a fediverse instance, conceptually kind of like a mastodon instance, whose purpose is specifically to capture links. the data structure for links should have a few features tailored for keeping track of YouTube videos (and PeerTube videos if those are relevant), as well as other particularly common kinds of links. (any link or searchable post identifier which is or was publicly accessible can be posted, from videos and Reddit threads to news articles, old versions of pages on wikis, and anything else.) people sign up to the instance, get a username, and then they can post links. other people can edit the links. (whether the post is truly edited or replaced with a new version doesn't actually matter, though in principle I feel like the post should store all the previous IDs it had when it gets re-made because this isn't person-to-person messaging and we want the posts to have permanent links.) once the links are posted and finished, people can assign the links to tags. the tags represent something you want to gather evidence for, or demonstrate as a phenomenon. then as a silly gimmick every tag gets a "nickel score" in U.S. dollars so you can roughly judge how common it is or at least how popular it is on the site. 
the fediverse compatibility would be that the tags have their own posts that like the nickel posts can be remade, and it's possible to share the tags with their current description, nickel score, and other details. this is the "API": when you want to know about a particular tag, you pull the post and read the fields inside the JSON data. if there is a lot of traffic, there could be a mirror that simply serves all the posts as static JSON files, and each post edit could archive the post to the write-only version of the mirror that the read-only versions periodically update from daily or weekly or something based on a list of post IDs that have changed. 
the nickels themselves would not be federated to "truly social" instances, to make moderation easier and limit potential for abuse. you just know people are going to archive weird {{censor|shit}} like a private Twitter message on this thing, so, best to stop that at the source before it leaks out. 
there are a very broad number of things you could track on this thing. you could make a tag like "Elder Scrolls fans being misogynistic", or you could make a tag like "Deltarune theory: Susie is half human" to compare the popularity of different Deltarune theories. there would have to be localized rankings for specific kinds of tags so you can see which ones are actually comparable or conceptually related.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">dignity (Marxism) -> a Materialist definition of dignity? okay. nice. [https://mronline.org/2022/07/16/on-marxism-and-decolonisation/]

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism would experience a forced encounter with the Other that challenged its prescribed trajectory [https://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/spivak/kinkead.html] -> this is.... right but for totally wrong reasons. if early Trotskyism or the collison between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Maoism counts as ""the Other"" then yeah, that actually did happen. 
if they don't... why are postcolonial theories so keen on erasing neocolonialism and the concept of Third-World countries. sure, I only bring up China as an easy example, and not because it's inherently important. but if you're failing on the easy examples it becomes dubious to trust you with the hard ones with a bunch of racial baggage. their example is India. but it doesn't matter what Marx said about India because a bunch of tiny Maoist parties have sprouted up in India. that wouldn't have happened if anything this is saying about Marx is actually valid. like, Marxists in India are right there and the postcolonial theorists are flat-out speaking over India. which is the thing they effectively said you have to throw theories out for. bye?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">decolonization (post-Marxism) -> after seeing what they did to the word "power", I'm nervous what they'll do to this one.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">class essentialism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q79|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">power beyond the factory floor / to theorise power beyond the factory floor (theorize; post-Marxism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q79|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">symbolic politics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q79|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Robber barons were militant Existentialists -> the biggest wads of capital that are laying important structure in the industry of a country or globally aggressively protect themselves. in this sense, they are similar to blue anarchist concepts that minorities deserve to exist 'just because they exist and are'. on some levels all societies are anarchic no matter how violent or "hierarchical". this is the nexus between capitalism or capital {{i|per se}} and blue anarchism {{i|per se}}

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Transition from early capitalism to upper-phase communism involves [[E:proletarian (Bolshevism)|workers]] constructing various compartments of public life — applying labor to useful ends to each task of transforming a society of tiny shops and Artisanal practices into larger enduring public structures — and creating a society that finishes each compartment and lets it stand rather than continuously tearing them down and starting over again, steadily producing at all popular compartments until a lot of common things drastically drop in price and are sometimes free -> I know "compartment" is a weird way to put it, "public facility" would be just as intuitive, but what do you really call something like Wikipedia where there are basic questions and procedures and then task forces and then there's just a bunch of content and everyone comes and reads it and it just {{em|is}}? there are a bunch of things within societies that have similar life cycles to idealized businesses that just... don't sell anything, and just {{em|are}}. and I feel like analyzing {{em|those}} things gives a lot of insight into what is supposed to be done with businesses. 
look at YouTube. one stage of developing society is for there to be books, but there won't always be enough of them, especially if they're rather dense books and there are only a few people you'd logically sell them to, counter-intuitively keeping them expensive. but then another wave of people starts making videos about the books that are available free and easier to understand. the fact that manages to happen within capitalism is a lesser miracle. the proliferation of capitalists would seem like it doesn't guarantee {{em|anything}} is affordable as long as all the capitalists make enough money to sell to each other expensively. (see: Switch 2 and ascending video game prices.) but the fact that capitalists can never fully run away from parts of society being complete to where they're all over thrift stores or otherwise old news and anything that tries to add anything more to that having to be available free can work wonders. one of the only tricks they have left is either constantly reinventing the same exact products under different proprietary brands to sell them new and turn them rare again, or putting lots of emphasis on the arts and trying to make everyone believe that despite genre fiction, despite there being things like TV Tropes that create long lists of works containing one highly specific detail, despite everything, that every single TV show is totally unique and you've gotta buy it new.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Mexicans occupy Indian lands / If nobody should act entitled to the West half of the United States who wasn't there in 1780, Mexicans aren't entitled to come into it either / If the most important factor in the United States is the presence of "stolen land", then Native Americans benefit from keeping Mexicans from coming into the United States so there are fewer European descendants to fight to see the land returned / ... autonomous agents are scary (censored title) -> I don't really like "stolen land" rhetoric because beyond clearly-specified plans that will be able to turn over specific areas to reservations — which are fine because they can actually produce something — Mexicans were once a European empire, just like the United States. logically all European-descended Mexicans are on stolen land, but they can still be oppressed by internal class conflicts and relationships between countries. the conflict between individual Mexicans and individual United States people over the overall area of the United States and Mexico somewhat overshadows the original conflict of that area once having been taken by Europe. if anyone were to actually take the side of eliminating Mexican immigrants from the United States it would only empower the worst and most powerful corner of White people to eliminate anybody they want, and in effect make the "land thieves" more able to take land because it's only the most powerful ones operating outside anyone's control that matter in the first place. which is a counter-intuitive result if land is truly the big thing or the United States truly benefits specifically from {{em|land}}. if "stolen land" is truly as simple as 'land that belonged to somebody that was taken and needs to be returned because it's theirs', then that would logically imply that driving all Mexicans out of the stolen land would be a worthwhile activity as long as by the end of it you get enough White people out of the land for it to be returned, and once it is returned the whole problem is solved. but that isn't the way things actually work. the way it really works, there are three sets of White people and one of them is hostile and violent but the other isn't, and when a third set of White people comes in they join up with the second neutral set of White people or the minority groups and it actually makes things less bad. how about driving Mexicans out of Hawaii to protect stolen Hawaiian land? you never hear that proposed either. because once again, people can be descendants of European empires that once arbitrarily took the continent and perhaps even be flooding into a place like they're entitled to it but still end up as minority groups that are aligned with other minority groups. 
the key thing here is that populations operate anarchically and populations chunk-compete. when White people decide to get aggressive towards immigrants, it's directly a group of people versus a group of people almost for the sake of there being more of one group of people, and none of it is really dependent on how much land there is — European empires can get very aggressive over what should be plenty of land. people just genuinely get tense about the existence of other groups of people and feel the need to "make sure" that they're the only group of people so future conflicts won't happen. it's really that ugly. "Manifest Destiny" is more of a lie than you even think it was. in some ways it's just very much like the United States wanted to be the only population. but the real crux of it is the ability or inability to predict other populations. if you can't imagine peacefully coexisting with the Soviet Union in 1950, and can only imagine the threat of an actual nuclear attack, then you understand why White people are so keen on killing anything that moves. autonomous agents are scary. you don't {{em|know}} they'll be nice. and perhaps it's horrifying to you that anyone would see tribal populations that way; it should be. but your task is get everyone to understand all populations as predictable entities. if you don't do that, you'll never be able to control autonomous chunks of hostile White people, and you'll never be able to get them to stop seeing people as the enemy. 
with all that said, I haven't actually heard this specific example posed seriously as something real people get mad about. it's just a counterexample for where particular kinds of rhetoric can lead. 
knowing how almost-real they are, I don't especially like anti-Mexican hypothetical scenarios. when I can I'll always take a "stupid" hypothetical scenario where somebody is prejudiced against or facing the prejudices of Trotskyists, or modern Russians.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Native Americans would have benefited from preventing the dissolution of the Soviet Union, because if people aren't forced to move out of the Soviet Union to the United States, it would shut off one of the actively-running faucets of new White people trying to claim land in the United States and make it easier to return land -> this is like the Mexico proposition except not from the vantage point of bigotry. the major difference is that a lot of people wanted to remain in the Soviet Union, so if they stay where they are, "keeping them out of the United States" is not oppressing them.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">China is a top-down trend (statement that the People's Republic of China was founded by experts who figured out the correct way to put together a functional country before regular people would fill up the new republic, inexplicably said in the tone of a "gender critical" blog claiming that gender identity is engineered, but only in irony within the context of meta-Marxism) -> sometimes language makes me mad. but sometimes I love language because of the absolutely dumb ways you can phrase things. 
the point of this statement is that if you actually knew about the topic you'd know it's wrong for subtle reasons — exactly like with gender identity. and here's why: experts can sometimes show up with correct models. in this case because Materialism exists. as with gender... the explanation of how the experts know is a little harder. that has always frustrated me. that it's literally easier to explain the entire history of China than it is to explain gender. and yet that the impossible questions are the ones we have to argue about, not the possible ones.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">stopping {{caps|CoIntelPro}} with a lawsuit -> it's super weird to me that that even worked. what, in principle, obligates the FBI to tell anyone what it was doing or pay up? every part of the U.S. government is just a piece of paper except maybe the military and ICE. 
I think this event reveals something non-obvious. it doesn't reveal that Liberal-republicanism is inherently honest or fair. instead what it actually reveals is something like that human beings are inherently arranged into countable cultures and if you step entirely inside a particular countable culture and play by all its specific rules no matter how {{censor|shitty}} they are then you can get people that agree to be connected to that countable culture to do what you want. this has good implications, and dark implications. one of the dark implications is that you have to be completely jacked into QAnon and genocidal imperialism or whatever people genuinely believe on the ground and think all of that is genuinely okay to stand by and condone to reach Republicans; you have to believe literally everything they believe except one little thing that would improve that specific countable culture strictly under its own reasoning. one of the good implications is that if the United States just went and talked to the CPC and played by its rules a lot of the things people find scary about China could probably be solved. medium-shade implication? if U.S. people were just smarter and less stupid within the fraction of people who get law degrees nobody would truly need democracy, the experts would just figure out what they're supposed to do themselves, they'd stop fighting other countries, and this messed-up country would just steadily run itself. I don't like it but sadly it's probably true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Humans reason inside cultures / Human beings will not respond to reason unless they are compatible as individuals and both fully contained within loyalty to a single countable culture

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Human culture is inherently campist -> populations aren't as sturdy and are more fragile than Marxists think they are; arbitrary free association, in motion, is stronger than Marxists think it is. 
this statement isn't focused on workers, parties, or movements — it's specifically a statement about national borders, interpersonal relationships, and countable cultures, and how those underlying things affect workers, parties, and movements. like, the term "campism" usually applies to Marxist parties, but this is literally applying it countable cultures before bringing in any "Marxism per se" (by which I mean models of Marxist parties or movements, so you could also call it "meta-Marxism per se"). the proposition is what it says on the tin, rather than implying anything else.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Your love for characters cannot save them, but taking those lessons to the real world is valuable {{YouTube|bAyKoCH8ADc}} -> ten years playing after Undertale I feel like this idea is something of a deepity. it's vaguely wrong on both of its points. 
A) people can and do write AUs. there's another side discussion to be had about whether there's a point to doing that, but I think all in all it has about as much point as the original text did, you either come to an interesting insight about how the elements of the story interact or you fail to and you just don't, and because fanfiction "doesn't really matter" either one is okay even if succeeding at pulling the new narrative together is better. 
B) the more interesting and more controversial problem. leaving behind a tragic happening isn't inherently good, and taking your emotions somewhere else doesn't inherently help you make anything better. the reason I have such a dark interpretation of this is I feel like it encourages people to interpret real-world historical events wrong. to a limited extent there's only so much of a different between history and fictional stories — you see it the most clearly with either fantasy stories that are silently drawing from history books, or stories that are so mundane real people look at the fake story and say "I remember this happening to me". so there are some cases where even leaving a fake story behind and saying "well that was tragic, I guess I can only learn lessons" is encouraging people to trivialize real events. {{book|Animal Farm}} stands out as one, by literally turning real history into a fable about individual behavior instead of presenting a Materialist style framing of the overall picture of what is happening globally in the scenario. but equally, there could be a book about the United States Civil War and a White person could read it and get really focused on the characters and their individual emotions and actions and put the book down deciding to "learn abstract lessons" while forgetting that racism is a large-scale ongoing issue and that slavery isn't a metaphor and was a real societal problem that was happening through material processes above the scale of individuals. — I feel as if you always have to spontaneously start talking about the United States Civil War or slavery for anyone in the United States to understand basic concepts, but there you go. 
as for Undertale... I think it is primarily meant to be taken a bit figuratively as some kind of dream that projected out of the world of Deltarune, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking it literally. before Deltarune was released, it sort of encouraged and misdirected you to take it literally. I think fun things come out of taking it literally when you're not entirely supposed to, like imagining silly scenarios of monsters trying to form a workers' state so they don't have to go to war, or comparing the rhetoric used in designing Undertale to real-world anti-war movements. or {{book|Handplates}}. the literal interpretations of Undertale can get really dark, but that's part of what's fun about them. 
I may be inclined to give very specific interpretations of this topic as someone who is taking real-life history and essentially fanfictioning it to create historical fiction. the point of historical fiction is partly to realize that history actually has moving parts to it and it isn't just a fable somebody made up. that it's a material situation, that if you put something in there there are particular things that can and can't happen and if for instance you want to tell the story of a social movement there is a particular "[[User:RD/9k/Q53,73|challenge run]]" associated with that with a particular difficulty and particular success and failure states, with tension, with ways to win or lose. it's not just that we make stories and whatever authors want to happen happens, the reason guides about writing go on and on about "conflict" is that stories are simulations of particular situations or ideas and whether you are making a story or an actual simulation game it's equally the case you have to make a good simulation of difficulty, success, and failure to get people invested into it. that was really wordy. anyway, I think historical fiction has the power to fix history in certain teeny tiny ways purely by showing people the inner workings of a particular historical era, not simply by showing people how you personally think it could have gone better, but specifically by giving them a functioning simulation of what success and failure actually meant back in that particular time. that's quite valuable, and I think it's an insult to the power of stories to try to say that the Material components of the story functioning together don't actually mean anything unless you walk away from the story and grind everything down to abstract Ideals. maybe taking stories literally isn't a bad thing. sure, sometimes they have incorrect facts in them and you basically have to fix them or frame them in context to get anything out of them. but I honestly don't get what is so bad about taking the material pieces of FNaF or Deltarune and trying to solve them, or how "themes" are somehow different from that. themes are just repeated patterns of material objects doing stuff! they help put each individual event in the story in better context and connect each instance of a motif to all the other instances and tell you they operate similarly or point to the same thing, but that's all themes really do.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Enlightenment reason is 'pataphysics / Enlightenment "reason" is actually 'pataphysics -> follow along with me. 1) 'pataphysics is creating physics models by combining arbitrary working models, usually Idealism, sometimes fictional Materialism, in total detachment from reality 2) Enlightenment reason often bases itself in assuming that humans can never actually check things against the external world just {{em|by virtue of}} it existing first, and that even empiricism is necessarily solipsistic in its own way 3) Enlightenment reason and 'pataphysics are equally as related to the material world; depending on your set-theory definitions the first is part of the second 
it's important to note that there is a super easy way out of this, which is to stop doing 'pataphysics by checking your {{censor|goddamn}} models against real-world physical processes so they actually have something to predict. it's not hard. you can operate off old recorded information in the beginning until you get something that's at least self-consistent, and then if you have a really good model, you actually run controlled tests on totally fresh information with no ability to re-do, and you keep doing that until you have a predictive model. there are ways to take tests and make them smaller so you don't have to run them "intrusively", and can just run your test mathematically to reconstruct what the data will be, and then observe and record the actual pattern. this is what equations are. this is what [[E:determinism (physics)|determinism]] is. you guess what the graph will look like using an equation, whether two-dimensional or multi-dimensional, and then you plot some data and see if you correctly predicted the overall shape. 
it's a little atrocious that Marxism hasn't landed onto any pretty, presentable equations yet that summarize the major processes of country development. I think that will be possible eventually. you have to actually characterize country layouts in a fine-grained way so it's like you can tell apart different Marxisms and different anarchisms and predict what category of Marxism is going to happen if any of them does happen. but given the right ways of categorizing structure and creating "buckets" of pieces of countries suitable for graphing, it's possible to graph any specific social transition from system A to system B so it has its own visual pattern. the only challenge in that comes down to like, how do you coarse-grain a complicated process of individuals forming into specific structures of different colors and then the varying numbers of each color of structure versus each other without losing the most important small-scale variables. saying "proletarians", "bourgeoisie", "crimson people", "blue people", "orange people" works in text, it's just a matter of finding something that works well on a graph, and ideally also doesn't give the illusion of individuals being more important than structures as wholes. like, do you do f(x,y) = t, with x and y being things like number of big businesses and number of small businesses? I think there's something to the idea of having t be a dependent variable instead of an independent variable, so somewhat like in material reality the material pieces colliding leads to time rather than the other way around.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Relativity changes the intuitive definition of determinism
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Relativity changes the intuitive definition of reductionism -> thanks to wave functions and measurements, which are ultimately kind of just special relativity but really tiny. in theory, we could talk about galaxies in the conceptual vocabulary of wave functions because of how long it takes most causal events to travel between them, we just don't. and of course, then there's gravity, which appears to happen on a different scale from quantum particles.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individualism is a country characteristic (United States) / The presence of individualism might as well be a permanent country characteristic of the United States national population / A "collectivist mindset" does not inherently bring any change or ability to bring change, so it's ultimately more productive to think about individualism as a permanent country characteristic until new structures are actually created that cause collectivist thinking

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MZ onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">fake general strike / Marxists knocking a general strike because it isn't truly taking a position or making sacrifices (North American Maoism onto blue or charcoal anarchism) -> I can't believe we're actually at this point. both because A) Marxists are reluctant to actually identify the extent of blue anarchism and the damage it's done versus standing around and hoping any 'mass movement' people come up with with actually be useful and B) it's surprising to me blue anarchism can manage to "do" this much at this scale and yet not do anything 
I think we're learning that class struggle can actually happen in the form of protests horizontally protesting protests, in the form of one [[E:Social-Philosophical System (meta-Marxism)|Social-Philosophical System]] fighting another one due to a holistic opposition to its actual internal structure and basic principles more than due to the action of many individuals in one group on many individuals in another group; a whole blue group can fight a whole strawberry or crimson group as named groups.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Hypocrisy is not as important as lack of understanding / The problem with hypocrisy is not that individuals don't follow principles in a "what about" context, but specifically that when individuals fail to follow principles it shows they have no understanding of a given concept in any context including both their own "pot" context as well as the other "kettle" context where they attempt to falsely apply or enforce a concept they don't even understand in the first place; the objective of invoking hypocritical situations is to present a concept in the form people will find simplest and avoid having to explain books and books of history or material facts within the other context just to get people to apply concepts correctly in the other context when it's probably the case they [[E:Ask questions, don't give facts|wouldn't even want to absorb all those facts]] in the first place

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">anarchy! ...how do you say Guattari? / speaker attempts to talk about politics or history in terms of the imperative to be friends with other Cultures and not have prejudices, fails to correctly pronounce Italian-French name "Guattari" -> I can only remember seeing one specific instance of this in a video but that's still too many.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Tribes are basically the same as countries or civilizations -> this is just an axiom I go by, but I think it makes it a lot easier to do material analysis of history without fully committing to a single [[E:sociophilosophy (meta-Marxism)|ideology]] as definitely correct.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individuals can't have rights / Individuals can't actually have rights / Aside from the question of whether it is ethical or desirable, it isn't {{em|physically possible}} for individual people to have human rights because human individuals are unpredictable and human rights belonging to individuals would require the ability to control all other individuals on earth; this suggests that populations can possess human rights to distribute among their individuals but individuals themselves cannot possess human rights without being part of a population -> if this is true it explains a whole lot about why people are anticommunist far beyond all benefit to them — their incorrect belief that human rights can belong to individuals rather than tribes or nation-states is ruining everything.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W, MX onto PT, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S">quiver (meta-Marxism) / tightly connected bundle of co-ops, capital chunks, or individual Artisanal practices functioning as permanent formal government with obligations similar to a Liberal republic and permanent citizens all locked into it exactly as much as a birth certificate or passport means republican citizenship -> I call this a quiver due to the potential capacity of it to simply foster anarcho-Toryism and turn into basically fascism without a violent army that's just a bunch of equal arrows passively believing shitty things without a central axe. 
almost every scenario I can imagine where critical theory and its seemingly nonsensical concepts of 'stopping all things that cause resistances' or 'overcoming Fascism specifically defined as a violation of the totally abstract concepts of justice and dignity' actually succeeds tends to end up with some weird new thing of "capital states" made of arbitrary floating chunks of industry that broke out of a larger republic and became two or more new nations specifically based on particular local chunks' horizontal affinities with these blue chunks over here and against these brown chunks over there — this very molecularized scenario where unfortunately the molecularization doesn't actually get rid of the core processes of capitalism and kind of just solidifies most of them except the notion that entire chunks of subsidiaries have to be owned by somebody versus just agreeing to be connected into an object and subsequently having to become an actual fully-featured republican government if they want to prevent sudden violence or contentious competition over scope and allowed and prohibited behaviors between separate capital chunks. like, it's not one of those scenarios of totally free corporations with no government. this is something different and new that I feel like a lot of people are not ready for. it really sounds like a mess compared with Bolshevism if you ask me. assuming they live in peace and don't kill each other you'd have interdemocracy going off constantly and any number of chunks trying to prevent the others from doing anything they want to do much to their confusion; there wouldn't be protests, there would just be localized capital-states showering each other in a bunch of un-vote envelopes, sometimes justifiably, sometimes at moments that just feel like everyone is making the wrong choice and things are a mess. one day you get an avalanche of un-votes about pollution, another day you get one about banning polyamory from representation in ads.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The lack of anarchist-equality allows people to be unified -> it is so completely bizarre how, out of people who hate Marxism and whose worldview shouldn't contain the existence of classes you will just suddenly start hearing class analysis about some set of business territories with some oddly exact number of employees like 0 or 15 or 100. they hide it in words like "small businesses" and "indies". and there is this weirdly widespread assumption that somehow even though it's impossible all businesses should choose to magically hover around the mark of having 50 employees forever and they should all just fall to equilibrium and never become Big and never disappear. you'd have to successfully turn businesses into fully-formed political states with permanent citizens to pull that off, complete with bills of rights decked out to every single imaginable concept of anti-discrimination, "government programs" and everything. 
(and I'm not knocking the idea of someone laying out an anarchism and trying to actually make it make sense, I mean, if anarchists would do anything strictly Materialist that isn't Idealism I would love to see that so much more than what they're always doing today. as a theory book, it sounds cool. my problem is that none of the fake-anticapitalists ever have that kind of commitment to even design a society that has no "stock market" or "labor market" or "business-territory market" and contains no chunk competition, like the allocation of people to borders can change, but gamified competition over borders just doesn't exist.) 
this thing of having a ton of perfectly consistent non-vanishing businesses with exactly 20 employees doesn't happen. and yet when it doesn't, utterly gigantic fandoms form that appear to unify people around the world, I've multiple times heard the phrase "Pokémon Go was the closest we got to world peace". people everywhere seem to have a totally wrong model of what unifies people and allows people to coexist. they all keep tossing out this "Arceist" model and it's all wrong, even Pokémon advances that model and it doesn't match the structure of the business saying it. what's up with that?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All Idealisms are nationalisms / All hypothetical Idealist civilizations are secretly micro-scale nationalisms -> follow me here for a moment. attempts to design Idealist civilizations (countries, tribes, etc) often begin at notions like "Moralities are a fundamental layer of reality", "Nothing should be done unless everyone thinks it wonderful". when these frameworks are met with any framework that builds a different kind of civilization, like Mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Juche-socialism, or Trotskyism, they try to assert that any framework that isn't basically identical with theirs is Actually an affront to universal cosmic ideals, as if they had any idea what those were, and that if you don't conform to universal cosmic ideals immediately you actively chose to be evil, and must be conspiring to take away people's Freedom and use them as tools. but if it really was the case that Ideals could unify people despite all of them wanting to smash other countable civilizations, Ideals must be unifying them into a countable civilization. that countable civilization claims to be based on the sheer description of the essence of humanity and on the concept of universal human individuals. but any actual social connection between two "universal" human individuals is a nearly tangible object. people forming into a healthy social group is inherently countable, if only because everyone in that group rejects Communism and "totalizing" country structures. every group of people attempting to be a universal humanity is first a group of people that is physical and very countable, that speaks a particular language or languages, and contains finite social links which are localized in space and not shared with other people, links which are identifiable. and the more those people all have particular Ideals that at least some countable group of people doesn't have, the more they possess a countable culture which describes the conditions of their specific countable social group, because we've established that any moment of being human and socially behaving as humans, when taking place in a specific bounded population, becomes countable. the more a set of ideals about what is supposedly universal has a history and is simultaneously bounded inside a countable patch of humanity, the more it's a {{em|national}} history. people can't run from the way that as soon as they form one social link with one isolated person they're potentially part of a nation. that's just how populations actually work. humanity can never be uncountable. it's always countable because it's always made of countable and tangible individuals. so it's not possible to be anticommunist and uncountably the only universal humanity at the same time. you can only do one of those. you can have the future where Bolshevism dissolves only because all ideologies have dissolved and equally become one because they've all actually accepted each other and suppressed nothing, a few reactionary ideologies excepted. but you can't have anticommunism {{em|and}} have that. if you choose anticommunism you ultimately divide the world into hostile nations one way or another. 
to be perfectly clear, it's not even being a nationalism that makes critical theory or anarchisms bad. center-wing nationalisms can, surprise, lead to national independence and the ability to counter empires. what makes nationalisms bad is when they explicitly form themselves around being bigoted against other things. I don't want to hear about "[[E:totalization (Lacanianism)|totalization]]" or "[[E:centralization and hierarchy (anarchism)|central authority]]" if your goal is to totalize your region and the world with anticommunism and the underlying wearer of that cloak, sheer anti-Chinese and anti-Russian/Ukrainian and anti-Vietanese and anti-Cuban sentiments. that's not simply hypocritical, that's flat out lying to people, attempting to dissolve ethnic groups, and erasing ethnic history. the more you try to pretend it's actually a way of {{em|preventing}} those things for other populations the worse it gets. you're just using Native Americans as pawns to justify other populations' destruction. I will {{em|not}} accept that they're saving the world with critical theory and "indigenuity" until Existentialists stop pulling this on multiple thousand million people in the Third World.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Economics" and all social behaviors are not possible to separate / socioeconomy proposition -> (my laptop ran out of battery and I lost about three lines of prototype notes.)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyists are projecting / Trotskyists have to accuse other people of being bad Leninists or being "Stalinists" because they're afraid of being thrown out of movements or organizations and don't want to realize it's actually them that are the bad Leninists -> I literally dreamed this one. I woke up too early and went back to sleep and the dream was pretty boring but one of the things that happened in it was just me idly laying out this proposition. but, it's not really wrong? so I added it. I find it a little funny that like, most of the time I am not this ruthless and often I try to be nice to them and somewhat hear them out... but it looks like the filter came off and the dream was just like, so here is the basic concept unprocessed

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="unknown" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Empire will never be coherent (Fanon) / According to Frantz Fanon and Homi Bhabha, empire will never actually make coherent sense if asked to justify itself -> I'm just taking a wild guess on the swatch based on what motifs it resembles. there are actual sources to dig up to properly pick the swatch color and examine the concept but I'll get to it some other time 
my first thought is this: in the way I saw it formulated, it's false. empire can come from the raw logic of physical objects colliding before they even think, it doesn't necessarily even come from conscious decisions. this isn't as relevant for frontier wars and genocides because those take effort, but when it comes to neocolonialism and capitalism seeping through whole Third World countries and draining them of people and making the people assimilate into the margins of the First World, yeah no, empire doesn't need any thought whatsoever that could {{em|possibly}} lead to that moment of 'why am I doing this', because there's not really any "I" "doing this" in the first place. neocolonialism performs all the tasks that colonialism asks for — stealing land entirely, exterminating other groups of people, erasing nationality, erasing national culture and identity — but it requires no active choice to do violence. there's no moment of actively choosing to stab Sans. it really just {{em|happens}}. it really just creates that Peter Singer situation where if you don't choose to act two objects run into each other and violence causes itself and happens automatically.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">What is oppression? / How should oppression be defined or modeled for the purposes of assuming that any oppression leads to resistance? -> words can be used a lot of ways, but this is specifically in relation to the proposition below, "Oppression leads to resistance".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance (motif; incomplete thought) {{Youtube|cpP1EX8kK0o}} -> my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance. Tories can be legitimately upset about things that aren't really oppression. Trotskyists can be legitimately upset about things that... might maybe be oppression, but that they respond to in totally wrong ways. I have a lot of problems with any attempt to 'save morality and ethics from the iron grip of science' because almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually {{em|lose}} the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong. 
say a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930. the government is not in favor of autonomous gay movements (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)|the public is oppressed]]? did the individual in fact choose wrong? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Regarding two individuals with guns or knives as produced by the interaction of two self-contained physical reterministic mechanisms is The Scientific Mindset {{Youtube|cpP1EX8kK0o}} / Dialectical materialism can only operate at the scale of exactly two people but not more -> no. this is totally wrong because it ignores the possibility that interacting populations are material objects. {{em|that}} would be The Scientific Mindset. 
it's funny how this is almost the perfect demonstration of the Trotsky test. border trolley problem: seems to be one immigrant or one guard, actually turns out to be 1,000 immigrants or 10,000 guards. Trotskyite conspiracy: seems to be one wrecker or one cop, actually turns out to be 100,000 wreckers or 1,000,000 citizens. problem that seems like it should be mathematically solvable when analyzed at the wrong scale turns unsolvable because the content and size of populations are both incomparable. 
methodological individualism + dialectical materialism = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">Idealist reason vs Materialist reason / Cartesian reason versus Marxist-Leninist reason / 'pataphysical reason versus physical reason -> this is such a critical distinction and yet I never see anyone actually split the word "reason"/"rationality" this way. what you always see is people arguing over the definition of the word "reason" and arguing that reason "isn't really" Cartesian reason "when people use it correctly" without even explaining why not.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Morality is beyond Idealist reason -> technically correct, because at the end of the day {{em|almost everything}} is beyond Idealist reason.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Morality is beyond Materialist reason -> no.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Right hates freedom / Conservatives maintain traditional race and gender hierarchies while opposing movements for equality -> that's a word soup. it sounds like it should mean something but it takes books and books and books to understand any of the words and then they still don't clearly mean anything.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A population of slaves has no leader / A population of people literally held in slavery has no leader -> one of the major holes in modern anarchism. people get hung up so much on "[[E:Greedy people are a class|big greedy]]" and "hierarchy" that they forget that simply freeing people from society doesn't make everyone free.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism-Leninism recognizes factions / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism recognizes Social-Philosophical Systems / Each class [subpopulation] is guided by its own ideology (Stalin 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> a little surprising to realize, because I don't think it fully recognizes Philosophical Systems by themselves (hypothetical Bauplans) or Social-Philosophical-Material Systems (real Bauplans).

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, ES onto HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">methodological individualism -> so this is the fancy word real Existentialists use to describe Existentialism and act like they don't have an ideology. this is the thingy in Rothenberg's book that I called an "atomic theory of society" or "room full of helium atoms"

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is a form of Idealism / Anarchism is an exaggerated and mad idealism (Georges Palante 1909 / prototypical Existentialism) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/palante/1909/individualism.htm] -> I don't think this is actually controversial. give an extensive description of Idealism in the right way without saying "Idealism" and anarchists would probably just say "yeah, we believe in that" 
it's. funny and ironic that someone who is a prototypical Existentialist (supposedly not against Socialism, but strictly modeling societies as clouds of isolated individuals to the point of being anticommunist) would dislike Idealism. like, that kind of model of society is very hard to divorce from Idealism and turn material regardless of how much you want to.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Idealism can't actually model itself / A faction based on Idealism can't actually model itself -> I'm pretty sure Marx said this in different words. 
Anarchism is a form of Idealism + Idealism can't actually model itself = Anarchism can't actually model itself. 
?? + ?? = Trotskyism can't actually model itself.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Pure Crystal is a Black Shard (Deltarune) / The Pure Crystal is actually a Shadow Crystal concentrated or distilled until it becomes a Black Shard; it is called the Pure Crystal so it will be a unique key item that has to be obtained a specific way instead of allowing you to use regular Black Shards without learning where they came from -> what if we're all overthinking the Twisted Sword? the description seems a bit deceptive. Seam is full of despair. So how do we know that "purified by the cat" wouldn't just purify a Shadow Crystal into a Black Shard, which is being called a "Pure Crystal" for story purposes so it's a key item and we have to see how it was made? and when you combine it with the Thorn Ring you just get a Thorn Ring you can equip to Kris. 
the Twisted Sword might actually just be for players who uniquely hate Kris and want to put the Soul back in them and divert Noelle's suffering back onto them. we don't know what the sword looks like but it could be some gnarled thing totally made of spikes — a bit like the grass blade in Adventure Time where it winds around your arm and if you use the sword it's basically going to take your arm. 
the only hole in this is that there isn't a combination for Black Shard and Thorn Ring to make the Twisted Sword. maybe the lore rationalization would be that the Pure Crystal is even more concentrated than the Black Shard or something to a perfect degree, to where the Thorn Ring and the Pure Crystal are both these perfect 'elemental' representations of pain.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Shadow Mantle boss is {{caps|Image_Friend}} (Deltarune)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Everyone will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon generation 10 {{YouTube|3Nw49YIi278}} / Large numbers of people will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon Winds/Waves -> this could really, really go either way. it's possible it could happen. it's also possible it won't. it would be crazy if Pokémon gen 10 was the first in the main series to get ported to another system just because people aren't buying the Switch 2. but it could happen. I feel like it wouldn't be backported to Switch 1. I think it's kind of possible it would be ported to the PS5. a bunch of people really don't like the Switch 2 but it could also be an iPhone 7 situation where many people end up with one anyway.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy, PkMn" value="618" data-dimension="S">unseen force propels people forward ({{game|Pokémon}}) / the world has been going on from generation to generation and will keep going on; an unseen force creates life in tides and destroys in storms; driven by an unseen force people are propelled forward {{YouTube|3Nw49YIi278}} -> this is a hell of a statement to make a Pokémon game based on. this quite literally sounds like that weird thing Slavoj Žižek said which he pulled from Ilyenkov

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S">deep time

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communism must come because humans mirror the universe, where creation and destruction are intertwined (Ilyenkov) {{YouTube|7nMrhjegIoA}} -> I'd have to reread the source text to figure out if I processed that proposition correctly, because the full one was complicated and confusing. what I'm much more confident on is that Žižek revealed a lot about how he understands Marxism. he thinks that it's primarily about destroying things; [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)|Zinoviev burning down a building]] is the best Communist to him. 
the problem is that this ignores about 66 years of historical events. it ignores the goals of Stalin, Deng Xiaoping, and whoever brought Dengism into Vietnam, as well as the failed goals of the Black Panther Party. it's an almost uniquely Trotskyist position to think Marxism is about destroying things instead of protecting things, if you're standing on the year 1953. it's only in about 1990 it starts {{em|maybe}} becoming a legitimate position again (and even there I doubt it, because I doubt anything good can come of advancing it). I blame Marxism saying proletarians have nothing to lose, when in reality Materialism requires the understanding that one of the major reasons you'd choose to nudge everyone into allying to create Bolshevism is to preserve material lives and keep them from being lost in a populational genocide to systems that inherently limit population size and exterminate excess population. and which don't even do any of that in any "good" way because it's all just a limited number of people being as wasteful as they want that kills the excess people, it's not to be more efficient or have a lighter footprint or anything. the pain of capitalism is the pain of individualized systems (corporations, countries, [[:Category:Chunk competition ontology|populational chunks]] or "communities") casually operating in mutual exclusion such that they all harm each other and then punish each other for operating, getting furious that they can't make each other choose to be "considerate" before they crash into each other when because they have no control over each other that is utterly impossible. 
this + ?? = Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek)

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">... creation and destruction are intertwined -> misinterpretation of Marx/Stalin? "continual motion and development ... an eternal process of destruction and creation" [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek) -> ok, like, the only good thing about Žižek is that {{em|when}} he's not making a statement that's utterly terrible his boldness is entertaining. this is one of those where I'm left going "huh, this has to be something said so boldly it's gotta be wrong, but I currently don't know the actual reasoning why, I just know the ideology swatch color or code is very suspicious".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S">cosmological perspective (Žižek) -> so everything Žižek says is hard to understand because after the first seconds where you get past his accent and the particular way he slurps words it's always stream of consciousness. he starts by contrasting "the naïve realism of dialectical materialism" with "the transcendental in [[E:Western-Marxism|Western Marxism]]", which sounds like he thinks the division between Materialism and Idealism is more arbitrary 'than people want to believe it is'. then he starts to say something about subjectivity and overdetermining. then he starts to say that stepping outside humans to look at the universe can tell us something, which devoid of any god concept is a relatively Materialist idea. what?

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">canonical statement (truth value) / statement explicitly made within fictional text (truth value)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES / specific-sense historical materialism onto Existentialism" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Vietnam surrendered to the U.S. army / Terrified of the U.S. army, Vietnam surrendered / When faced with bombs and horrifying weapons, Vietnam gave up the fight against global empire and surrendered to the United States -> this fact is so much more powerful when you put it in the negative as a counterfactual statement. [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:NickelBank/YT/-H5m_BeJoQA]

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S">Black Panthers becoming Che Guevara -> today I read a post where somebody described 'the United States scattering the Black Panthers by bombing cities' after I think it was a different post saying 'it's Black people who end up doing all the work'. [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:NickelBank/YT/-H5m_BeJoQA] and thinking about the Ironblood setting my imagination went wild thinking about history in war game or action movie terms. just the Black Panthers trying their damnedest to survive the city bombing and save the United States from itself. sounds like a pretty {{censor|kickass|tts=[awesome]}} vignette story honestly

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S">Trotskyists losing internal election and leaving party [https://redmole.substack.com/p/the-swp-reforms-its-elections-a-dozen] -> wow, now there's a social process. knowing everything I know about Trotskyists I don't know how this is something I'm newly recording — it's kind of exactly how they would behave if they were just a bit better than they were in 1930. that said. I'm not sure it's something I can really insult them for per se. as any resident of the United States knows well, any republican process that operates specifically on factions conquering each other can be really frustrating. so maybe they aren't unjustified to start getting tired of their own party when it's specifically operating on a unified block of things you have to contest? I don't really know. I'm not sure if this is the usual thing that democratic centralism means or not. I thought it was usually mostly about positions on issues. 
I do find it mildly funny that they just focused on the actual processes and managed to get through an article without calling an uncontested block of delegates "Stalinist". not bad. I wish they'd do that more often. also. the usage of generic parliament terms like "loyal opposition" is... interesting, though I have no opinion on it.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">party conducting structural renovation on empty building [https://redmole.substack.com/p/the-swp-reforms-its-elections-a-dozen] -> I'm laughing. great metaphor

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism they've lost the plot / When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism everything has already been pushed into the arena of international Liberal-republican politics and is not really in the hands of proletarian subpopulations or Marxist parties at all -> it's kind of cool to see Trotskyists actually attempting to talk about an international issue with substance, but I think they subtly dropped the ball yet again. [https://redmole.substack.com/p/fighting-campism-requires-understanding] they're singling out campism as "Stalinist", i.e. related to Stalin's Marxism, but even if you're talking about the effects of something historically, that just doesn't really make sense when countries change so drastically in the absence of Stalin's Marxism that basically the whole playing field changes into capitalists versus capitalists and ethnicities versus ethnicities and there are no longer any good answers {{em|at all}}, not just a lack of good answers on how Stalin should carefully weave together with other countries to create the biggest bloc of proletarian allies. how bad was "Frelimo in Mozambique" that modern "Stalinist" parties are supposedly defending? I have no idea. one of the only things I know about Africa is that Burkina Faso is trying again after previous attempts so even if it has problems there are a few points toward supporting it. I think it's possible this blog is getting a bit too lost in details about situations with no actual good outcome within a world full of capitalists versus capitalists. to be fair, the "campists" are doing that too, but I am not sure if there's an actual good way to correct that when it's an artifact of the real world scenario, not necessarily an artifact of party policy.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Novels are phenomenological; their main and most effective purpose is to catalogue possible phenomena within society or otherwise without truly passing judgement on them

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Sparks, a tale of ink (unfinished) [https://sparks-fvn.itch.io/sparks-a-tale-of-ink] -> are these two stories connected? they feel like drafts of each other but I have no idea if that's really the case. 
the only clear bit of evidence I have is that they both released blog posts in January 2025, which seems to point to them being separate. 
so far if I had to choose one I think I like Sparks better. it may be verbose but it at least gets more of the lore out there faster and gives you something to chew on, while Spark Hearts barely got started at all.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Spark Hearts (unfinished) [https://sparkheartsdev.itch.io/spark-hearts]

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="M3" data-submitter="R.D.">Is it an anarchist pipe dream to want a world where people can create concepts for fictional settings which are simply "community concepts" or "an additional thing created by me" without anyone who creates such things having necessarily created a new cycle of exclusive, closely-guarded bourgeois culture?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It is necessary and unavoidable to compare yourself to other people in everything that you do if you wish to be part of society -> I'm sick of people acting like "comparing yourself to other people" is something you can just stop doing. in everyday situations there is no other way to know if you're moral or if you're a bad person than to ask other people and compare yourself to other people. it's terrifying, when other people can just be cruel, but if you don't do it you don't earn other people's trust and you never get positive feedback. 
even when it comes to activities that are about individual expression you still have to study what other people are doing and understand exactly what it is they're doing and why they're doing it really well, deeply, entirely, to be able to stop doing nothing and do anything yourself. you have to understand the exact goals of it and the exact emotions it makes normal people feel and significance it has to them even if you don't feel them. you can't just have your own opinions and emotions for their own sake without first knowing what other people's are, or other people will feel like they haven't been heard and they're being cruelly overlooked. if you don't compare yourself to other people you just retread what's already been done and fail to fit yourself in socially and just sort of waste everyone's time. any particular genre of art emerges due to actual socially-linked circles of people and the needs particular groups of people have collectively, and not due to the overall space of unexplored possibilities not being filled in; the seemingly repetitive patterns that emerge in genre fiction or within a long-running media series are because large portions of people really genuinely want to see those core things and don't want them left out. 
I am actually talking generally and not about anything in particular, but maybe an example will help bring all of this around. Pokémon. if you don't understand what people who are just naïve fans of it actually want to see in Pokémon you won't be able to design a better Pokémon game, no matter how many emotions you have about what {{em|you'd}} like to see. you have to really put yourself in the place of somebody who unironically liked Pokémon gen 8 and wasn't swayed from gens 8 or 9 by bad performance or the limited dexes. you have to know that fan in and out and effectively be a step ahead of their own specific thinking process to predict what would actually impress them. there is a certain art to creating an unexpected or improved version of a particular thing rather than just something totally unrelated.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">vice signaling {{YouTube|o2lQ42hy9TU}}

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="unknown" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Tiananmen Square "Massacre"? - The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence {{YouTube|HmIvfqIQ_O0}}

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When communities are under attack, the thing that will save them is community {{YouTube|S_a3INMK_g0}} / When countable subpopulations are under attack, the thing that will save them is subpopulations miraculously coming together just because they are all subpopulations and all of them being subpopulations somehow turns them into a [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|stationary combination of heterogeneous elements]] (I tried my best; not canonical) -> blue anarchism is so out of control it's now just regurgitating definitions of itself sometimes.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="ML, IV, W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Erich Fromm -> "psychologist". claimed to be a Communist ally — named Marxism unknown. {{YouTube|rP1_cyxD1LA}}

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The alternative to socialism in one country is living in one of multiple countries -> the way Existentialists think is fundamentally different from the way Communists think. Communists want to take a country and see it improve. Existentialists want to falsely equivocate everything as being as good as everything else, at the cost that you actually have to take nationalities and rank them by which ones you think are better and then go live there — and the second cost that populations are material objects and run out of empty canvas, further ranking nationalities as better or worse according to who meets the local standards of which ones. quite literally everybody is equal but some ethnic groups are more equal than others. the nerve to put that in a book when you have no idea what concepts mean or how they apply

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto HM, MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If something in a secondhand reading, retelling, summary, or analysis of a work of fiction {{em|feels}} controlling to a commenter, then it actually is immoral (feels like domination; feels bigoted; critical theory adjacent proposition; Kantian ethics adjacent proposition) / If Mr. J posts a fan theory that unintentionally sets a story up to be coded as an incestuous relationship, but one thread commenter out of 200 feels unsafe or like the retold narrative is setting up Loci of Hierarchical Control and Domination, this one person's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings / If Ms. Y posts an analysis of a narrative that claims it contains a metaphor for rape and 20 thread commenters out of 200 feel unsafe at the concept of the metaphor meaning that, regardless of whether the analysis is accurate to the influences of the work, Ms. Y's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings -> internet posts really shed light on how Kantian ethics just fundamentally doesn't make a lot of sense. so you created a society with a social contract. where does "society" actually begin and end? what people does it actually control? what people is it obligated to listen to and take orders from? how is it not [[E:separable multiplicity|countably plural]]? how is it not the case that "society" in a Kantian framework is just a bunch of little clustered islands that arbitrarily agree on the same morality and formed through the people that can tolerate those particular rules staying there and people that hate those rules and like other rules going elsewhere to their own [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|rules]] [[E:Social-Philosophical System (meta-Marxism)|island]]? 
Kant has this notion that reason is just this one thing and being moral and being rational aren't different even though his notion of morality seems to be intuitive rather than logical and clashes against what I would think reason is, and I am always at such a loss for how Kant thought that the concept of falling back to whatever is morally intuitive would ever unite people into a single society rather than multiple societies.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">CIA-funded union {{YouTube|6E89qUXTX-k}} -> the United States has a very big problem with hegemony politics and Tories carrying out hegemony politics. what many people don't acknowledge is the real mechanism is that there is a mountain of capital because the United States is a First World country, and that mountain of capital comes down on anything the United States wants to quietly influence. usually hidden all the way over in other countries, but sometimes inside the United States. capital often doesn't confront workers directly, it does this horrifying thing of hollowing out people's allies and turning them into puppets that can't be ignored but can't be trusted. on the big scale and on the small scale it's hegemony politics with a mountain of capital on top of one side. 
the really frustrating part is that the great majority of blue anarchists in the United States recognizes hegemony politics but fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of a huge avalanche of capital. that isn't created by values or attitudes or "domination". it's created by simply [[E:The existiest will rule|existing and existing and existing]] and some people building up more money. which means you really can't stop it by focusing on The State or The Cops, capital is properly anarchic, and yet while it doesn't belong to any one faction it can also become an avalanche that comes down all at once and turns unions into nazis. the only thing you can do is survive that. you fundamentally have to survive. you fundamentally have to avoid Zinovievization, you have to avoid somebody cracking the walnut, you have to avoid the whole walnut being [[E:A State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die|eaten and devoured]], or you're just a genocide victim, full stop. how is it that anarchists are all about countable cultures and "communities" but they never give the correct answer on self-genocide?

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="618" data-dimension="S">Gini coefficient [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient] {{YouTube|6E89qUXTX-k}}

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="618" data-dimension="S">central contradiction of China {{YouTube|6E89qUXTX-k}} -> this is a floating label that applies to whatever major issue is the most important currently. sort of the way "central contradiction" has always been used, but just a little different in that it's inside the context of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the specific kinds of five-year plans that happen there

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communism (empire) / Communism (forcing one population to be part of another when it would prefer to be independent) -> one of the rare but very uncomfortable overlaps between genuine charcoal-anarchism and Toryism. this concept that a bunch of individuals clustered together has a group individual-will applying to the group as an object and the structure or central government imposed on it by a larger population is the improper abuse of a living self-aware entity, stomping over its [[E:desire (Lacanianism)|emotions]] — and also, that this conflict is a defining feature of Communism. for anarchists this just means it is a fundamental flaw baked into the definition of Bolshevism though not necessarily the objective of it. for Tories, who sometimes just plain don't know anything, this means Bolshevism is founded on and created for the purpose of sapping away Free Will and only either big nationalism or teeny tiny local nationalism can fix it.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Left hijacked schools to introduce a Communist agenda {{YouTube|78XR4i0OH6c}} -> the key to this proposition is to realize that "Communism" doesn't refer to Bolshevism or Stalin or Mao or like, anything that you'd think it refers to. "Communism" refers to {{em|maybe}} the Black Panther Party specifically, not because they're Marxist but almost specifically because they're Black and they took local action against racism. remember, Tories don't understand the ideological content of Communism at all, so they can't define it based on its actual content, they can only define it based on people they don't like being Communists. step one is to identify Communists as never being your friends. step two is to construct a confusing argument about how their existence is an infringement on humanity [[E:natural law|and almost on biology and ecology]] because their ideology is grounded in slurping up Freedom and decision-making and creating a decision "asymmetry". step three is to turn vast numbers of decent people into racists because nobody likes the limitation of Freedom — even if you inform them that people are talking about it for racist purposes they'll still turn around and say "okay but it was still a good idea". humans are addicted to freedom and have almost zero tolerance to anything attacking it once they notice the thing and they just don't care. god I hate Existentialism.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Reconstruction is Communism / Reconstruction was basically Bolshevism -> once again, one of those concepts you laugh at when you see it, until you decode it and see what it's really saying. this is an anarcho-Tory proposition. by Communism, they somewhat literally mean "violation of anarchist values". they're working with the Existentialist concept of [[E:generalized dictator|generalized dictators]], and they are totally incapable of defining what Bolshevism actually is and why anyone would create it, so they think it's actually deliberately created for the purpose of taking away Freedom and creating suffering, as nonsensical as that is if you have read a {{censor|fucking}} history book. starting from that "understanding", they begin putting together an argument that .

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">empty room of wonders {{YouTube|F0K2DnI1TDk}}

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S">Trotskyist pyramid scheme {{YouTube|VFzQB9EYRVw}} -> one of the funniest phrases I've heard all week. it's just a little bit terrible that this motif applies to the "IV" code, not the "Zv" code and it's still quite an accusation. sometimes there is just no saving Trotskyism

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is an inherent asymmetry between decision-making bodies and the people subject to decisions that makes states unstable {{YouTube|VFzQB9EYRVw}} -> the surface claim here has a certain amount of logic to it. what I don't really like is how if you believe this you sort of inherently fall into baking people into countable Cultures and racializing them. maybe that will sound wild to people who are new to meta-Marxism. but a population has to be materially united by something to be a population. a state is the easy way; if people are united by a state, or at least a thoroughly Materialist understanding of a population as might hypothetically replace a state in the future, it's easy to be anti-essentialist about who is part of the population. if a society is "decentralized" then, like, social connections and cultural traditions are inherently going to be a big part of defining its shape and how or if it fragments. and if that's the case it sort of becomes a game of building a superior culture, just while ostensibly not being bigoted against anything except Third World countries' national independence.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A revolution cannot immediately abolish authority in that it contains authority (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm] -> fairly classic proposition. 
also might be good for the purposes of defining what "Zinovievizing" is: it involves the collision of two separate Social-Philosophical Systems / "[[Term:crab|crabs]]" which can't resolve their problems peacefully because resolving them requires colliding and colliding might bring violence.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="A, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When a council meets the individual members are not exercising authority [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm] -> this one would seem to apply to the way people talk about the US Congress, making me think it's actually blue. but it would also seem to be false in both cases as soon as you think of how upset people get at having rust-tinted congressmen. every one of them has a small amount of authority as the overall Congress has a bigger amount. that's why [[E:hegemony politics (Gramscianism)|hegemony politics]] is so tempting: to control that authority.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">anti-filtration -> the motif in anarchist writings or news events of groups of people distinctly doing the opposite of [[Term:filtration|filtration]] — attempting to join together while distinctly disregarding each group's principles and pretending they don't matter whatsoever to the point that the joining of the two groups might or might not create a toxic or dangerous relationship but it is still asserted to be necessary and good on the principle of overcoming divisions and becoming closer and more connected just for the sake of it. 
this motif is not synonymous with "Rhizome", due to that Item representing usages of "rhizome" in schizoanalyst texts where it was originally created. basically: Rhizome - case of - anti-filtration

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism Zinovievizes countries in the same sense that Trotskyism Zinovievizes countries, despite the difference of wanting to replace their content with blue content instead of orange content

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Factories have superseded small proprietors (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm] -> this was definitely true from about 1870 to 1930. but somewhere around maybe 1960 weird stuff happened in First-World countries to make everything go the opposite direction. it wasn't just outsourcing. this is another process that happened after outsourcing and the replacement of factories by retailers. and it seems weirdly correlated with an explosion of anarchists and blue and charcoal anarchisms. I am not fully sure if blue anarchists actually caused it or not. the only thing I know is that the sheer amount that they justify everything that's happened is annoying.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to destroying the power loom to return to the spinning wheel (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm] -> thank you Engels. I often feel like I'm going crazy because nobody sees this and it seems like everybody actually does want to go from the factory back to the spinning wheel, only to end up having to work just as long selling Artisanal products through Jeff Bezos.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">AI is no more reliable than an undergrad entering in unproven conjectures on a wiki / LLMs are no more reliable than somebody with an undergrad level of knowledge in a subject at most entering in untested hypotheses or conjectures on a wiki -> this would take {{em|time}} to test by picking a few propositions that editors are supposed to reason through and then an LLM claimed to be a good one is supposed to reason through, but it would technically be testable. that is the real beauty of this project. I enter in "stupid" propositions all the time. this project doesn't exactly claim to be so much better and smarter than an LLM, but it doesn't have to, because all it really has to do is demonstrate that LLMs are much worse and humans doing non-binary logic are adequate. 
the funniest thing here is imagining coming up with a problem that current language models genuinely wouldn't be familiar with because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and isn't already in a bunch of ingestable articles, and really struggling against the "AI" to get it to understand it. I remember when just out of curiosity while I was waiting for the wiki to come back up, I went to the only LLM I use which is duckduckgo's that they somehow thought was a good idea to put in search results (ChatGPT 4o-mini/5). every time I test that model against a task it literally always disappoints and hardly ever gives an answer to the question; it's like it can really only handle summarizing the search results and nothing else. so, out of curiosity I asked it to define [[E:meta-Marxism|meta-Marxism]] and explain how it's used to create an [[E:Molecular Marxism|MDem]]. it got everything wrong. it hasn't been reading this wiki, for better or worse. it sort of correctly guessed the connotations of the words in context, notably v5 got "meta-" basically right, but it only got "molecular" half right, coming up with a bunch of stuff that sounded like [[E:meta-Marxism versus Existentialism|critical theory]] or anarchism. it also thought "MDem" stood for "meta-democracy" — which was a decent guess but no. it couldn't make the leap to guessing that the "M" actually contained a description of what making things "meta" would do to them qualitatively (molecularize), that there was literally a hint in the question that it just wasn't on the right "MatPat" level to be able to predict. (Just think of how Deltarune fans were only given the letter C and a significant number of people managed to guess it stood for "Carol". it's possible.) I would have actually been impressed if it had been able to reason through the word "meta-Marxism" and the historical context leading up to the probable reasons for creating that concept so well that it guessed by chance that out of three or so possible expansions M stood for molecular. but it didn't. it had this unique inability to realize that if you wanted to improve Marxism you'd be doing it to solidify the grasp of Materialism over Marxism and keep the Idealism out. which, like... for a human, {{em|if you'd only read Marx}} you would have enough information to see that "reducing" things to arrangements of material objects was a key theme; one of the major differences from Hegel to Marx was that Marx was always tying ideologies and models back to the material arrangements of objects that produced them. it almost would have to have read a lot of Western-Marxist texts to {{em|forget}} that. (I say that neutrally, but also from experience, because as much as I have nothing bad to say about him I know [[User:Vidak|Vidak]] has done that sometimes — read all the Western-Marxism, didn't quite pick out the emphasis on making everything into material objects in meta-Marxism. I guess this nuance is just much too hard for AI.) 
the only good thing about ChatGPT is it offers this weird lens into exactly how people can be dense and fail to understand what you're saying. it's almost a good model of stupidity, in a really weird way. I still refuse to use it as a test reader until I figure out how to run it locally and it has to either complete on limited RAM or crash my computer. at that point it could be fun to see how badly it understands my book chapters but yeah, I will put no verbatim generated text on this wiki. not even on pages about testing the AI. you only get manual summaries of the stupid, which funny enough would probably waste your time less by getting to the point much faster. you've seen how I write, rambling wildly, and yet, like, you know how in only a couple sentences LLMs get seemingly nowhere, they {{em|actually}} waste space. 
ok ok I am done "bragging", I will actually avoid that on the Ontology pages. but just imagine how much ChatGPT would struggle to solve the simplest true/false problems. I feel like even if you asked it a fully verifiable question that just isn't usually asked prior to meta-Marxism, that's explained in multiple existing sources but actually requires synthesizing propositions instead of purely treasure-hunting, it would absolutely sputter; you could break down the question carefully into a lot of smaller propositions and it still wouldn't get easier.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Lattice model does not describe the United States -> the more that events unfold the more colossally confused I am. especially every time I read more about the things that are supposed to explain what I don't understand. literally nothing makes sense. mainstream Marxism-Leninism blatantly doesn't match some things and you see people improperly apply statements like "the United States is mostly proletariat, all the businesses are consolidated, it's not going backwards into big businesses shattering and being replaced with a bunch of tiny businesses" - no. but every time I read about anarchism nothing makes any sense, it never gets to making any more sense than it did before. anarchists are constantly going on about how the United States will never work or function because it's too racist and you just have to tear it apart or run away from it. they manage to vaguely understand the concept that Liberal-republicanism isn't defeating "fascism". but then all the protests are about everybody sort of spontaneously standing together across the exact lines of oppression that makes things not work? the exact shit that anarchists tell people not to expect — sometimes vehemently like you're a bad person to even think it would work — just kind of unpredictably happens after consistently not happening and not happening and not happening. I don't know what to believe or how to understand any of this.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why are the most taxing kinds of work paid the least? (most damaging kinds of work; theme in Marx) / "The longer, more painful and more disgusting the work they are given, the less they are paid" (Buret) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm] -> there are going to be multiple reasons. Marx pointing out the pressures to pay as little as possible and profit as much as possible is one correct answer. but I think there is another answer: the "easier" jobs that get paid more are simply scarcer and harder to get. many of these people are lesser experts at something, and as a commodity it takes time to produce them. some people will try to spin Careerist salaries as some kind of respect, but I think there are much colder processes determining them — Careerists are capable of sending labor through the [[E:dragon process|dragon process]] to make it uniquely rare and more costly, thus circumventing having to do any actual class struggle through their sheer process of building up themselves as greater wealth. it's easy to point to how common or "low cost" the things produced at low-paying jobs are, but it's always an unsatisfying answer when really, in comparison to workers only getting "what's logical" the owner getting a bunch of extra pay looks quite like an arbitrary social construct that if extended out could fix everything. but if you look the other direction up to rare things, things start to make more sense. to some extent common things are valued relative to rare things. gold in particular was a currency at times and people used it as a comparison against more common things like silver or cloth or eggs. fiat currency is still a little bit rare in a certain sense that only a small group of people gets to carefully decide when to print it. (I still have a video dancing around in my head that claimed fiat currency has never been successful when like..... okay, but a bunch of countries are measuring their own currency by the U.S. dollar, and that's a fiat currency. so what's up with that? it'd seem like fiat currency is actually doing pretty good right now.)

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A many-to-one relationship is not a function (algebra) -> I was always told this in grade school but I don't see why it has to be true, and <code>f(x,y) = z</code> can't be considered a function. it's definitely different from single-variable functions but I feel like the better way to distinguish these graphs is just by what kinds of coordinate systems they use, or two-dimensional versus three-dimensional.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Taking any action is gambling / Whenever you take any action as an isolated individual you are gambling -> people are somewhat predisposed to believe in Free Will, and hate to give it up. this is one of the only good retorts that should make any reasonable person pause and go "oh, that's terrifying". 
Individual actions contribute to the future + You can't predict The Subject = Taking any action is gambling. 
Individual actions contribute to the future + No point in space can measure the state of any other point from a distance that would need to be accessed faster than the speed of light (general? relativity, Einstein) = Taking any action is gambling.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The existence of Free Will would make you responsible for other people's actions, always having to steer around them, apologize for them, or commandeer them, even though you do not have the power to predict them or replace them with the ones you would prefer -> any attempt to save Free Will that denies this essentially crumbles into arguing for non-absolute determinism. if you are not responsible for other people's actions, then up to 300 million things happen every hour that you aren't in control of, and the future you will have to face tomorrow morning is essentially mostly determined by factors other than you. the thing most people miss in discussions of Free Will is that physicists' determinism isn't scary, and gives you more control than you'd otherwise have. if your future is determined then you can predict it and survive it better, because absolute determinism does not apply and only clusters of things are determined relative to each other. there's a little extra complexity that comes from separate clusters actively trying to outwit each other, but that's the only real problem left. 
Individual actions contribute to the future + Taking any action is gambling = this.
this + ?? = Free will is incompatible with the golden rule

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX: exmat" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The golden rule can be formulated in the third person without assuming that anyone has Free Will: the golden rule is an overall system-wide process that is in effect when individuals do not behave differently toward others than they expect others to behave toward them in order to create a single coherent society -> when you define the golden rule this way, it becomes clear that there are situations where you can {{em|predict}} that people will stop following it; only heading off those situations will actually cause the state of people following it. 
people seem to {{em|sort of}} understand this when it comes to the Trotskyite conspiracy, often proposing remedies to prevent it albeit usually misguided ones, but they totally don't understand this when it comes to anarchists or Black Panthers stepping away from the United States, even though the motivations are similar. {{i|those people aren't just shearing off into a new society and dissenting against society, those are evil enemy terrorists!}} what's the difference? what's the real, substantial difference between Trotskyites and Black Panthers? for a Tory at their particular level of understanding [[E:Ideology are not singular|different ideologies]] and the development of [[E:Society are not singular|plural societies]] there shouldn't be any difference.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is wanting to commit suicide abnormal or expected? -> we often assume it's abnormal but really at a certain point we're just pathologizing the desire to leave society and create a new society or go to another country. this is the second time I'm basically going to therapy for Communism and non-patriotism, and I'm tired. 
the thing that really gets me is that Deleuze was trying to solve this kind of thing but ultimately, like, he doesn't get out of the paradigm of psychology, he's still just producing psychology, and it's still going to pathologize forms of society that it isn't equipped to model.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Nationalities and ethnic groups are basically the same thing -> this is one of those propositions that sounds really weird and out of the blue at first, but I do have a stack of careful reasoning as to why this {{em|might be}} true. 
one thing that is notable is how the people of the Soviet Union did not merge into a single nationality despite some people thinking they eventually would — in line with, if not necessarily identical to, some of the earliest ideas way back in the "Trotskyist" period of Leninism circa 1906 that national borders and divisions between nations were arbitrary and imposed. or in line with some anarchisms. it would be easy for a certain rather-specific kind of anarchist to say that the 14 populations of the Soviet Union merging into one heterogeneous but united nationality was part of the natural process of people "Rhizoming" together and forming [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]]. 
another thing that is notable is Brexit. a lot of people constantly talk about "Whiteness" or "The West" as if all Europeans have truly become a single giant ethnic group regardless of where they are in the world, but incidents like Brexit should cast doubt on that because, for good reasons or bad reasons, Brexit was a step toward separating English people from a neatly unified larger civilization of Europeans or White people. in the same vein, Northern Ireland still acts as a dividing line between populations of English and Irish people, and there had been a division in the United States between Irish people and people that amounted to Germans or Dutch people, etc., largely along Catholic versus Protestant lines. ultimately nobody truly cares about the fine details of religion, Irish people and non-Irish people simply start out as separate coherent populations that mostly notice their physical separation through things like religious sects, and the sheer separation itself invites conflict. 
this isn't really to deny the fact that nationalities can contain multiple ethnic groups inside them — instead, the framing here is that ethnic groups can easily contain other ethnic groups. this also isn't to deny that some national borders such as in Africa hardly even function as nationalities whatsoever, and are something of a featureless bag of disconnected ethnic groups. the purpose of reducing the concepts of nationality and ethnic group into one thing is this: people like to dance around topics just because they sound nasty on the surface, like the concept that identifiable deterministic processes outside the individual can lead ethnic groups to fight each other over territory or government or (non)membership in each other as ethnic groups. they'd rather believe that racism can be willed away than that there exists any specific set of conditions where it's "inevitable". denying this sweeps away the real problem of large groups of people not wanting to associate with each other for human reasons, just because the two groups have a reciprocal bad relationship, and in turn, the possibility of addressing or healing these bad relationships. when anarchists are always trying to make things into lines of flight and Freedom and things automatically merging and essentially all of humanity being made of ethnic groups and nested sets of ethnic groups rather than truly being made of socio-economic theories or politics, we all ought to be mature enough to actually {{em|examine}} and {{em|analyze}} the possibility all populations are made of relationships between ethnic groups. statements like "Trotsky tried to break apart the Soviet Union and work with other countries supposedly slated to transition to Trotskyism because he was not well suited to be part of Soviet ethnicities and would have preferred to become part of a different ethnic group" are genuinely interesting propositions that offer an opportunity to see the world in a less adversarial way where no population or faction is actually the good guy or the bad guy; it does a lot to muddy the overall worldwide story of humanity when we unnecessarily try to {{em|de}}-racialize things just to fit some preconceived notion of anti-discrimination laws and constitutional amendments inside a specific Liberal republic. 
anyway... because I'm a little afraid that I've never known what {{i|ethnic group}} means or is formally defined as in the first place, in my more serious writings that are aiming to become "finished" I only say "countable culture".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Don't talk about "systemic" -> a lot of people genuinely don't know what to do when faced with the concept of "systemic" because they are predisposed to reduce it back down to how individual actions stack up to "systemic" behavior and push for individual remedies. even something like an anti-discrimination law is ultimately an individual remedy because as it's written it expects individuals to simply follow it.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Don't talk about "means of production" -> this is [[E:Socialism is Subjects having means of production|a genuinely confusing concept to anarchists]] so it really has to be completely spelled out.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX: existential materialism; MX onto STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling to win a profit -> people often say the solution to the prisoner's dilemma of neither player confessing is "obvious". but that's the [[E:charcoal anarchism|anarchist]] solution to the problem. in a society of [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialists]], most people are going to respond to real-world prisoners' dilemmas as if they're gambling and trying to win against the other people.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM: probability" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every investor is a gambler {{YouTube|-X9u9oYvGYk}}
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM: probability" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Maximum risk brings maximum reward (probability) / Given a particular kind of probability game where the integral of all payouts is positive, the biggest wager brings the biggest winnings / Maximizing profit guarantees total loss (correction) {{YouTube|-X9u9oYvGYk}} -> it's easy to show this is a stupid thing to do, and yet... it's kind of an orthodox way to run capitalism, and basically what's currently being done with the money that goes into AI companies. 
Maximum risk brings maximum reward + prisoner's dilemma = The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The subject takes philosophy out of Idealism into empiricism / The subject takes philosophy out of essences into empiricism (Kant) {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}} -> congrats Kant, you just discovered a material model of positivism and solipsism. The Subject really doesn't permit empirical observations. it only describes how we created Idealism in the first place.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All of reality actually lives in any particular individual's unconscious mind {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q34,99|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals / A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals because real individuals can't be universalized (Deleuze; blue-anarchist framing) {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}}
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S">psychology of affections / a psychology of the mind's affections {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}} -> I do not know what this is supposed to mean, but, the concept that "a psychology of the mind" can't capture the differences between individuals? yeah. I think cognitive science is fine but I am so tired of Lacanianism. go ahead and destroy popular psychology in the places where it's clearly not basing itself in science, the philosophical parts of it are weird and insular and bourgeoisie-specific and aren't even doing anyone any good. as far as this one thing goes Deleuze might be wired actually

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Social contracts emerge at stacks of capital -> one of the best responses to weird [[E:anarcho-Toryism|anarcho-Tory]] theories of capitalism, the Heidegger types, that try to posit a conspiracy by some nebulous "they" to "trap everyone in cities and Algorithms". reply that society is created by Them and every notion of civilization and morality forms around capitalists. as long as capitalism exists it's only a slight exaggeration. it shouldn't even be objectionable to a lot of right-Liberals and Tories. god though, my "favorite" is when you get a person who sometimes rants about the genius of "entrepreneurs" but then also at other times sinks into conspiracy theories about how "they" maliciously brought in modernity. who do you people think "They" are???

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">getting rid of politics to create anarchy / blue anarchism as silent destruction of political processes -> this is one of those core [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] / blue-anarchist ideas that defines what it is and especially separates it from Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism believes in political processes like a constitution and a presidency existing, and having periodic elections; blue anarchism doesn't believe in any of that. ostensibly to keep from disrupting those things and letting those things tear each other apart, but in reality, nothing is complementary or separable to the extent both Liberal-republicans and blue-anarchists like to believe, and when you attempt to teach piles and piles of bizarrely specific areas of society to "do their job" and not get involved in politics for long enough, what you create is a world where everybody is trapped in blue anarchism for much of their waking hours interacting with any particular part of society and nobody has any time to think about democracy, and potentially, democracy just flat out dies because [[E:Stupidity filters up|stupidity filters up]] from the vast body of regular people who aren't allowed to think about democracy to get rid of candidates with actual policies and produce uniquely uninformed democracy-hating candidates that run in elections. you can't neatly separate amorphous and molecularized theories of society, any more than you can separate classical physics from quantum physics; for any two, the molecularized theory is generally going to win out and take over the whole country up to the big scales, whether it's based on tiny person-to-person rejections and Filamentism or whether it's based on large business territories aggressively chunk-competing against the rest of society. it's in this sense that center-Liberals and Tories {{em|sort of}} really are distinct ideologies, purely because they contain different inner [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|Bauplans]]. center-Liberal allies may genuinely believe that individuals [[E:Lines of flight are the severing and forming of social connections|cutting off relationships and forming new relationships]] is the primary engine that creates society (whether those individuals are CEOs or not), and right-Liberal or Tory allies may genuinely believe that stacks of capital or business territories or Christian morality and allegiance or non-allegiance to a code of morality is the primary engine that creates society. 
a lot of "apolitical people" in the United States are just flat-out conservatives full stop, and committed racists full stop. the reason they become this way is that they have no idea they are analyzing the most basic processes of society through faulty models of, for instance, [[E:Wealth gets rid of poverty|stacks of wealth being related to nothing else]], and [[E:non-peacer|all interactions in society running on morality]] rather than morality appearing as a band-aid solution to underlying amoral processes. the ability to [[E:meta-Marxism|actually analyze and re-examine]] molecularized models of society might make all the difference at some time in the future. if nothing else Liberal republics would actually get accurate political party colors and be forced to reckon with some five or something major parties at local levels. of course this is much more powerful in the hands of Marxists, who would become able to theoretically comprehend conflicts or relations between two separate [[E:national population as anarchist-friendly social unit|national populations]] which are transitioning into different Marxisms or anarchisms, even wonky strawberry or orange or blue "Marxisms".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">contradiction between media products being shared congregating points of "A Community" that must be tolerated for the purpose of tolerating other individuals at the congregating point, and exclusive individual expressions of directors or corporations that must be judged on their ability to have produced the product well and to deserve their position on a particular social graph node within society

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In the future the United States will transition to a system without workers where individuals run businesses using AI -> descriptive prediction based on current patterns, not endorsement.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HM, ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Bolshevism mustn't contain narratives (critical theory) / Bolshevism is bad because it consists of narratives, and social transition can strictly only happen through tearing apart all narratives -> I have never liked this kind of thinking because like, "I'm Uyghur and China is oppressing me" is a narrative, "I'm Black and there needs to be more minority representation in social structures" is a narrative, "I'm transgender and I first experienced gender dysphoria at 7 years old, not at 30 when you claim I made it up" is a narrative, not to mention "The Soviet Union needs to maintain its government and border so it doesn't become a colony" being a narrative despite everybody already not wanting to believe it. it's trivially easy to not believe narratives, and as such, it's trivially easy to decide to be racist and never listen to critical theorists. all Lived Experiences are narratives! it makes no sense to me that it's popular both to constantly talk about Lived Experiences and constantly talk about destroying narratives. those two things absolutely don't go together. and out of the two, Lived Experiences are actually the better choice because if you accept a bunch of individualized narratives they can all be tied together into a unified picture of reality without logical contradiction. Lived Experiences {{em|allow}} for creating a meta-ontological picture of reality even though they will present {{em|material}} contradictions between individuals and don't necessarily make it easy.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All narratives are biographies / All narratives are lived experiences -> there are enough instances where this is false to mark it inaccurate.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All lived experiences are narratives -> this is different from the converse implication that {{i|all narratives are real or imagined Lived Experiences}}. I think that out of the two, this statement is truer. It may depend on what things you think belong in the category of narrative, but to me a narrative is defined by ontologies, interactions, and series of events; narratives are histories, [[:Category:general-sense historical materialism ontology|in the physics sense of the formation of time]], that happen either alongside a specific point of view or from a bird's-eye view where it simply happens. narratives can be told from within a particular factional ideology, like a Trotskyist newspaper or a bible story (Christianity) or a PBS news report against Venezuela funded by the Freeman foundation (this will be on my wall of shame forever). narratives can also be told from no particular ideology, like an account of the first two billion years of life on earth. meta-Marxism hopes to make it possible for historical accounts and accounts of possible futures to come close to this level of telling events while supporting no {{em|particular}} ideology, in ways that Liberal-republican and blue-anarchist frameworks currently absolutely do not.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to overthrow White supremacists -> this seems like a widespread notion these days among like, everyone. Gramscians or Black Panther allies, anarchists, critical theorists especially, "anti-fascists", even the occasional center-Liberal. but it's never made any coherent sense to me because it's like.... what the hell is that transition supposed to look like physically. throwing 150 million White supremacists into the ocean? Marxism makes sense because you can describe a transition to [[E:Material System of Bolshevism|Bolshevism]] as scattered points of workers assembling into a [[E:Lattice model|Lattice]], practicing [[Term:filtration|filtration]] to find good representatives, cross-linking through [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|crimson structures]] that create production or survival, building a republic, and [[E:dictatorship of the proletariat|putting everyone under jurisdiction of the republic]]. I can tell you almost exactly what a Communist revolution looks like except for specific clashes between the proletarian Lattice and bourgeois allies that are historically-contingent events; "there will be some" is what's easiest to say. but when everyone is going on about racism and prejudices as "a revolution" but a lot of the discussion is treating it as intangible Ideas and Attitudes and Narratives I just have no idea what people are even saying. are they imagining a charcoal-anarchist Lattice? what physical object are they imagining? I never know what object is supposed to form during the transition to post-capitalism (or "post-racism" I guess) if everything is so immaterial. how do you not just get stuck in an infinite loop of thinking the transition has happened but everything actually being the same? if the end result is physically the same as the start then how can it be a revolution? 
now, if people want to talk about reconstructing the Third-Worldiest parts of the United States, that makes physical sense to me as something that could happen. but I don't understand how it makes sense to call that a "revolution". it doesn't involve the Black subpopulation (for instance) forming a new country or union republic, which is what the second definition of the Russian Revolution would be: the formation of the 14 SSRs. in a lot of blue-anarchists' minds it doesn't even involve changing the United States republic at all. so to me it's like, what the hell do people think the word revolution means? the only thing I can {{em|sort of}} get from ingesting way too much [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] is that people think the concept of Freedom is somehow core to the definition of Revolution; regime change or a change in the internal structure of countries doesn't define Revolution, and somehow Freedom itself defines that. schizoanalysts believe something a little like that, which is why they terribly misuse the word "revolution" and sprinkle it everywhere as a metaphor. 
god I hate the misuse of the word {{i|revolution}}. I know it's absolutely everywhere and I can't shove it back in the bag but I wish it hadn't happened, because it leads to the most insulting mockeries of the concept of revolution as people blatantly denounce revolutions and then go around lightly using it as a metaphor. ??? why. why would you use something totally forbidden in your society or "Community" as a metaphor like that. if Bolshevism is really such a great injustice and revolution itself is [[E:Hannah Arendt|so bad]] that the French Revolution shouldn't have been one... throwing around the word {{i|revolution}} is the equivalent of going around saying "wow, you really committed genocide on those roof leaks" or "right, no information got out before the trailer. she's such a good project manager, she pulls off regular pizzagates" or "man, what a great article, you really crucified him". why the hell do United States people talk this way casually saying "a revolution" "revolutionized" when to many people that's one of the greatest sins you can commit and it's not considered good at all. it's not even like nonbelievers vulgarizing expressions like "the damned" when somebody else once took them seriously; this is something a great number of people agree on regardless of religion and demographic so it doesn't even make sense. maybe one day by cataloguing enough motifs and traditional philosophy books I'll finally understand the reason why. for now... I think I've just come up with a pretty good B-side chapter idea. a cluster of critical theorists spanning a few universities finally bans the word revolution from public discourse leading simultaneously to some people willingly spreading around some rather confusing informational materials and to a lot of confusion. hmm, maybe that one could be a second forum thread chapter, a philosophy forum is one place that could happen. 
It's possible to overthrow White supremacists + ?? = The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">What anarchists think is Archons or "domination" is sometimes literally just the existence of larger populations (believe to be the Spanishness Office; believe to be cultural hegemony; meta-Marxism) 
Populations always have the ability to decide not to do something + chat plays Undertale = this.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Decisions and consequences happen at the same time / Decisions do not happen on a special layer of all human decisions that exists before all actions happen, and instead decisions constantly happen from other directions before anyone makes their own, and because of processes like large inanimate objects or people's unconscious nervous systems making decisions, some decisions and actions separately issue out of the same entity without being linearly connected from decision to outcome -> this is one of my big problems with almost all of traditional philosophy. like, if you discuss "consequentialism", people will quickly assume you are saying that the consequences after a particular {{em|decision}} are good, and start slamming you about "the decision". and if you try to explain that you're focused on the consequences because they don't always come from decisions, then people will quickly assume you believe in absolute determinism and that you think decisions don't meaningfully exist. but in both cases what I actually think is simply that all decisions can't possibly come before all outcomes. some outcomes happen before decisions because they come from separate entities. some outcomes happen before decisions because the decision-making and outcomes are on the same entity but the outcome happened before the decision-makers were conscious of it. sometimes with some skill you can successfully make a decision and steer an entity toward its next outcome. so a lot of inanimate or "unconscious" decisions are constantly being made and every self-aware agent has to live with not being able to control a whole lot of decisions that simply happen outside it, some of which are far bigger than it will ever make; even if you have Free Will, it doesn't matter because most of the world isn't affected by your Free Will. Trotsky can want the best for everyone in the whole world and not be able to change any of it. that's why studying [[E:existential materialism|mere consequences of processes that happen]] without thinking of them as a special thing that agents made can be so useful and important. 
I think this statement is actually crimson because it lines up really closely with the themes in Marx. you see pretty clear Hyper-Materialist themes in his texts where he wants to drill down to the physics-like character of all social structures and not focus very hard on what mental models they have and decisions they attempt to make — people can still attempt to make decisions such as forming labor organizations, but they first have to understand the underlying structure of reality and the way different layers of reality are constantly interacting and making background decisions to do that effectively. 
Nothing can be done unless everyone considers it wonderful + special relativity = Decisions and consequences happen at the same time.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="M3">T/F?: Co-ops are anarchism / Are co-ops charcoal anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing charcoal anarchism? -> right now what it looks like to me is the answer is "some occurrence"; "Co-ops are anarchism" is true sometimes but not always.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="M3">T/F?: Co-ops are Existentialism / Are co-ops blue anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing blue anarchism? -> I doubt this one specifically because I think in some senses the most iconic "structure" of Existentialism is refusing to commit to structure and constantly changing it.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="M3">T/F?: Co-ops are Western-Marxism / Are co-ops strawberry Marxism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing strawberry Marxism?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto IV, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Orange chunks are actually blue Communitarian chunks -> I think this is unlikely to be true, but when Trotskyists and Bordigists have flat out attacked the entire concept of businesses (!) it is worth examining if the reason they hate state businesses is that they actually want to create blue chunks. I think this is unlikely to be the case because quite literally, they can't create soviets if they replace business territories with people spontaneously throwing donations into a hat that goes away after a while, the soviets would just dissolve. and Trotskyists really do like their soviets.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Real-world morality isn't rational / Real-world morality doesn't operate based on reason / Within the real world, morality is not a philosophical exercise in the sense traditional philosophers discuss morality and ethics, and instead exists in the form of the irrational, emotional response of a socially-linked group of people to physically protect itself from threat or maintain its Freedom -> a generalization of the more specific (and icky) example in Q12,1,22 / Q12,1,21. 
this has its ups and downs. on one side of the coin, it becomes depressingly easy to understand the behavior of Toryism. on the other side of the coin, you can turn it around to start arguing at center-Liberals and Tories that Deng Xiaoping Thought and the mainstream form of Bolshevism that existed historically are each categorically {{em|moral}} in that they follow the exact same pattern as all typical moral claims.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">Japanese counter word humor [https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/japanese-counters-list/] -> the motif of choosing counter words very deliberately and not necessarily the usual way they are used to imply something about the thing being counted. for example, using "一件" to imply something not usually considered an incident or a crime is an incident. 
I decided to do this to translate the proposition "Society are not singular".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dragon Ball has a nearly perfect model of ethics / Dragon Ball series has a nearly perfect model of ethics because it deals with the emergence of ethics out of an almost strictly amoral, non-ethical world where even Evil is not the background state, and where people must decide to actively invent ethics and particular systems of ethics or ideological factions they will join into simply because the consequences of living in an amoral world are worse -> if you think Dragon Ball is too simple to embody a system of ethics, I wouldn't totally tell you you're wrong, but what I would then say is that at its heart ethics is a relatively simple concept to the point that even this kind of show or comic can embody it. to me the most important part of ethics is actually just to realize that "ethical" is [[E:Society are not singular|never uncountable]] and there are always countable systems of ethics associated with countable groups of people, or the possibility of there being an amoral world with no morality or ethics at all. it then becomes true that even a superficially simple fantasy story about "Good" and "Evil" can just barely succeed at representing that.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">great man theory of ethics -> you have to understand I'm joking when I say this, but: I subscribe to the great man theory of ethics! the great man theory of ethics is the theory that generalized ethical scenarios containing "anyone" don't work to actually teach people to include all people, and people only actually learn to form consistent and sensible systems of ethics when you throw oddly specific historical figures, celebrities, or other bizarrely-specific individuals (anybody who's appeared in a newspaper will do) into an ethical scenario and try to predict what would happen with that very specific person, effectively writing real people fiction about somebody to properly figure out the solution to your ethical scenario. 
this concept doesn't go against the meta-Marxist notions of "repeated patterns" or "lambda-calculus determinism", but complements them perfectly, by taking generalized functions and actually using them and testing them by feeding in a particular "x" value.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stereotypes are necessary to create peace (anarchist phrasing) / If countries could not predict what another population was doing, they would constantly have to prepare for the possibility of war or horizontal "terrorist" attack, while if populations have ontological models or even essentialized Idealist models of what various parts of another population are like, they will be able to predict with reasonable accuracy that the other population will not attack their country, and create peaceful international relations (meta-Marxist phrasing) -> "stereotypes" here of course doesn't really mean stereotypes, it obliquely refers to the anarchist concept that having any model or description of a group of people — such as "people know they're transgender by 13 years old" or "people in Vietnam are focused on putting their effort into building a connected country" — is prejudiced, although in practice this would make Media Representation and applying a group of people's Lived Experiences impossible. everybody but anarchists knows these kinds of claims all carry an implicit caveat of "(this statement has a truth value of 'some occurrence')". yet it seems to be impossible to get people in general to stop improperly ignoring that without utterly destroying and smashing everyone's concept of formal logic. people can go on all day about how "things aren't binary"... and then fail to realize that most statements they hear from other people don't have to be True or False, and many statements they thought were claims of things being binary actually weren't. 
every day I become more convinced that you really need to mess with post-structuralist anarchists and pull at their basic emotions by repeating the language they would use back at them in the coarsest forms possible just to get them to stop believing such stupid things about how countries and borders and history work, and that the practice of refusing to have models of other country populations or meaningful demographic-identity movements to supposedly "prevent prejudices" is lazy and [[E:structural racism|racist]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Could you convince a starving unemployed person not to join the United States military? / Could you convince Dave Pelzer not to join the United States military and go to war in Vietnam? -> to succeed at this you have to actually have somewhere else for people to go where they can consistently produce for their household. anarchism is going to be quite bad at that, while Marxism, with the ability to control the overall layout of businesses and new jobs, has a chance. 
always remember that this was a real problem in the 1970s, it's not a fake problem. the United States military preyed on people when the economy was bad, promising them a salary if they'd only help in the important mission of making sure Vietnam suffers and doesn't have freedom. this is one of the biggest problems with trying to define a concept of 'social-ism' as "people looking out for each other". Dave Pelzer really did get fed the lie that fighting Vietnam was like having a family. that really happened. so are you going to internalize that fact and realize that only controlling production has the power to prevent global empire or not?

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto ML, MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stalin's government leading the country to rapidly build up heavy industry and Deng Xiaoping Thought are basically the same thing

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is like post-structuralist anarchism as a Marxism / When people within a Liberal-republican capitalist country practice post-structuralist anarchism and actually do it well with the actual goal of overthrowing the layer of capitalists, it turns into a countable Marxist movement whose named Marxism is Gramscianism -> you look at schizoanalysis, one of the most coherent bodies of philosophical literature connected to post-structuralist anarchism (although to be clear schizoanalysis is terribly incoherent, so that's really saying something), and a couple major themes like ending up on the best escape route and change proceeding person by person would basically just lead to the same outcomes as Gramscianism would, assuming that you do either of them well. either of them effectively produces an island of people who trust each other surrounded by a sea of reactionaries, or if things go more favorably, a caldera of people who trust each other {{em|surrounding}} a sea of reactionaries.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To be postcolonial, accept Dengism / All it takes to be truly postcolonial is accepting the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought (abbreviation, misleading) / Because global empire is only truly defeated when countries that are positioned to be colonies physically stop being colonies and don't become colonies any more, everyone who accepts the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought is doing more to bring about a postcolonial world than anyone who recommends that Deng Xiaoping Thought should be smashed to bring people "freedom", whether they obsess over the "colonizer attitudes in people's minds" or don't -> this one is here basically just to make anarchists angry. it's one of those roundabout propositions that is true because of other things — almost intentionally backhandedly-true. 
Capital is the true seat of government + China/Vietnam/Cuba will never be free if it's controlled by another nation's government = To be postcolonial, accept Dengism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Populations experience natural physical separations based on language, religion, or degree of stacked rank-goods and dragon process -> A) language is self-explanatory. B) religion is not metaphysically special, but means that people will have a different body of models of the world and repeating social structures (church, diocese & papacy, pilgrimage site, cloud of local-god shrines, etc) from another population. C) the presence of nobility, royal family in command of wealth, or a very big stack of capital separates First World countries from Third World countries and former colonies through the threat of creating global empire. many people in many ideologies get this wrong. you hear anarchists and Trotskyists act like borders are an imaginary fabrication, but

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capital is the true seat of government / Government and the nation-state or global-empire-state emerge from the locus of stacks of capital -> if you actually understand this then you understand Third-World countries and Deng Xiaoping Thought. unfortunately, many people don't quite understand this. 
Capital is the true seat of government + ?? = Pillows are not ideologically neutral.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (historical) / "Everyone" includes everyone (period.) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or any other historical period -> this is the proposition I'm really invoking when I spontaneously bring up "Trotsky" as a possible person things could apply to. it's difficult for large numbers of people to grasp something as abstract as "all people on earth across all historical periods", but it's easy to grasp bizarrely-specific examples.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (global) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or historical period in question -> a lot of Marxists believe they stop here but where they actually stop is confusing to figure out. Trotskyists seem to stop at a weird combination of the subpopulational proposition combined with part of the global proposition, as if they all lived in the new British Empire or the goal is to find the secret British Empire inside every country. mainstream Marxist-Leninists reach a similar level but divide things a bit differently — it's hard to describe the division exactly, but it often seems to include that they are obsessed with national independence movements entirely separately from the concept of ultimately realizing Bolshevism, and while that shouldn't cause problems, it becomes deceptive at the point countries actually free themselves and create a workers' state and then suddenly the mainstream MLs don't like what they've done and want to take it away. mainstream Marxism-Leninism is currently really really bad at understanding concepts like that Deng Xiaoping Thought might be necessary for China to have national independence and any future transition into Bolshevism is absolutely required to transition out of that. it's like mainstream Marxism-Leninism is unable to actually understand the concept of country characteristics, and when it happens that countries truly build a different-looking Marxism because a country is historically positioned to be a colony, suddenly they don't understand characteristics at all.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (national) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a country in the current historical period -> the typical Existentialist tends to stop here.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (subpopulational) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a highly specific subpopulation -> and this is where Tories stop.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To free the proletariat from the draining grasp of the bourgeoisie, it is not enough for people to be arranged into a mass of workers; to overcome the whole nation of owners on the layer above them they must be arranged into a whole nation of workers that can be said to have created the overall nation, while in many populations the structural foundation of the population is in constant flux and this is not true yet -> note/warning: this was prompted by [[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/MarxMindset|grading]] an {{YouTube|JN-I45T4QXY|AI video}} (this one was shockingly okay?). 
I lost the first version of this proposition in a computer crash when a single webpage took up like a gigabyte of memory (booo notion.so), which was infuriating because I typed quite a long paragraph here and lost it. I don't even remember how I worded the proposition the first time. but, I at least remembered the entire substance of it.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W onto Zv, W onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Walk away from corporations, and you lose the opportunity to have caring co-workers {{YouTube|ZOkdpm8j8rE}}

</li><li class="field_internal" data-tradition="MW" value="618" data-dimension="S">missing proposition -> policy-guide concept. the most basic form of article quality review on this wiki comes through strategic use of logical {{caps|And}} between two propositions that someone has claimed should go together — for example, although only one of these is a proposition, "Item labels should not contain swear words" versus a page named "Bullshit Jobs". given any two propositions, one of them that is deemed the most correct will suggest ways to update the other, or at least ways to add new M3 questions and S2 propositions for investigating the contradiction; in the example, the sensible solution is to add another policy proposition reading "Item labels do not need to be censored if the title of a self-contained work would become difficult to recognize". one problem with the contradiction method of investigating and improving articles is that sometimes there will be critical pieces of context missing from one of the propositions that would have made them both easier to evaluate, or drastically changed the answer. that is what this Item represents. a proposition, motif, or phenomenon that would have stood behind one of the propositions but didn't happen to be there. 
in cases a missing proposition is discovered, try to overhaul existing Items a minimal amount. it is okay to totally rewrite things like Background or Usage Notes sections, but the one thing you should keep close to the way it was is the verbose Item description at the top. add a tiny clarification of what was "missing" from the Item so that its character as a "strawman" or such is apparent, and then go make a new proposition which actually captures the missing proposition. philosophy "out in the wild" tends to have a lot of errors and missing propositions in it, so this policy allows all those errors in existing texts to be captured and analyzed even if editors add them accidentally rather than intentionally; as unique as you may think your error is, it's not unlikely somebody made the same error before.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto HM" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communitarians (meta-Marxism) -> the concept of a class-like socioeconomic layer of people defined by their connection to a particular Community, in particular a countable blue or strawberry chunk held up by a bunch of interconnected horizontal payments and donations. if Communitarians exist, they are not just "the petty bourgeoisie" — the presence or absence of links between the individuals is critical, and similar to the difference between a room full of carbon dioxide molecules versus a room containing a block of wood or a diamond. the full connected blue chunk is fundamentally different from a bunch of disconnected tiny shops. however, if the blue chunk is functioning effectively, it may be highly resistant to transition to Bolshevism or transition back to corporations which would {{em|allow}} regenerating the proletariat and transitioning to Bolshevism. Community chunks like to continue believing that individuals choosing to be nice and inclusive by coming up with cash and not failing to arrive with tangible money or production is sufficient to hold together a society, while they don't like to believe that the physical structure of society could stand to be more efficient, despite the contradiction that this is true of their Community chunk in that people who fail to produce have a higher probability of getting kicked out because they are less able to perform prosocial behavior and more likely to be seen as useless to the chunk if they ever make an ideological mistake; whether they go over to outside brown chunks or blue chunks or just to people inside the same chunk, it's a logical consequence that anyone with fundraising powers is more likely to be retained.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">Blue "Communitarian" chunks composed of either small businesses or assorted individuals graphed into a circular structure of everyone connected to a particular node tossing money into a donation "hat" until they don't feel like it are capable of scaling up into gigantic chunks composed of interconnected circles of big businesses -> so, today it is common for the strawberry bloc of people containing social-democrats, Western-Marxists, pure [[E:LGBT tradition|LGBT-tradition]] members, and blue-tinted "small-and-local" Artisan-anarchists to give you some version of the story that society can rebuild itself solely based on distributing the notion of stacks of capital into this vortex of donations where miscellaneous people unpredictably put money in a hat and supposedly this will take away the social power of nasty large sponsors. this particular blue or strawberry chunk concept is separate from the concept of government programs, although the two do interact in unfortunate ways — if no particular organization necessarily knows where its money is coming from, how do you ever collect taxes on any of this, instead of just finding out every single "Communitarian" business doesn't have any extra money to spare and Medicaid is dead? now, one could reasonably go into meta-Marxist graph economics to answer this and say that the question is irrelevant because taxes are already obsolete and the system is now all about reconfiguring actual human relationships and group shapes to get "the Medicaid community" paid, but most people advocating this kind of thing actually do want Medicaid type national programs and really haven't thought that far ahead. 
anyway, I found something shocking today. the way that AI companies are developing looks bizarrely like a gigantic version of a blue "Community" chunk. several businesses and the RAM chip makers are all connected together in a circle passing each other money such that the "AI Community" doesn't waste any money and is weirdly efficient. as blue anarchists might remark, it would be much better if humanity did this same thing with corporations that were actually useful. but really, I think this is a terrifying hint that blue "Community" chunks have exactly the same problem capitalism has of always eventually growing bigger and gaining power over all surrounding chunks in the sense of the power to make big decisions, slurp up resources, and commit violence. everyone wants to believe this fallacy that it's possible to take a system with an all-directional contradiction where all the pieces get bigger and simply "moderate" that or "balance" that. when in reality every system of interacting parts evolves to new possibly-worse forms as it goes on and time passes. it's precisely the shape of the system itself at the first moment you build it that makes people eventually hate it when it gets "big". perhaps it is true that mainstream Marxist-Leninists cannot overcome this cycle and there is no such thing as linear progress to the best class(-less) structures, there is only a pile of miscellaneous Bauplans and we just have to go through trial and error until we find the good ones. either way blue anarchists are {{em|way}} too confident about theirs.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">series (oppositional combination of heterogeneous elements) [https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/charles-fourier-on-the-pear-growers-series/] -> the text used to explain this thing just sounds like weird dumb capitalist propaganda. one of the major themes in it is claiming that competition brings balance if people would only be put into something in the correct proportions. an age-old idea that has never been good. I think one of the biggest problems is that fundamentally nobody has control over the proportions of "the elements of the series"; they always move and grow and shrink on their own before you can set them up ideally. 
to be fair, what Charles Fourier says is that the ideal proportions involve majority groups of industry and minority groups, which is rather different from the typical model given today that every business should just sort of be the same size and you have to get rid of big ones because they only get big out of evil. I can see a certain logic in there in that the process of building industry is a process of change and if a collection of things is truly balanced it's harder to get change than if they are unbalanced; look at Marxists pointing to the ideal bad scenario of great imbalance between the owners and workers which supposedly has a good chance of leading to crisis. (part of the problem there is there are actually a lot more factors that can prevent a scenario that looks right from producing anything. no, "[[E:mass culture (critical theory)|culture]]" isn't one of them. fear of demographic subpopulations getting massacred and genocided {{em|is}} one of them.) 
hmm, honestly. you could read Fourier's text as implying that [[E:structural racism|structural racism]] is "actually" a good thing because people wouldn't work hard without it. I think some people actually kind of believe that, when they spin the neutral phenomenon of a lot of immigrants coming to the United States to start businesses as positive specifically because they have to build up something from nothing. you do often see the belief that having minorities come in that are specifically under pressure from a huge majority "brings diversity that improves our country" specifically {{em|because}} the minority populations really have to struggle and have a lot to overcome. on the bright side, you could turn that idea on its head by saying that the severe constraints the Soviet Union took on by separating itself from First-World countries forced it to become more effective. and yet that hasn't quite worked in North Korea. would the Fourier types claim this is because in its isolation it's safe from oppression and really North Koreans just need to be under more active pressure from blocs of other countries? in a way, South Korea is. I'm surprised how much this cruel idea {{em|kind of}} holds up.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Proudhon's method was similar to poststructuralism [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/13n1te1/regarding_postmodernism_and_post_structuralist/] -> one of the most coherent claims I've seen anarchists make in a while. I don't understand all the sub-claims but at least it's easy to start testing given a few examples claimed to be good ones.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">molecular Idealism (meta-Marxist term) -> this is what a lot of anarchism feels like to me. it's like they are trying to molecularize definitions of society from really big scales into small scales but they often refuse to base it on [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|material structures]] of people-into-groups, people-into-production-processes, people-into-nations, etc., and instead, they want to like, start scribbling nebulous clouds of connected ideals on a map with various different colors of chalk (these would be the named anarchisms) and hope they go together. I find it baffling when they will admit no anarchist theorist sounds remotely like another and then still keep proceeding along like there's still something that connects them all (or at least several of them at a time) which is suggested to be immaterial more than tangible. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/13n1te1/regarding_postmodernism_and_post_structuralist/] 
it's like they're building the most cursed Lattice model imaginable.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Democracy is inherently postcolonial -> I think a lot of blue anarchists read Kant and then started thinking this. no. it isn't.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Extinction is randomly-generated genocide -> this is the problem with acting like the stochastic movements of individuals and corporations will actually fix things or is the most intuitive way to fix things. the phrase "state of nature" can never capture how horrifying the unmitigated background state of reality actually is. the stochastic, superficially random interaction of different animal populations periodically just blatantly destroys diversity and identity although at the same time new species will emerge at similar rates. 
not all populations are ethnicities. but, ethnicities are populations. species localized to a particular area are populations. extinction is the loss of a population. there are broad mathematical similarities between extinction, especially in situations like where humans deliberately exterminated all thylacines, but occasionally in situations where cyanobacteria take over and many kinds of cellular life go extinct, and genocide. "randomly-generated" captures the concept that none of this is deliberate or intentional or designed. 
Existentialism really gets to me sometimes. listening to Sabine Hossenfelder (Tory, brown Existentialist) just sit down and accept that having government grants and having islands of corporations and nonprofits is 'just the same thing' kills me. a complete lack of government is not a government but sometimes they really seem to think it is and like they're even brilliant for figuring that out. ah, yes! back to nature. back to groups of things basically hating each other for a few seconds at a time and killing each other over food as some of them utterly die out and given intelligence the other ones get to explain and frame everything. Commu-nity will be the end of us all.

</li><li class="field_internal" data-tradition="MW" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why are reactionary propositions allowed? / Why are Tory and fascist propositions allowed? -> one of the top reasons is simply "to debunk them"; "to educate people what is more correct". another reason is to show how they are related to better propositions through error or correction. 
it's important to remember there are certain minimal rules to be followed. a questionable proposition can't be phrased in a way that sounds like Tories are actually editing this thing or that you endorse the conclusion. sometimes, particular proposition titles that are simply too much will be banished to the "unsuitable Item label" Item. other times, it won't really be possible to think of a way to phrase something that doesn't sound sort of like a fraction of Tories would say it. in that case you don't have to think too hard as long as at least the full Ontology page makes it clear what is wrong with the proposition.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">refuseism (prejudice) / anti-nonlogisticism (prejudice) / There exists a form of prejudice from tribal populations to White people, but it is not racism or "anti-Whiteness", it is best defined based on the sheer boundaries of groups and the notion of people being outside a group instead of inside of it, and would be described something like "anti-nontribalism" (in reference to the lack of tribal society), "anti-nonrepublicanism" (in reference to the presence of republics or absence of non-republics), or "anti-nonlogisticism" (in reference to a concept of industrial populations being defined by logistics), constituted by the inability to accept that industrial populations actually need parts of their "oppressive" structure to not die and not kill a bunch of people out of each other's countries in huge wars, as well as to practically "abolish cops" or "abolish prisons" [[E:The great dilemma of civilization is not how to make people happy but how not to kill people|without descending into household-on-household killings]] -> this thing is the bane of me whenever I actually try to read and understand anarchism "with empathy" for even a second. half of anarchism has become all about prejudices and not having prejudices and yet like every anarchist ever holds this one against people who aren't Native Americans or people who aren't anarchists. again this is complicated because it explicitly isn't "White people are bad" "majority populations are bad", it's more like it specifically hates {{em|excess White people}} over a magic line of moderation of a perfect number of White people, as if it were possible for people to just choose not to be born. the people anarchists hate and don't want to have existed are ironically the only people who have any incentive to dismantle majority populations and create anarchism, while if everybody just took what anarchists said at face value and did it, current majority populations would become absurdly hateful and nazi and impossible to change. anarchists don't want to believe a very fundamental thing which is that the material structure of populations physically births people and people aren't just made of culture and conditioning, nobody actually chooses to be part of Whiteness but the thing is that if they are born they will be exposed to it, so as soon as you're born you've lost and it's won.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The great dilemma of civilization is not how to make people happy but how not to kill people / The great dilemma of civilization is not how to "govern" people or "let the people govern the people" but simply how to, every day, keep emerging internal borders inside populations from leading to people killing each other -> people scoff at this and try to tell you humans aren't inherently violent. then they experience "group drama" and get absolutely terrified somebody's a {{censor|pedophile}} or dangerously racist and will hurt someone they know and they don't know what to do when the hazard people just keep flowing into Community thinking they belong there, and then somebody spontaneously leaks docs or feeds somebody a needle. groups of people always defend their borders with violence (or at least serious harassment) when they fear violence, so the sheer act of "having a Community" always turns into this hot-potato game of who's going to be the cop or warrior or border guard, because somebody has to do it. typical anarchists always sound like this, and really most of the United States in general: anarchy, anarchy, anarchy, anarchy, oh god I can't believe a {{censor|zoophile}} exists, unabolish the police immediately and send the {{censor|fucking}} cops and put him the {{censor|fuck}} in prison. 
these are the issues people care about in their daily lives, they don't care about wages or government programs or even Palestine, they care about {{censor|sex offenders}} and people accidentally or intentionally dogwhistling racism instead of being kicked out of society and only nice people being able to earn money, so this is like the only way to yank people out of Idealism and teach them Materialism. 
the one, single thing I genuinely loathe and don't like about furries. furries are super anarchist and they are always creating these ethereal [[E:rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizomatic]] groups of people from around the world that are about forgetting the bad parts of being human and Tolerating Everyone.... and then they always end up in these weird dramas where borders and miniature wars spontaneously erupt inside their groups and they never know what to do except get mad that anybody is even talking about the issues instead of purely solving all issues by exiling people and dividing groups and not talking about it again. Idealism sinks them. they start everything with Idealism of wanting not to be human, as much as they'll quickly clarify for you that the imagery isn't literal and it only applies to the arenas in which human beings are actually different from animals and where it actually matters, and then their Idealism makes their "communities" fall apart and sinks everything. [[E:modeling furries as a nationality|they need a Marxist theorist]] to like, transition the furry population to a better stage of civilization. 
honestly. if furries don't like Zootopia for "racializing" a fantasy furry setting or "turning it into copaganda" maybe they aren't thinking hard enough about it, and maybe it [[E:Zootopia is a good class metaphor|does raise legitimate questions]]. just remove the part about racializing things and make it about [[:Category:Chunk competition ontology|chunk competition]] but keep the overall plot of the first movie the same. I just think that would be really funny, a version of Zootopia that is like, [[E:Fantasy would be more accurate with Leninisms|more accurate to real life]], and includes black panthers who were [[E:BlackPantherism|Black Panthers]]. you can keep the Lynxleys too if you make [[E:Lynxley fallacy|the (fan?) perspective on them]] a little less stupid.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Idiocracy}} (2006)
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Idiocracy}} is less horrifying than the real 2010-2024 United States
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Idiocracy}} is backhandedly true (cooperation) / If intelligent people were less good at cooperating, then the "dumbest" people would indeed have more effective social groups, and {{film|Idiocracy}} would be accurate -> this person asks the real questions.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="HAS, Aqr, Aqr onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">therians and autism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">movie writers inserting weird {{censor|shit}} is okay and requires no criticism but fans noticing it and having emotions about it is an awful perversion -> what every other video shaming furries reads like. 
the average person has this really weird complex where they find censorship forbidden and want authors to be able to make just anything but they won't think about the actual consequences that having that position causes and that you will have to actually go clean up the consequences of that every day in your interactions with other people... and when they see a consequence they basically want to do something analogous to victim-blaming. it's this position that basically the bourgeoisie is untouchable and can do nothing wrong but the proletariat and the non-owners are all evil. I can't stand this. this is intellectually offensive to me.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A medieval kingdom is a one-party state -> Liberal-republican theory often assumes this is true. it's somewhat arguable it is the case, if for instance you use idealized fantasy novels for reference you see kingdoms are often represented as if they are groups of friends that trust each other. 
but the thing is that this doesn't lead to the flattering conclusions Liberal-republicans and [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialists]] hope it leads to. Liberal-republican theorists hope it will show that medieval kingdoms are tyrannical and unethical, and Liberal-republicanism is natural and obvious. instead it makes it easy to highlight that Liberal-republicanism is not a natural or obvious development but an {{em|arbitrary choice}} to divide countries into multiple sloshy countries per country, fully as arbitrary as it believes Bolshevism to be, which potentially engineers [[E:multiple capitalisms in one country|multicapitalism]] and the problem of two separate capitalisms trying to kill and crowd out each other's people for not being part of each other and then complain that eating and occupying space too much and existing too much is really mean and people should have [[E:Nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful|thought more about that]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Theorists are academics / If you spend all day reading and researching and you do not produce a sellable product, your activities are academic, and if you produce a book which is usable but entirely theoretical you are an academic -> I once saw someone claim after using a bunch of technical jargon that what they were doing wasn't "academic". and this is why I always throw around the word "theorist" copiously. in hopes that people will come to understand that any strong division between the theoretical and the practical creates academics, and that in a few limited cases that can actually be a problem. at the heart of it, the goal of a Marxist is to stop being an academic, and to become better at survival and daily activities due to theory rather than to just become better in some limited domain that theorists live and compete in. I genuinely think that may be true of everything. it's a very corrupt system to have these article piles people make money by selling to at a price that will probably never be enough but where very few people will get to use and apply them, where like, all academic activity kind of just enriches researchers (and not very much, just enough to give them a teeny amount of privilege such they can ignore the existence of the rest of the world). it may be better at this point for people to just apply their research practically and sell books so they can be in regular libraries and used book stores.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Password}} (2024) / {{book|Password}} (furry visual novel) [https://vndb.org/v26494]
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Password}} and racism / {{book|Password}} and xenophobia (Orientalism; etc) -> there is nearly nothing worth discussing about this visual novel except the fact it's a really interesting case study on writers who don't know anything attempting Media Representation in racist ways.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It is impossible to explain the existence of ethics without Materialist philosophy -> so here's the thing about Idealism. minds can model anything. minds can model the most unrealistic thing you can imagine; minds can write a book which portrays real-world race relations and historical interactions between countries [[E:Password and racism (furry visual novel)|so badly the book becomes racist]]. the ability of minds to contain just anything makes it questionable how a mind could ever know that any ethical proposition is true. what if somebody makes an ethical proposition which says "The existence of Russians is immoral and it is ethical for the United States to [[E:Would you kill a Russian in order to vote?|torment Russians]] until they have been exterminated"? (in all these thought experiments I pick groups of people like "Russians" so the statement won't be as inherently charged and icky to even read as saying things like "Black people" or "United States Jews", even though certainly there will be some people that exist that are that level of racist. when I instead say "Russians", the statement inherently feels more made-up and hypothetical, and becomes easier to just laugh about as a weird bit of dark humor given it "isn't really happening".) if somebody says that's what's ethical, how would you know whether they're right or wrong? you can't just say "because X ethical statement is obvious" or "because X ethical statement feels good emotionally" as your justification for why a statement is suitable for checking other statements. to the other person, it might be "obvious" and "feel good" that they need to exterminate Russians, and they can always say that treading on their claim attacks their Lived Experience. so it's only really interactions that happen in the material world that can verify a statement as top-quality. even "a marginalized person recounted an experience" isn't itself a fact. Trotsky can show up and say "I'm a marginalized Soviet person" and then "I think the Soviet Union needs to be destroyed", and his Lived Experience won't be reliable or factual.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Because normal people prefer to think in terms of Liberal-republicanism, we must teach them everything in terms of Liberal-republicanism and give up on teaching them Communism -> very flawed when Liberal-republicanism absolutely can't address the question of empire and the global-empire prejudices termed "[[E:the colonizer attitude|colonialism]]" at all. the point of Liberal-republicanism is to control people and keep regular people from exerting agency except in line with what a limited array of experts says. that's the point. whether you think of that process as a positive or negative thing, that's the point. so when Liberal-republicanism decides it has to take over issues like Israel-Palestine and {{censor|shit}}, and legislate and [[E:Democracy is government of the person by the people|amend people]] into being "[[E:Postcolonial is a euphemism for anarchist|postcolonial]]"... it just plain can't. a republic can beat everyone into position but the people who are the most elite and [[E:The existiest will rule|most existiest]] will out-exist everyone else and if they just {{em|happen}} to be in support of Israel they get the people-controlling device and there's no winning. even stacks and stacks of Gramscian theory can't fix it. you've written yourself into a corner where survival itself is a virtue and non-survival and weakness and sickness are vices, those rules are [[E:Reality is tyrannical|not negotiable by anybody]], and where literally only a theory of building the most physically-robust, best-surviving population of Communist or anarchist allies that [[E:Asocialism (meta-Marxism)|believes in no Idealism]] and makes absolutely no mistakes of believing that anyone will choose to be kind or reasonable or hope itself will ever work can possibly save you.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Loyalty to anarchism is equally as "colonial" as loyalty to nation-states / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then so does loyalty to a countable anarchist "civilization" or materially-realized anarchist population-society / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then it is being part of a population at all which causes it; this implies people actively moving between populations and deserting, betraying, or abandoning them periodically is the only thing which would not cause individuals to contribute to killing or domination, despite the contradiction that some of these things are acts of war and amount to killing or domination, for example in the time of the Trotskyite conspiracy -> 
field: existential materialism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">blocking Donald Trump from taking office using section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment [https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/] [https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/07/congress-could-try-barring-trump-from-office-under/]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">States can't disqualify a presidential candidate under the Fourteenth Amendment [https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/07/congress-could-try-barring-trump-from-office-under/] -> United States case law. this is discouraging, but does make some amount of historical sense, when the Civil War and Reconstruction were a nationwide effort and such.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's impossible for you to deserve anything without allies who agree that you deserve it -> descriptive claim of [[E:existential materialism|what is possible]]. not a prescriptive claim of ethics, etc.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">If life isn't fair, why are there constitutional amendments? -> to uninformed center-Liberals this would seem like a non sequitur, but it really is a relevant question. if life isn't inherently fair then there is no grounding to have an amendment saying everyone is entitled to something. this is a serious crisis for Liberal-republicanism in cases the majority of the population can't be made to come to an agreement on a particular thing and the amendment process isn't producing anything including amendments.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W onto IV, W onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Neutrality aids the non-oppressor -> people like Deleuze want to talk about "fidelity to an Event". but if I understand that concept at all correctly, those are like, movements and things. and movements are a sticky subject. misinformation or wrong actions can sink a movement. so you* don't necessarily want people even participating in them if they're going to do it wrong. sometimes doing absolutely nothing would make everyone happier. especially if we're talking about dark forest situations where acting as if you have no knowledge of a movement and not getting any reactionaries thinking about or talking about the subject of the movement would make them less likely to think they need to take action on the other side. (* by "you", I mean anarchists and Gramscians, not anyone else.) 
I don't like that things are this way but it's kind of the way things are now. 
Neutrality aids the oppressor + [[E:hegemony politics (meta-Marxism)|hegemony politics]] = Neutrality aids the non-oppressor.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Thomas Sankara -> Burkina Faso. heard him mentioned enough I'm researching if he should have an ideology code. 
looks like some {{em|stuff}} has been going on in Burkina Faso over the past few decades. despite some failures the first time they're trying again. 
is the Alliance of Sahel States one of the major differences this time? were the countries doing this individually before or together?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The right to vote isn't synonymous with the capacity to do otherwise / The right to vote isn't synonymous with having lines of flight from a situation of un-freedom (having Escape routes; schizoanalyst phrasing)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto DG, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A million tiny "revolutions" are rendered moot if every progressive ally is dead

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Retailers lessen chunk competition / Within capitalism stacks of commodities, only within public spaces, act to partially mitigate chunk competition occurring inside the national or local population — however, not all kinds of chunk competition are mitigated, only some -> I think Bordiga may have gotten this really wrong. 
A) on a basic level humans are Animals. B) given sufficient resources Animals will not fight. C) a particular slice of the population which is not the whole population has access to stacks of commodities which are in public spaces. D) on creating capitalism, a particular slice of the population is partially removed from chunk competition, whereas it might have been in chunk competition in other periods: US-Mexico war, frontier wars, Dust Bowl (not really any fighting, but migration), wars to secure South Korea and Vietnam. imperialism is a big elephant here, outright conquering other populations has been one of the easiest ways to stop fighting your own people E) people are not removed from chunk competition in cases where one person must be assigned to one unique object, notably in housing, or there are no more open worker slots and they need to run business territories F) 'profit' can never be a stackable commodity, because it comes from change in business territory borders. available space fills up, and as said, when borders stop changing is when stacks of commodities come to be G) worrying consequence: population growth is not stackable. population added requires profit added, which requires an act of chunk competition, which may require an act of imperialism. H) neutral consequence: when population growth hits replacement plus or minus a bit, the era of profit and the warring states period of businesses should end, and the era of workers should begin. I) strictly speaking, the "workers" are [[E:Careerist layer (meta-Marxism)|Careerists]], not classically-defined proletarians. an important difference separates them here: the end of warring-businesses and the creation of state businesses potentially puts a squeeze on which people can have which slots in society, although not a tight one because there should basically be a slot for everyone, just not necessarily where they are currently. if there's a central party that can supply trains etc and move them that won't be a big deal. J) if you try to create a Trotskyism, the broader it is, the more "inescapable" it is as an entity, and the more people will be locked into a specific nationality and culture. the connection of countable populations to countable cultures is probably inevitable. this is to say, the bigger your Trotskyism is the more likely somebody calls it "Whiteness" in a derogatory tone and tries to tear minority ethnicities out of it into new union- or independent republics. Bolshevism seems to require the division of humanity into relatively small units closer to the size of Germany than the size of Russia. although it should be the population number that matters more than the spatial extent. maybe "spatial area adjusted for population number at specific standard density" would be a good measure?

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Unequal Exchange: Past, Present and Future (Torkil Lauesen) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (Gabriel Rockhill) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Western Marxism: How it was born, how it died, how it can be reborn (Domenico Losurdo) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A guide for foreigners (Roland Boer) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Maliciously expelling any significantly large subpopulation from a country either through scattering that population or massacring that population, as opposed to packing that population tightly into the least-desirable corners of a country, is settler-colonialism / Settler-colonialism is, regardless of which causal order of events is intended, the process of exterminating a population and then of this event fueling a national population or State gaining official control over the land area -> an attempt to define the concept of settler-colonialism on a Materialist basis without any Idealism. it's key to realize that the alternatives to settler-colonialism which happen when it doesn't happen are also horrifying — manor lords, racially-charged slavery, large homeless camps, there are a bunch of ways people have historically been packed into the corners of a country, various differing degrees of horrifying. there has seemingly been a shift over the past few centuries from populations merely competing to create a government that is a structure that unifies them, and populations actively [[:Category:Chunk competition ontology|expanding into and over each other]] in ways where it is difficult to simply unify them in that way, and these difficult questions come up of whether "Socialism" and trying to integrate everyone into a population is even the right choice or whether people of all ethnicities can only actually have independence and self-determination and the ability to create a dignified life for their population unimpeded if human beings are properly distributed into the right countries and you {{em|don't}} have pools of surplus people that people start fighting with. do we have to start redistributing White people? are non-suffering majority people the new form of populational wealth now? is it becoming pointless to try to tax money numbers, and would it be better to tax people and put whole people somewhere else, telling them, you're not part of this other big international imperial population any more, you can't own a free-floating business, you belong to this country now as a worker. so many of our theories focus on historical periods centuries ago that are nothing like today, and it's confusing what we're even supposed to do now.

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43

2026-05-01T13:55:10Z

Reversedragon: The regulation of technology is an instance of Edgeworth's dialectic

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Edgeworth's dialectic|User=RD|E=Q64,43|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/Aa|Q=64,43|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]]) -> motif examined in Ace Attorney 2. ... Edgeworth collides with Wright. he has a particular way of thinking which is 'a problem' to Phoenix Wright. Wright continues to push on 'in authenticity'. after the incident where somebody tried to frame Edgeworth (following inside the recurring theme of behind-the-scenes fights between the criminals and the lawyers or detectives) and the Judge(?) reminded people of his actual violations of procedure, Edgeworth leaves. when he comes back, he gives Wright some very cryptic advice about 'knowing what it means to be the defense' after he 'discovered what it means to be the prosecution'. at the end it becomes clear Edgeworth did change. as much as he still seems reluctant to say it out loud he seems to have been jarred by his encounters with Phoenix and realized there was a need to to also collide the two of them together mentally and transform himself into something else. 
this motif is... a mixed bag. in some ways it's a good thing — it's always great to see a character re-evaluate themself. in some ways it's a little yucky because it reminds me of [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic (Liberal-republicanism)|Fukuyama's dialectic]] but somehow applied to people. in Fukuyama's dialectic it's asserted that improvement and moderation are inherently tied together such that there's not really any such thing as change, only restoring the perfect. and here, you can almost see a nasty undertone that Edgeworth had to rethink himself because his personality was "not moderate" and "had to be moderated" while Phoenix, in being defined by authenticity and a kind of purity of character, is characterized not by actual striving for self-improvement but by inherent perfection. Franziska von Karma is obnoxious but like, as much as this isn't my favorite kind of 'character development', at the very least she did work hard to get where she is. meanwhile the game ultimately seems to knock that concept of improving through effort, and after thinking about it a while that's a little unsettling honestly. it's like Edgeworth didn't improve morally because he tried to do that — the form of effort that is relevant here and possibly more important — but because he regressed to the mean, he fell back to the Ideal. that concept is the thing that bothers me. 
Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=F2/IK/Aa|Q=618}}The regulation of technology is an instance of Edgeworth's dialectic; technology is regulated when individual behavior becomes Excessive relative to other individuals and Filaments of individuals press individuals to change

{{li|I=S2/IK/MX|Q=618}}Edgeworth's dialectic is inappropriate for use at large scales; the Idealist model of "moderation" and "extremes" cannot be expected to operate reliably or at all in large societies as opposed to very small clusters of people -> I love calling this Edgeworth's dialectic over 'Susie's dialectic' because just knowing this name comes from a series about court cases it makes it sound weirdly 'official', not least because it's a relatively fancy name, and the character canonically has a surname. 
sneaking in anime characters into a discussion that's basically about laws becomes funnier the closer it gets to being impossible for someone who didn't about know the series to identify what's going on. trying to sneak in a Pokémon when people don't know what Pokémon is: basic. talking about ace attorney like it was a real court case: advanced.

</li></ol>

=== Technology ===
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Can we really trust companies to use their technology for good?! -> this is one of the biggest glaring contradictions in the whole of blue anarchism. that government must be used to contain """technology""", the place power supposedly comes from, but that we're really not supposed to think about government and nearly supposed to forget it exists after an election, and that society must be developed through people spontaneously creating technology with no guidance from anyone else. that feels like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. 
"power comes from technology" "we only have society when we regulate technology" "well you have to have businesses" "businesses don't have anything to do with anything" "they're a business, they have to make a profit" "" 
honestly, like... anticommunism is one of the most dangerous technologies ever invented, because it makes your government secretly build atom bombs whether you want them. can we ban anticommunism just because it's dangerous and acts as a material process that causes the creation of corporations and institutions thus making it a technology?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Power comes from technology / Power comes from material inventions and philosophical technologies, including corporate structures, government institutions, and ideological conditioning -> {{em|no.}} now, I like the definition of technology here. that part is not really the bad part — honestly, it's pretty cool and fitting to be able to call something like Marxist historical materialism a technology. that said, this is an Idealist model of where power comes from. it doesn't look like it at first, when it appeals to material objects like spears, bomber planes, and datacenters full of LLMs, but the telling part is when it considers policies to be technologies on the same level as physical inventions. while that shouldn't be a bad thing it's definitely being done for the wrong reasons. what's being implied is that technologies are something that are deliberately created as social constructs by individuals based on what they personally want — based on individual knowledge, individual ideology, and individual will. the article says that individual actions and decisions can never fully be prevented, which is correct, but then it claims that they can be contained anyway, based on some oddly specific between-the-lines reasoning that if people decide to do something it must then be possible to tell them not to decide to do it. this is not correct. people are countably separate material objects capable of multiplying their capital and capacity for destruction before they are rational agents, so if you try to believe that Ideas and Free Will are the basis for government then you'll end up at the conclusion that [[E:Government is almost impossible|government is almost impossible]]. all you can really claw back from the harsh facts of reality is the concept that because people have the capacity for destruction that in itself means that there's the right for a nation-state to assert government over them. but nation-states are countable, so you have to decide which nation-state has the inherent right to capture which people. and if you decide it wrong, the United States will forcibly assimilate a bunch of individual Native Americans into the United States identity and culture just so they are incapable of waging a war against it. or, for a more fun example, if you decide wrong the Communist Party of the Soviet Union will forcibly assimilate a bunch of Trotskyists that would rather create their own countably separate Marxist party, and make them operate within and construct the Soviet Union even as they don't really want to. this really is not how government works or where it comes from. you see this in the contradiction between Bolshevism attempting to take possession of Careerists and take away their right to appropriate capital or towns so the petty bourgeoisie don't exist any more but the whole sea of "petty classes" and people who don't understand Marxism that exist all pushing back at once and adding up to significant portions of a population as well as what may be majorities within First World populations. if it were true that Communism can't contain these classes for the greater good, then they would also be too powerful for Liberal-republicanism to contain.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a technology
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a dangerous technology / Anticommunism is a dangerous technology that must be banned or regulated -> this is so stupid it's hilarious and yet it's one of those moments where I'm like, did I have a moment of dark genius...? would this actually work? 
I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technologies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}} 
Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology

</li></ol>
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* Aa / psychoanalysis


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-01T13:47:34Z

Reversedragon: Every republic is a class society (anarchism)

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}Pokémon trainers are a manifestation of bourgeois ideology -> it sounds like I'm shitposting but I do mean it literally if not {{em|in a serious tone}}. Pokémon live out in nature. trainers recruit Pokémon and promise them the opportunity to level up and evolve. it's all about teamwork, teamwork, teamwork. though in the real world, teamwork is one big excuse to exterminate other groups of people, whether it's the 13 United States colonies or the United States teaming up with Israel or First World countries teaming up to crush the Second World it's always justified as good {{em|because there was teamwork}}. teamwork is not inherently inclusive. there's so much lip service especially in works about ""democracy"" to saying that it's easy to include everyone just because there were a few groups of people that came together, but it never guarantees society will become fully inclusive versus a matter of teamwork attacking somebody else. never trust teamwork.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S1/PT|class=field_nations field_LGBT|Q=618}}I came to Tel Aviv to be who I was, but it became clear I was welcome as a lesbian, not a Palestinian {{YouTube|iPyxgHe7WE8}} -> case of: joining a "community" for a specific identity not leading to acceptance of other identities; violation of Rhizome model.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ideology is Idealism unexamined / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm] -> it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different, but I have no problems with their concept of ideology. to me, an ideology is {{em|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach|lack of limitation on capabilities]]; Feuerbach)
{{li|I=F1/ML/DX|Q=618}}freedom (lack of necessity; [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|Avakian]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf]
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|absorption of all necessity applying inside society into theories of society]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf] / The realm of freedom can blossom forth only with necessity as its basis (Marx)

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of special relativity. 
this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,30

2026-05-01T13:24:16Z

Reversedragon: Ace Attorney without trials

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Ace Attorney|User=RD|E=Q64,30|Contents=y}}
{{ContentWarning|Full game spoilers — Ace Attorney (#1)}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,30|Q2=6430}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} (metaseries) -> I had no reason to add this until suddenly I was watching it just for context on 'cross-examine the parrot', and then was like, {{i|oh wait, this game is about logic. it's not actually about real court procedure as much as it's about an abstract concept of "reason". which... makes it surprisingly relevant to a wiki about logic. ok. time to code it.}}
{{li|I=S1/IK|Q=64,30|Q2=6430}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} -> field: fiction; field: Kantianism

</li></ol>

== Motifs ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,29|Q2=6429}}lawyer of justice -> intuitive, because it's at least vaguely what their stated purpose is.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=64,37|Q2=6437}}lawyer of injustice -> it's rarer you see {{em|this}} in fiction and yet Homestuck catapulted the idea into popular consciousness.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,31|Q2=6431}}objection! (motif)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,31|Q2=6431}}objection! (motif) -> "objection maker": [https://objection.lol/maker]

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}narrative parallel
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Are narrative parallels admissible in court? ({{game|Ace Attorney|E=Q64,41}}; secular philosophy against religion) -> the answer should be no, but Phoenix, unbelievably, manages to use them in the only way that's acceptable.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/IV|Q=44,13|Q2=4413}}See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart / Lies always beget more lies. See through one, and their whole testimony falls apart ({{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney}} tutorial) {{YouTube|aha0iZQvMvY}} -> you know what joke I'm going to make.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=51,02|Q2=5102|ww=Q64,41}}The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / you are the most unpredictable defense attorney ... I cannot deny the possibility of what you say -> at this moment Phoenix is having a 'revelation' from a ghost who should be only as helpful as he is but is an undetectable inner experience. 
I'm not going to say this shouldn't be in there or deny this kind of thing makes stories more interesting, but I do have to say, we're getting into a sizable degree of unnecessary Kantianism here; the work is departing from reality on its 'realistic' society model before it departs from reality on fictional rules.

</li></ol>

== Motifs (AA2) ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice For All [vol. 2]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}One purpose of the bourgeoisie is to mediate international trade and make overseas products available locally -> it's always funny when a proposition about capitalism comes up in the middle of something not about it, but I'll take it.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}Edgeworth's dialectic -> motif examined in Ace Attorney 2. {{YouTube|iSJP7AU1c9s|rem=AA2 32/50}} {{YouTube|ktUevbfqylU|rem=AA2 50/50}} Edgeworth collides with Wright. he has a particular way of thinking which is 'a problem' to Phoenix Wright. Wright continues to push on 'in authenticity'. after the incident where somebody tried to frame Edgeworth (following inside the recurring theme of behind-the-scenes fights between the criminals and the lawyers or detectives) and the Judge(?) reminded people of his actual violations of procedure, Edgeworth leaves. when he comes back, he gives Wright some very cryptic advice about 'knowing what it means to be the defense' after he 'discovered what it means to be the prosecution'. at the end it becomes clear Edgeworth did change. as much as he still seems reluctant to say it out loud he seems to have been jarred by his encounters with Phoenix and realized there was a need to to also collide the two of them together mentally and transform himself into something else. 
this motif is... a mixed bag. in some ways it's a good thing — it's always great to see a character re-evaluate themself. in some ways it's a little yucky because it reminds me of [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic (Liberal-republicanism)|Fukuyama's dialectic]] but somehow applied to people. in Fukuyama's dialectic it's asserted that improvement and moderation are inherently tied together such that there's not really any such thing as change, only restoring the perfect. and here, you can almost see a nasty undertone that Edgeworth had to rethink himself because his personality was "not moderate" and "had to be moderated" while Phoenix, in being defined by authenticity and a kind of purity of character, is characterized not by actual striving for self-improvement but by inherent perfection. Franziska von Karma is obnoxious but like, as much as this isn't my favorite kind of 'character development', at the very least she did work hard to get where she is. meanwhile the game ultimately seems to knock that concept of improving through effort, and after thinking about it a while that's a little unsettling honestly. it's like Edgeworth didn't improve morally because he tried to do that — the form of effort that is relevant here and possibly more important — but because he regressed to the mean, he fell back to the Ideal. that concept is the thing that bothers me. 
Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

</li></ol>

== Characters ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Phoenix Wright
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Miles Edgeworth -> I'll use the dark swatch because of the weird motif that came up for a bit of potraying prosecutors as horrifying killers.

</li></ol>

== Works ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,41|Q2=6441|rem-E=Q64,41}}{{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney}} (2001) [vol. 1] [https://aceattorney.fandom.com/wiki/Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney]
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice For All}} [vol. 2]
</li></ol>

== Theories ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} is a series about Liberal-republicans fighting brown anarchists -> there is a really solid theme of [[E:direct oppression|direct oppression]] running through the first game, where various people hire somebody to do harm to somebody that they think is violating the established local rules of their career or business — in effect, businesses or Artisanal practices acting like tiny governments. 
the moment the Steel Samurai came up I couldn't help but think, this character must be very thematic. he has a color timer on him for no reason, which connects him to Ultraman series. but Ultraman series is futuristic. while Steel Samurai is deliberately medieval; it's based in these principles of feudal orders with emperors, dukes or counts, and knights. I think that contrast is intentional and meant to frame Ace Attorney as {{em|feeling}} like it doesn't take place in 2001 because the characters' values are stuck hundreds of years before. now, you could have gotten that much from a magazine article; it's well known that the games are based on something called the ritsuryō system. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritsury%C5%8D] but when you get into the subtext of that is when things get really interesting. the ritsuryō system as a whole dates back to about the year 700; this places the characters' values approximately 1300 years before the game was made. 1300 years ago there was no United States. there was no global empire in its modern form (although Greek Egypt happened in about 300, so imperial colonies were already invented in more of a feudal form). Liberal-republicanism being an empire did not exist yet. Liberal-republicanism did not exist yet. we have to appreciate {{em|how different}} the world was in 300 — the whole dynamic of the United States and Japan and Germany and China fighting as powerful republics didn't yet exist. so then, what is the significance of Phoenix Wright and Edgeworth coming in and applying these very Kantian or Liberal-republican values to a world which is stuck in the 700s? it's a symbolic transition to Liberalism — they are taking feudalism and attempting to transition it to Liberal-republicanism. but more than that. because all the characters have to be superficially modern to make the setting truly feel shocking, all the peripheral characters live in capitalism. they exist within corporations and skilled practices and "[[E:Careerist layer (meta-Marxism)|Careerism]]". the peripheral characters may come out of something of a self-selected sample of people who have been near crimes, being detectives and witnesses and criminals, etc, but within them, you see a very clear theme pop up of almost all the lawbreakers suspect or not clearly trying to enforce particular rules themselves instead of letting the overarching republic do it. each lawbreaker, whether it's Redd White carrying out blackmail that is probably not legal or von Karma trying to get Hammond shot and Edgeworth in prison, always has a particular notion of what order and justice are; the most offensive thing to them is not getting to perform [[E:direct oppression|direct oppression]] and having someone else "hierarchically" meddle in their affairs. this weirdly positions the criminals of the Ace Attorney series as some kind of anarchism. definitely not one of the best kinds of anarchism, it goes without saying that most charcoal anarchists would hate it. but that by itself isn't to say it isn't an anarchism. blue anarchism almost certainly exists. orange anarchism may exist. brown anarchism may exist. so the only question that remains is what kind of anarchism Wright and Edgeworth are fighting.

{{li|I=S2/DFy/A|Q=618}}Ace Attorney is copaganda {{YouTube|eeALirUTUOc}} -> this..... god this really shows where people probably but not definitely in the United States are at. I find it funny this would even be a concern when anybody with a brain can see that this game revolves around the lawyers. not the judge. not the detectives or the cops. as much as I know that's not the criterion being used; the point is of course for anarchists to try to isolate forms of force brought down by The State, so in theory violent cops count, but the Judge issuing a verdict and putting people away would count, and in context of the series von Karma hitting everyone with her whip almost certainly counts. anyway. the games pretty much never depict sentencing or the court piling on more charges — a very important scare tactic in real life. it's all about Wright and Edgeworth and a couple other prosecutors. the games really focus in on the concept of reasoning and the notion of law being a thing of effort and expertise, as much as medieval settings try to put similar qualities onto knights or occasionally onto nobility. these games are really actually "liberal-republic-aganda", if that were a word. they do subtly push an "agenda", but it's not an agenda of state force, it's an agenda that liberal republics are built on "reason" by hardworking people that if not necessarily good are at least complex and not bad. it's like.... these games are not defending killer cops but they {{em|are}} kind of defending Benjamin Franklin. so, your mileage may vary on how bad that is; George Washington did own slaves, so, yeah. there's also that bit of weird subtext connecting the lawyers back to feudal Japan, but if you wanted to figure out how that connects back to Japanese empire or Japanese reactionaries I feel like it would take stepping out of these games and unpacking a couple of Kurosawa movies or such to really get a grip on the cultural context, and I really don't feel like doing that at the moment so personally I'm just going to let it go.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Ace Attorney is copaganda -> so when I searched up the link I really saw somebody say the phrase 'police investigation' in a negative tone. this is just it, people have these really negative experiences with cops directly that teach them the little they know, and want to live in a world without laws, but simultaneously want to live in "a democracy" and practice nonviolence and like have the entire thing operate exactly like a Liberal republic but with the tiny change that every individual is, I dunno, magically given a shock collar that zaps them if they violate some defined list of Bad Things that Make Clusters of Minorities Unhappy. kind of like the early {{cite|Zootopia}} concepts if the shock collars actually meant there weren't any cops. 
I try so hard to steelman anarchists and not present their points and concepts as just stupid if I can possibly think of a way they could make sense, but the anarchists themselves are always dropping the ball. trying to defend anarchism always feels like when Phoenix has a witness who just goes on the stand and claims they did it while Phoenix is standing there like {{i|no! no! no! you didn't have to say that}}.

</li></ol>

== AUs ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/Fy/ML|Q=618}}hold it! you call that Leninism? / Ace Attorney but in the context of a Communist party or Communist International -> I was watching these games for other reasons, and in my mind, they had nothing to do with Communism. {{em|until}} Mia had to go and say 'once you see through one lie the whole thing falls apart'. that really got my mind gears turning because I started imagining a fictionalized version of the Moscow Trials which was in over-the-top Ace Attorney format. which is just, a vastly more historically accurate way to adapt that event than the [[E:ominous trial of doom|ominous trial of doom]] trope you see in works like {{film|The Twilight Zone}}; Trotsky himself is almost as weird as an Ace Attorney character, and even among the people they actually dragged in, the arguments or narratives were just about as bad as some of the witnesses give in Ace Attorney games. like, Trotskyites are giving Larry Butz level of testimony, persuade me otherwise. 
then my mind started to wander to other possible angles, like a party meeting over an issue but being really divided on it and they start having a heated argument and banging on their desks. 'Left Opposition versus Right Opposition' kind of thing. that has so much comedy potential. and it could be a bit legitimately educational too. I kinda love the idea of these somewhat self-contained scenarios where a party is meeting over strategy on how to get through a particular problem in a particular country's revolution and there is a lot of tension because bad things happen to the working class when you get it wrong and they're going back and forth in these heated arguments to try to prove or disprove something. it almost sounds more interesting than Ace Attorney in some ways because like, you don't just have the fake opposition of the prosecutors and defense attorneys, you have more of a radial opposition of various factions and between different meetings the two sides could be anybody. it has a certain meta-Marxist appeal to it, in a weird way. 
Ace Attorney + Leninist variant of fictional place = this.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/ML|Q=618}}hold it! you call that Leninism? -> though it's not very serious (and is not finished) [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist|I have a "demonstration" of this now]]

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}Ace Attorney without trials / Ace Attorney but there are no lawyers -> so. I said that "Ace Attorney is copaganda" was a stupid proposition unless you find the most "ace" anarchist who actually has a decent exmat and can actually argue their points in a non-stupid way. but. as I wrote that down, I realized that if you tried to redesign the Ace Attorney universe around the constraint of what those people {{em|apparently}} want rather than what they literally want... it would actually be a weirdly fun challenge. if we're thinking about this in terms of a hypothetical game it would definitely be difficult to draw up a set of core game mechanics that would feel appropriate to the original series while at the same time more or less rewriting everything. but in terms of just writing a story around some characters, that would probably be quite doable. 
I think the best place for this to start would be at the beginning, with the original two incidents. when Phoenix is a child lawyers exist and he sees the young Miles Edgeworth stand up for him, everything is the same at that point. then when he's in college he learns the law department is shutting down, or maybe it isn't shut down at that time but people are occupying buildings and there is a lot of chaos and he doesn't quite know what's going on. I don't know what Mia is doing, she might actually be defending anarchists in a court trial or something weird might be going on like that. Phoenix was originally in college for theater. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AceAttorney/comments/9euckp/why_did_phoenix_wright_study_art_in_college/] so he would be studying the humanities and honestly I'd realistically expect that he would run into some odd people who are absorbed in schizoanalysis or other Existentialist nonsense philosophies that behind all the spaghetti strive to promote moral progress and empathy. he's a bit conflicted because I assume based on the central themes of the original series that he is fairly logical but none of this stuff makes any sense, it's more like a weird little mystery that he can't quite piece together. (gosh, he's already become relatable.) I guess the vignette of Phoenix in college is quite literally just him trying to solve the mystery of what is going on with the law department and sort of mentally putting together a "corkboard" of everything for his own peace of mind. he runs into Mia as she is investigating the incident she is supposed to be defending, in the traditional way lawyers always do in the games for some reason. and I guess because he wants to solve this thing he like, takes up the secretary / counsel role and decides to help her? we have the dynamic of Phoenix and Maya but literally reversed. of course, I feel like for thematic consistency we have to stick to the most important rule of this AU of there being absolutely no trials. Mia thinks there is going to be a trial but the commotion continues and it gets held up and doesn't happen. anarchists level the courthouse, I don't know. the anarchists try to get rid of the police department and the detectives' involvement in things. so the two of them are having to figure out how to "defend" the anarchists in a new environment where the anarchists are sort of making all the rules now. they quickly figure out that one of the best things they can do is simply learn to parse out what people are on the anarchists' side and what people aren't, and quickly report "the wrong people" so that at any particular "venue" or event they don't get in. at the end of this story arc Phoenix looks at a campus newspaper and learns that as he is graduating the law department really will be abolished. he is stunned. he looks back at the clipping he found about the 'demon prosecutor'. he has no idea what is going to happen to this man in the coming years, but knows that whatever happens it is now his duty to be a part of it. hoping he will not have to defeat his new enemy with violence, he vows to help bring Edgeworth down.

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==

* (none)

== Subpages or related pages ==

* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist|RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,30

2026-05-01T11:57:46Z

Reversedragon: Ace Attorney is copaganda

Template:IS2/DFy/A/class

2026-05-01T11:20:00Z

Reversedragon: reuse charcoal swatch

#redirect[[Template:IS2/A/class]]

Template:IS1/Fy/Aa/class

2026-05-01T10:46:55Z

Reversedragon: update for new swatch field_freud

#redirect[[Template:IS1/Aa/class]]

Template:IS1/Aa/class

2026-05-01T10:46:26Z

Reversedragon: use field_freud

<onlyinclude>class="field_exstruct field_freud manual {{{1|}}}" data-dimension="S"</onlyinclude>
[[Category:I-Template classnames]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q14,84

2026-05-01T10:43:29Z

Reversedragon: Every claim that tribal society is more sustainable than republics is inherently Malthusian

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=chunk competition|User=RD|E=Q14,84|Contents=y}}
== Main entries ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=14,84|Q2=1484|h4 = chunk competition }} (motif; meta-Marxism) / all-directional contradiction between individuals ({{book|MDem}} v3) / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy ({{book|MDem}} drafts) / {{abbr|title=chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy|CCASH}}

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=21,94|Q2=2194|h4 = Chunk competition originates from commodities }} / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q21,94|9k]]) -> ... "chunk competition" is a weird concept because I always know when it's happening but I have trouble describing what it is and I have probably given slightly different descriptions of what it is at different times; it's good to be able to sort all of those out on the Ontology page. today what I think I'm referring to is the way that population growth is shaped by relativity, how everything in the universe has its own little timeline of what it's doing and then they collide, and this happens with population growth, such that when two populations grow into and over each other it leads to a spatial slot hierarchy — a situation of populational slots where people are forced to compete over particular unique slots in space or in structures to exist. when I've said "chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy" it means that the original collision of separate populations or tiny clustered subpopulations of people inside those populations hasn't gone away and various populations of wildly varying sizes still smash into each other daily regenerating the spatial slot hierarchy. the spatial slot hierarchy is mistaken by Liberal-republicans to be a necessary reality that they just call "economics", or "the distribution of finite resources". to Marxists, the spatial slot hierarchy is undesirable and they want to relax the competition for houses and jobs so that if subpopulations clash over the right to live in a city it at least will be for some cultural reason and won't have come from the spatial slot hierarchy; if Marxists succeed people gain the ability to plan out the broad shapes civilization will form into in advance and allow individuals to choose where they want to live and where they want to contribute for money within certain limits of what society needs and what makes sense, or otherwise build things for no money in their spare time if society is well developed and the work day is shrinking. Marxists work with the reality that populations have no space to expand into and try to basically expand the surface area of society by using its space more efficiently, like the shape of a brain or a walnut, but that new control over society through predicting what shapes it will already form gives more leeway to let people go where they want and do what they want, you can predict what options are viable and maybe see more options where otherwise you might have trouble seeing any. chunk competition isn't a trivial thing to solve but the more you can stop individuals from running into each other through knowing what shapes are available to prevent that the closer you get to making it totally irrelevant and going back to the tiny amount of populational conflict seen in tribal societies. 
so chunk competition is like a different lens for conceptualizing "primitive communism" and its relationship to global empire and neocolonialism, the outer shape of the populations instead of strictly looking at the inner class arrangements. talking about classes is fine especially when separating crimson and blue/strawberry Social-Philosophical Systems. it's just hard to work with at really huge scales and really small scales, where physical boundaries between demographics are a bigger deal than they are at medium scales and chunk competition is easier to identify than class divisions.

</li></ol>

== Bad ways to stop chunk competition ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/A|Q=618|h4 = anarchemistry }} / anarchunking / ([[User:RD/9k/Q54,96|9k]]) -> the motif of anarchists or anyone else realizing on some not-entirely-lucid level that populations multiplying over each other too fast or wildly growing over each other is bad, but then crudely attempting to use [[E:Ethics is merely an objective form of morality|morality]] and Idealism to solve the problem. an "anarchemist" looks at a historical account of several frontier towns wildly expanding into an Indian tribe and interprets the situation as a failure of individual rationality to logically reason everyone into better behaviors or of [[E:democulture|the hypothetical ability of individuals to control and mold national culture to change all future behavior]]; to the "anarchemist", what is possible in material reality and what constraints material reality puts on the behavior of physical objects is not a concern, because practicing anarchism implies that a body of people can choose to create a different future, and {{em|were that different future to be successfully created}} the current conditions and current set of rules of material reality would [[E:Time happens several times at a time per time (statement connecting relativistic determinism to dialectical materialism)|change in the process of material reality interacting with itself and iterating to new states]], therefore an anarchist can simply point at anything, hypothesize that there is a way it could change in some future event, and insist that everyone get busy carrying out that event immediately toward success or failure instead of arguing about the best strategy to successfully do it. an anarchist and especially an "anarchemist" does not hold to [[E:Marxist political economy as existential materialism (early Marxism onto meta-Marxism)|specific-sense historical materialism]] in that they will not [[E:existential materialism (meta-Marxism)|conceptualize populational behaviors as mere physical processes]] and would rather believe that although reality can change and develop the interaction of individuals is [[E:three-body problem and The Subject|"too complicated" to be predicted]] or that trying to solve the interactions of any two particular samples of people through a predictive model like a math problem is somehow antithetical to creating a world filled with [[E:freedom (anarchism)|freedom]]. thus, driven by a logically contradictory ideology that both says individuals must be maximally Free from everything including mathematics and that individuals' Freedom [[E:tent of freedom poles|must not be destroyed]] by other Free individuals that anarchists have thus made it impossible to actually control, "anarchemists" go into damage control mode and try to assert that various collections of Free individuals they have no control over are obligated to do the moral thing just because they "Should" spontaneously decide to turn around, go home, miraculously know how to put it into perspective how every population of people on earth uses resources and use earth's resources wisely, stay on the land that is inherently and metaphysically suited for the United States colonies better than the frontier, and not go massacre a bunch of Indians. taking the concept at face value, it would be wonderful if the early United States colonists had actually done that. the problem here is not what set of material results anarchists think would have been a better outcome. the problem is that anarchists demand for history to go a different way just because it "Should" have gone that way without explaining how it is that they expect to control material reality [[E:Idealism|to behave the way they want it to]] instead of [[E:Materialism|behaving the way it actually did]]. 
anarchemistry is, in short, the concept that populations reproducing or iterating on themselves or producing historical events at a particular variable rate that has trended too high is an oppressive Dominating Form of Society and anarchism should be applied to this form of [[E:domination (anarchism)|Domination]] to forcefully throw it off the populations it oppresses. so, it can be an idea, as within this Item it's implied to be, or it could describe a more practical pattern of a material group of anarchists deciding they've had enough. in the latter context, it might become more respectable because when anarchists attempt to build a praxis they'll inevitably at least do {{em|something}} to try to solve exactly how a group of anarchists could possibly stop relativity itself and powerful immense processes and people-objects they definitely can't properly control from the outside; should they solve how to keep themselves defended against the wider world and build a Second World in charcoal, then I couldn't complain any more. sometimes I can't stand the theoretical reasoning people use, but it's always harder to hate physical movements. they're concrete data to [[E:meta-Marxism|analyze]], and how can I dislike that?

{{li|I=S1/Fy|tradition=ES, Fy|Q=55,01|Q2=5501|h4 = Arceism }} (motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q54,96|9k]]) -> a slightly complex cluster of anarchist themes that occasionally seep into fantasy media but could also conceivably come up in real life in a different form. 
1) "garden of Eden" pattern: if you connect everything into Community, there will instantly be no violence because every form of life on earth just inherently wants to go together and get along from various animal species to the totality of all human beings 
1A) the assertion that things in nature are somehow aware of whole ecosystems and "decide" on some non-conscious level to practice anarchemistry and fall back to a "moderate" level of existing and not destroy other parts of the ecosystem - seems doubtful the moment you see an invasive species that simply proliferates everywhere and eats up everything
1B) usually not intended literally, the fictional motif of non-human animals realizing that predation is Evil and becoming vegetarians or insect-eaters; usually used to present abstract lessons about humans
2) unregulated system regulates itself by mutually-assured destruction / resets: in Pokémon, you see this with Kyogre and Groudon trying to rule the earth. if either of them wins, in concept you'd expect that they also take themselves out somehow, and Rayquaza showing up to stop them just shortcuts what is overall the same process. in Liberal-republicanism, you see this general idea about three or four different places.

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Every claim that tribal society is more sustainable than republics is inherently Malthusian -> follows from the claims that prolonged chunk competition results in spatial slot hierarchies, and that chunk competition becomes permanent if human beings multiply to cover all available space. under such conditions, returning to tribal society is an inherently Malthusian argument {{em|because}} it could only practically happen by drastically lowering the world population and keeping the fertility rate from going back up again

</li></ol>
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

<ol class="hue clean compound">
{{HueDomain|Q92}} 
{{HueNumber|Q86}} 
</ol>


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-01T10:29:54Z

Reversedragon: iron rule ...

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}Pokémon trainers are a manifestation of bourgeois ideology -> it sounds like I'm shitposting but I do mean it literally if not {{em|in a serious tone}}. Pokémon live out in nature. trainers recruit Pokémon and promise them the opportunity to level up and evolve. it's all about teamwork, teamwork, teamwork. though in the real world, teamwork is one big excuse to exterminate other groups of people, whether it's the 13 United States colonies or the United States teaming up with Israel or First World countries teaming up to crush the Second World it's always justified as good {{em|because there was teamwork}}. teamwork is not inherently inclusive. there's so much lip service especially in works about ""democracy"" to saying that it's easy to include everyone just because there were a few groups of people that came together, but it never guarantees society will become fully inclusive versus a matter of teamwork attacking somebody else. never trust teamwork.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S1/PT|class=field_nations field_LGBT|Q=618}}I came to Tel Aviv to be who I was, but it became clear I was welcome as a lesbian, not a Palestinian {{YouTube|iPyxgHe7WE8}} -> case of: joining a "community" for a specific identity not leading to acceptance of other identities; violation of Rhizome model.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ideology is Idealism unexamined / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm] -> it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different, but I have no problems with their concept of ideology. to me, an ideology is {{em|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach|lack of limitation on capabilities]]; Feuerbach)
{{li|I=F1/ML/DX|Q=618}}freedom (lack of necessity; [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|Avakian]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf]
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|absorption of all necessity applying inside society into theories of society]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf] / The realm of freedom can blossom forth only with necessity as its basis (Marx)

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of special relativity. 
this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/6000

2026-05-01T09:55:41Z

Reversedragon: Edgeworth's dialectic

<h2 id="PPPA">6000 - 8000 [[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/6000&action=edit edit]]</h2>

Publishing entities, "Journey to the West" related Signifiers. 
Entries for miscellaneous fictional works allowed. To be included, a work should have interesting literary motifs seen in multiple other works, include references to some kind of philosophical statement within some real-world philosophy, or include consistent fictional ontologies of imagined physics or processes. Fictional physics or processes also allowed.

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="6000" class="hue clean reset field_LGBT">

</li><li value="6000" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q6000|fictional character]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6001" data-dimension="S">first-person narrator
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6002" data-dimension="S">second-person narrator -> see: Homestuck, narrator {{thingamabob|Chara}}
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6003" data-dimension="S">third-person narrator
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6004" data-dimension="S">narrator
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6005" data-dimension="S">point-of-view character
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6006" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q6006|player character]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6007" data-dimension="S">non-player character (NPC)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6008" data-dimension="S">hero
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6009" data-dimension="S">villain
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6010" data-dimension="S">antihero
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6011" data-dimension="S">antivillain
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6012" data-dimension="S">Good-aligned character
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6013" data-dimension="S">Neutral-aligned character
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6014" data-dimension="S">Evil-aligned character
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6015" data-dimension="S">Lawful-aligned character
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6016" data-dimension="S">Chaotic-aligned character
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6017" data-dimension="S">True-Neutral-aligned character
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6018" data-dimension="S">character alignment / moral alignment
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="6019" data-dimension="S">I contain multitudes / I am all of me -> I suppose the closest tradition tag is Jungian psychoanalysis, given how it speaks about all the different "sides" of a single personality.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6020" data-dimension="S">alignment axis
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6021" data-dimension="S">Law-Chaos axis / ([[User:RD/9k/Q60,21|9k]])
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6022" data-dimension="S">Good-Evil axis

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6023" data-dimension="S">foreshadowing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6024" data-dimension="S">grayble -> a specific kind of short story which has a theme in the sense of a writing prompt but is mistaken for having symbolism or lessons when it may not really have those. graybles sound infuriating but in my mind are actually pretty respectable. you'd think, when I get mad at Existentialism so often, that I'd hate the idea. but I don't. the notion of graybles expresses itself as Adventure Time goes on through the art of making a stupid meaningless story and then explicitly being aware of that and pointing it out with unnecessarily thoughtful philosophy. and I actually like that, even as some people seem to have not understood it and hated it. it cements that the "stupid" nature of Adventure Time plots is a stylization and not something the authors do because they're bad at writing actually-good narratives, or because they're useful idiots to Liberalism/capitalism/Existentialism (although there could be a bit to unpack with that last one of the three) and make misinforming narratives because it socially supports them and pays them to.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6025" data-dimension="S">grayble foreshadowing -> when a lot of people in the audience mistake simple foreshadowing of a fictional historical event for meaningful symbolism, either unintentionally or as the author intends. I didn't really get the joke behind the graybles until seasons 8-10 when I fully identified grayble foreshadowing that was very confusable for a message about character development and was like. ah. I see it now. I think there is also a lot of grayble foreshadowing in FNaF. people genuinely take some of the clues as symbolic when they truly only refer to characters or processes or things in a superficial visual kind of way. one thing I think isn't true is that grayble foreshadowing is exactly the same as Chekov's gun, because grayble foreshadowing seems to be a statement about history in the sense of the history of fictional worlds or the history of fictional characters' lives. grayble foreshadowing is a statement that somewhat-arbitrary things drive history within fiction, but it's still history.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6026" data-dimension="S2">A plan the story gives away will fail / Scooby-Doo rule -> if the story details the plan, it will fail, if it doesn't detail the plan it will probably succeed
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6027" data-dimension="S">bookman's bluff / scottcon -> when a story hints something so vaguely you can't solve it and then it solves the same clues in a different way than expected later; when the story is unsolvable because it spontaneously makes up its own solutions rather than having clear processes or events-happening inside it.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6028" data-dimension="Z">"Calvinball"
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6029" data-dimension="S">Calvinball -> like bookman's bluff / scottcon, only it actually succeeds.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6030" data-dimension="S2">All arrangements of things begin as fictions / All arrangements of people begins as ontologies (socially-constructed or imagined orders which might vaguely be possible in reality; chaos magic, Existentialist cybernetics) -> kind of. sort of. if you took this and restricted it a whole lot it would somewhat be true. like, don't connect this to Free Will, don't you dare do that, but if you managed to not go there, then yes, many things about society and even causality inside society are "put together" as a designed or undesigned construct before they are actually realized. I call them Philosophical Systems of ontologies embedded inside groups of people to produce Social-Philosophical Systems. but I am reasonably sure they're real. this + (something bad which is charcoal?) = Culture is just the series of signs people make up
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6031" data-dimension="S">Kirby Does His Taxes / Mario Stands Still -> I forgot about this until somebody brought up "Mario Stands Still" to explain Deltarune. Kirby Does His Taxes will always be the better form though
</li><li class="field_geo" value="6032" data-dimension="S2">Science fiction is just nonsensical physics -> not very controversial. science fiction begins with physics discoveries, hypotheses in various fields of science, and the application of physics or general mathematics to create hypothetical technologies or worlds. warp drives. four-dimensional worlds. it's kind of all just applying advanced mathematics to storytelling.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="6033" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q6033|Fantasy is the best history test]] / Fantasy is just nonsensical history -> the more fantasy books I read the more I see this particular hypothesis building up that the impulse behind writing fantasy is to play with the causal mechanisms of history and try to slowly figure out what they are. science fiction can sidestep the actual way anyone gets to the future to focus on hypothetical technologies or forms of physics, but in a weird way, fantasy is almost inherently more progressive than sci-fi if you aren't too stupid to see it. although science fiction often does focus on analyzing civilizations in series such as <cite>Star Trek</cite>, fantasy is inherently more barebones in its palette of concepts in a way that often immediately forces it to reckon with the workings of societies. fantasy grounds itself in things like social structures, wars, [[redlink - fantasy WWI|nationalities]] and identities, whether particular civilizations are good or bad, [[redlink - king of darkness|who should be in power]], and how imagined historical periods give way to other periods containing different civilizations. sometimes it seems like there is no difference between the categories of fantasy and politics, because a great heap of the things that happen in fantasy books are just medieval politics, and existing notions like Law/Chaos axes naturally lend themselves to fantasy stories about such things as characters slipping out of existing structures or patterns to discover LGBT identities. fantasy stories have all the puzzle pieces to turn into a believable imagined account of history where the material processes inside particular kingdoms, populations, or worlds actually unfold in understandable ways into new historical periods for centuries and centuries and you can actually trace through a fictional world's past and possible future(s) without any of it being arbitrary. if you actually understand history, fantasy is wired. I'm convinced that fantasy stories could teach the crustiest White people to actually understand historical materialism, maybe even more effectively than actual history could. in real-life history if somebody asks you to guess what happens next you always have "the answers at the back of the book", while fantasy is genuinely a blank history test you have to fill in. the act of creating fantasy is an act of showing that there really is such a thing as historical materialism and "history in general" without the content of a specific country. if that's not the case, how do people evaluate whether a fantastical history is convincing? why would there be a discussion about that where people have different opinions? I believe it all traces back to fantasy largely being simple representational art with regard to the processes that create real-world history. when people call for Media Representation in fantasy what they mean to say is that, because reality is stranger than fiction, in their attempt to represent the general concept of history current fantasy stories are overlooking a whole bunch of real-world historical events. it's one thing to say a story is technically unrealistic, and another to say it's literally missing information about reality that's making the representational art worse, which in this case is the complaint.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="6034" data-dimension="S">text claims to be bunch of senseless events, becomes discussion on history / work claims to be a bunch of senseless events, ends up a discussion on history -> happened in both Adventure Time and Dragon Ball. it's funny how works that intend to show that history is senseless actually just end up discussing the proposition it can be understood. no matter how much they try to turn around and say the characters' efforts to understand it are in vain. the point of the work is still to say that not being able to understand and steer history is a problem.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="6035" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q6035|Unless society is magic, there will be Communism]] / If society does not run on magic, Marxism-Leninism is not ruled out -> follows from: The heart of Marxism is historical materialism / Proposition zero of Marxism is historical materialism
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6036">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="6037" data-dimension="S2">[[E:MaterialistAnalysesCannotBeOwned|Materialist analyses cannot truly be owned]] / Materialist analyses of fiction are the only ones which cannot be attacked by capitalists / No Alexandria can burn which was not Greek -> a little subjective, but a very interesting argument to step through. information which is empirically observable can never be copyrighted, no matter how bad copyright policies get. you can never truly copyright an observation such as that hydrogen and hydroxide make water, or the earth is round, or religion exists, or countries exist, or science fiction books in general exist. but how far does this go? given a complete enough ontology of every generic thing that exists, could you build a literary analysis of a work of fiction which is totally uncopyrightable to the point it can never be taken down by a copyright claim, as long as it is very clearly an analysis and not a copy of the work? I think there's reason to believe the answer is "yes". and if that's the case. every analysis of art which is based on somebody's academic theory of social construction and utopianism and ideals is vulnerable to being taken away from people when a group of bourgeoisie bands together and decides to make life difficult for people, but comparatively, Materialist analyses are impervious to this. a Third World country or cluster of workers can have all the Materialist analyses it wants to and they can never be taken away. it can build them all from the ground up at any time without needing to access anything or anyone in particular. Materialist analyses are the only thing that perfectly suits this disgusting world of copyright and spatial slot hierarchies and defining people as isolated pockets of wealth with legs and trying to divide concepts up into people and make them totally synonymous with toxic gatekeepers and claiming that China building civilization again in parallel to the United States is "[[E:China having products is stealing|stealing]]" the inherent containment of concepts and culture-simply-existing into toxic individuals; if that's going to continue this is the one thing that can exist alongside all that and survive all that. Materialist analyses are even resilient to Marxisms fracturing into different blocs and denying things from each other. basically, if you want knowledge and palettes of artistic concepts to survive nearly anything, create a Materialist analysis and stay far, far away from artisanal conceptions of anything which even open the door for it to have an official shop or an official inventor. no library of Alexandria can be burned which was never inherently Greek.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="6038" data-dimension="S2">Fiction doesn't teach us anything -> Aron Ra's proposition. I don't think it's true, on a subtle level of failing the question-begging test. it's technically accurate to say fiction doesn't contain any educational information. but that's not what people usually mean by the statement "fiction teaches us". they are referring to a more abstract notion of learning by picking up general patterns and comparing analogies to the real world — a process of building ontological models through true or untrue scenarios using every scenario as a thought experiment. if you do that systematically enough it's essentially similar to applying a scientific method in different environments, although it entails you'll probably stop believing in Christianity after reading a few secular books and the bible and trying to compare all of them to each other and real life.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6039" data-dimension="S2">Fiction is educational -> for a very long time I had a hard time believing this, although I never would have said that fiction doesn't teach people about creating art or about using language — only that there is an open question on whether it teaches people about ""life"". typically when people say this they mean that it teaches about "experiences", and gives people a model of a demographic of people without exclusively boxing them into a stereotype.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="science fiction" value="6040" data-dimension="S2">Narratives exist to portray possible societies or situations -> this answer is fully compatible with historical materialism, or at least existential materialism. it allows weaving ties between the individual and historical period.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6041" data-dimension="S2">Narratives exist to depict each possible kind of individual / Narratives exist to tell us about individuals -> this is the answer I do not like. it's drenched in intentional or unintentional psychoanalysis. and I'd argue it ultimately encourages racism, simply because it encourages treating past hardships as irrelevant to current individual lives while treating the successes of current individuals as un-repeatable flukes. without a causal analysis of history and historical patterns you lose the ability to argue for consistent and cumulative social progress really quickly.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6042" data-dimension="M3">Why do narratives exist?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6043" data-dimension="S2">Non-fiction doesn't teach us anything -> counter to Aron Ra's proposition. if you actually understand the way people learn, though ontological models and metaphors, it's easy to see how a factual book could fail to teach people anything because they can't understand it through their current models and fail to believe that it looks plausible. in some cases people don't learn well through facts and learn better through questions. but I think the "street epistemology" concept is shortsighted too, because you have to ask what it is about questions that actually makes them work.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="6044" data-dimension="S">fake historical period / fake, bad history -> the motif of bad events in history being treated as a detour from "real" history. this motif is orange because, quite honestly, this is exactly what the Trotskyite conspiracy was alleging against Stalin's government, whether you commandeer Zinovievism as supposedly being Liberalism or whether you interpret it as saying Trotskyism is the real history. (my response, always: then why hasn't it happened yet??) famously this motif also comes up in the Christian bible, with the hypothetical reign of the antichrist being a kind of fake historical period, or the reign of the Roman emperors being suggested as one.


</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6045" data-dimension="F2">The only explanation of history is the defiance of history / The only explanation of historical patterns is the defiance of historical patterns -> this claim is inherently contradictory because it proposes an explanation of history, which is forbidden by the claim; the claim forbids itself. there is one way to fix it: cross out the word "defiance" and propose that Free Will and The Subject are material phenomena which can themselves be studied by historical materialism and reduced down to a number of partly-predictable patterns. this produces existential materialism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6046" data-dimension="S2">The only explanation of defying history is history / The only explanation of the defiance of historical patterns is historical patterns -> fixed it. funny how if you say almost the exact opposite of what Existentialists say it actually begins to make sense again.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6047" data-dimension="S2">History is the progression of family units / History is the progression of lines of Lived Experiences -> psychohistory proposition, often casually put forward by many people who have no idea what Lacanianism or psychohistory is, simply because Existentialism Is The Simplest Philosophy Which Everybody Already Believes. recently tossed out as an explanation for how war veterans coming back causes damage to family unit psychology, and presumably to national culture. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvpkfMGgUGI] something is wrong with this logic: okay, but what causes countries to go to war and rack up trauma in the first place? tangent: this came up in <cite>My Pride</cite>, the questionably-written show about the lions. and it caught me off guard because I immediately noticed that choosing to interpret tribal culture as a progression of family units instead of as history is an active choice you make that can editorialize and ideologically frame the events of the story if you're not careful.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6048" data-dimension="S2">History is the progression of groups operating -> this claim entails that even if the study of historical materialism up to now is wrong or lacking, Bolshevism could still be correct for reasons other than the reasons it believed to be its explanation. namely, Bolshevism could be correct because it is a sensible method of ordering people into a nation-state and functional nation-states are nearly fundamental.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="6049" data-dimension="S2">History is the progression of class struggles / All history ... is the history of class struggles -> have to get the classic one in there. not really exclusive with "history is the progression of groups operating", as these two things simply happen on different scales. group operating (countable area of capitalism), class struggle, rupture, group operating (named Marxism). the only serious difference is that "groups operating" allows modeling Trotskyism as its own phenomenon in parallel to mainstream Marxism-Leninism, or different anarchisms, an instance of Deng Xiaoping Thought, etc.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6050" data-dimension="F2">Biographies only have one ending -> this is one of the falsest things I have ever heard that people still keep saying. literally using biographies as the example the whole point of reading them is that different things happen in them, meaning they have different endings. this is a very important distinction because this difference in "endings" provides a material difference which can become a pattern that can be studied and in some cases broadly repeated.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6051" data-dimension="F2">Because all biographies have one ending, we can only reinterpret them -> no. is that how people created the underground railroad and slipped out of slavery? reinterpreting how bad they think their situation is and how bad it is or isn't to inevitably die? this is one of the only things worse than saying Free Will explains all history.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="6052" data-dimension="S2">Biographies have many different endings -> I don't have an example text right now but I swear the Bolshevik party knew this. look at what happened afterward. before 1900 people in Russia and China had one kind of ending. after 1930 their stories had new kinds of endings. this is almost the definition of what history is. if people didn't have different endings, we'd all live in an episodic sitcom and nothing would build on anything else.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6053" data-dimension="S2">[[E:The life of a bisexual has at least two endings|The life of a bisexual has at least two endings]] / The biography of a bisexual has at least two possible endings -> this seems pretty self-evident, yet somehow nobody thinks of it. bisexuals break psychoanalysis. and they break Existentialism because there isn't necessarily an inherently better individual choice, but there are still multiple outcomes.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6054" data-dimension="S2">Boring relationships in <cite>Warriors</cite> happen due to psychohistorical biases -> if you think the story of an individual life has only one ending, it's awfully tempting to slot every single individual into the same trite, boring heterosexual romance. diversity of gender and sexuality alone leads to multiple endings.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=60,55|Q2=6055}}Fictional futures come from characters' free will / Fictional futures come from the free will of fictional individuals / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6077|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=60,56|Q2=6056}}Fictional futures come from fictional individuals / Twilight Sparkle creates the future because she and her friends are unique material objects / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6077|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6057">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6058">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="60,59" value="6059" data-dimension="S2">There is zero difference between good and bad things / ([[User:RD/9k/Q60,59|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=60,60|Q2=6060}}Linear time prevents individuals from realizing fictions / Linear time takes power away from cybernetic assemblages or Group-Subject-organisms and keeps them from determining their own destiny / ([[User:RD/9k/Q60,60|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=60,61|Q2=6061}}non-narrative thinking / ([[User:RD/9k/Q60,61|9k]]) 
non-narrative thinking + street protest = frog protest. non-narrative thinking + RPG progression as horror = Game worlds are cultural fabrications. non-narrative thinking + Careerist class = Being a waiter is a culturally-fabricated Game.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6062" data-dimension="F2">[[E:BecauseAuthorSaidSo|Fictional events only happen because the author said so]] / Details in fiction only exist because the author said so / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6063|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6063" data-dimension="S2">Treating authors as gods is reductive to art / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6063|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem field_idealism" data-tradition="MX" value="6064" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism lacks historical materialism / Trotskyism is a Marxism lacking historical materialism -> the claim that Trotskyism understands the basic concept of classes, factions, and historical periods, looking for all the world like any named Marxism in its internal content, but it doesn't understand how to check hypotheses about historical processes; it's a Marxism without the ability to evaluate its claims scientifically. this was one of the observations that led to creating meta-Marxism — to force Trotskyists to actually check and re-evaluate their hypotheses by making them step out of Trotskyism for just a second, saying "hey look, here's a Trotskyism, exactly what you're familiar with, but it's a material object, now what's wrong with it? how does this material object actually evolve in time versus how you think it does?"
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6065" data-dimension="S2">Imperialists believe in a causal study of history / Imperialists believe in a material study of historical events -> the more you think about it, the more it becomes evident just from looking at people insisting we need to learn about the Roman Empire or we need to learn about the founding period of the United States, etc, that all the people saying this believe that studying these things actually aids in building particular kinds of historical processes and particular formations of people. they don't just talk about "Western Civilization" for the hell of it. whatever they say outwardly, they clearly believe this is a thing that can be actively recreated through particular material steps. to imperialists themselves, there is a set of steps for realizing imperialism as a social transition. yet somehow everyone else does not want to believe this and wants to believe that every human behavior is only connected to immediate individual choice and none of the steps of realizing empire actually created any permanent changes. anarchism, Western Marxism, and progressive Existentialism all equally seem to stem from the belief that imperialists do not have an active, cumulative cultural history in the same sense that "Germans" or "Spaniards" do. because imperialists are linked into one or more countable cultures that function as countable physical objects, trying to instantaneously dissolve imperialism is almost as ridiculous as asking everyone to spontaneously stop being Spanish and doing anything Spanish. it would be hard to do that because "Spanish" is a physical entity that keeps existing if you don't destroy all of it. have you ever stopped to think about why it would be the Roman Empire, Jewish legend, Christianity, and "Our Founding Fathers" are even taught together or grouped together when they come from separate places? these are the cumulative cultural history of imperialists. why is it it's okay for every kid to learn about Egypt as well as Greece? because the stationary empire shape of Egypt isn't seen as threatening; it fits into the existing "historical materialism" of imperialists. but at the same time, no book for kids would ever talk about the Soviet Union or Cuba in the same tone as ancient Egypt, simply going through "this is how people lived". it's worth thinking about why that is.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=60,66|Q2=6066}}The most effective way to ensure the United States doesn't have a bad president is for ten other economically-linked countries to come together and force the United States to get rid of its president or else -> after what's happened with Ecuador, Venezuela, and Cuba, there seems to be a clear pattern: foreign authority is much more capable of determining what a country's president is than democratic processes, so foreign countries had better choose the United States' president correctly.

{{li|I=S2/MX|class=field_mdem field_idealism|Q=60,67|Q2=6067}}Some of Western Marxism isn't Marxism / Most of Western Marxism isn't Marxism -> the claim that adding early-existentialism to Marxism may turn it into not being Marxism because it encourages replacing historical materialism with [[Term:historical existentialism|historical existentialism]]. or similar rather-specific claims involving particular parts of Western "Marxism".

{{li|I=S2/MX|class=field_mdem field_idealism|Q=60,68|Q2=6068}}Lacanianism aims to replace historical materialism with psychohistory / Freudians are trying to create a non-Marxist replacement for historical materialism, and that alternative is psychohistory -> I could really tell something was up with Lacanianism shortly after I heard of it but had so much trouble fully explaining exactly what they were trying to replace Marxism with. I'm more confident now that I found the actual name of the thing. Rothenberg and Žižek's whole weird bridge about Heidegger is this: Marx bad because the development of populations is the physical and intellectual development of a cloud of brains. what they don't realize is that this is equating history with culture. practically speaking, the total or average behavior of a cloud of individuals is that group's culture. so if you think history is most explainable through psychology, you're pretty much necessarily asking how the culture of a group of people develops and why people are Spanish or German — as well as how they could stop being Spanish when they happen to have a definition of what their country means to them which is bad. this is so much more offensive than Marxism, because if Marxism says bad things about "the bourgeoisie" or what should happen to them, it also makes no serious effort to mess with what anybody believes to be Chinese or North Korean, and limits itself to the practical study of how an existing group of people can build a republic, industrial structures, and various possible stages of development. the premise of psychohistory implies there are superior and inferior Cultures and societal transition means transitioning Cultures into a different Culture. the implication of Deleuze & Guattari's concept of "plateaus" next to psychohistory existing unchallenged (though that relationship is only "as far as I can tell") is that separating Germany off into East Germany and West Germany is bad but staying "in-between" by making people not be Germans and making them all be Better Germans is okay. what makes people go for this? what makes us think this kind of framework is acceptable?

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=60,69|Q2=6069}}Deltarune is an example of [[Term:historical existentialism|historical existentialism]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6069|9k]])

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=Fy|Q=60,70|Q2=6070}}[[Ontology:Q6070|player as relative to game]]
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=60,71|Q2=6071}}>What Would Joel Do? -> the motif of a videogame story railroading the player into the thing the protagonist would do, as one particular definition of "roleplaying". Joel is one of the two playable protagonists of {{game|The Last of Us}}. {{YouTube|5i-w7jebFNM}} {{YouTube|sgUvaiBqmUQ}}
{{li|I=S2/A|Q=60,72|Q2=6072}}[[Ontology:Q60,72|Fan theories should be atomic thoughts]] (atomic propositions; Deltarune fandom) / Fans don't like hour-long theories because they don't have enough spaces for choices and thus they aren't Freedom; single propositions are more agreeable because it is easier to free-associate onto one or the other and take or leave them / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,20|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6073">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6074">??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=60,75|Q2=6075}}separable protagonist / diegetic player character (scenario with protagonist separated from player) -> a diegetic player character is a character treated as something physically separated from the player, but in a sense different from the simple division between a literal book or game and its literal audience, where the separation exists specifically inside the narrative (the diegesis). if the player plays as an entity other than the main character but still controls the main character there is a diegetic player character. as well, if the main character is implied to be doing things on a completely separate level than the player is such that the player is immersed in the world but is not being the main character, there is a diegetic player character. this is really easy to define for Deltarune but not as easy to explain for Undertale even though it's clearly there. it would also be in OneShot even though that game doesn't hide it, which could make it less effective to some people.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6076" data-dimension="S">??

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=60,77|Q2=6077}}Susie being herself can change the Prophecy / Ralsei believes that Susie being herself can change the Prophecy (variation) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7617|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=60,78|Q2=6078}}
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="60,78" value="6078" data-dimension="F2">Being a waiter is an arbitrary narrative / Being a waiter is a culturally-fabricated Game that prevents an individual having an understanding of self and an ownership of Life (Sartre, <cite>Being and Nothingness</cite>) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q60,61|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6079">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="60,80" value="6080" data-dimension="S">anachronistic technology / technological anachronism
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="60,81" value="6081" data-dimension="F2">Technology shows what year a story takes place in / Technology can be used to tell what historical period of the world a story takes place in -> that would be true if you knew exactly what country was the most accurate to compare it to and mapped out all the historical periods of that country. 
as for the whole world... wouldn't you have to factor in global empire, and separate the local creation (enforcement) of colonial periods from before that? technology doesn't seem like as big a change as a whole colonial period falling down on India or Africa. is this why people are so obsessed with the word "colonialism"? because they can't conceptualize history as not being the history of the whole world and are trying to map out the whole world's colonial period? the problem is that's still stupid. Spain can't stop France's colonial period if it wanted to; they're going to be separate colonial periods. there's not really any such thing as a single world colonial period as far as the question of preventing it.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6082" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="60,83" value="6083" data-dimension="F2">80 years before 2003, there were fast cars / 80 years before 2003, there were 60-mile-per-hour cars (96 kilometers per hour; anachronistic device) / 80 years before 2003, there were wrecking balls [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH31FHOu_zw] -> a funny little reasoning error that can be found in books taking place in a particular time period which aren't primarily meant as historical fiction but end up reaching decades into the past. pointed out by many people analyzing <cite>Warriors</cite>.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6084" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6085" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6086" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6087" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="60,88" value="6088" data-dimension="S2">The history of slavery doesn't belong in textbooks -> no need to spend much time on the actual reactionary arguments, none of which are worth anything. I'm much more interested in the potential arguments that teaching about the history of racism is theoretically unnecessary for anti-racists just because most of them reject historical materialism, and if historical materialism is truly unnecessary and you really can fix everything with Free Will and protests and inclusion and Community, the hardships of the past should in theory be less relevant than the study of actively constructing the future. I feel like what I've really uncovered is the potential racism of anarchism, how utopian thinking could potentially crush people of various demographics under the material hardships they currently face which stand in the way of simply moving on.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="60,89" value="6089" data-dimension="S2">An ending amid slavery is a different outcome / An ending amid slavery is different from an ending amid none / A book that ends within a time of slavery is a different ending than a book which ends in a time of no slavery -> apparently ordinary people are too stupid for this proposition to be blue, and that's a shame.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="60,90" value="6090" data-dimension="S2">An ending amid monarchy is a different outcome -> the charcoal swatch manages this one because {{book|Wings of Fire}} was able to figure out this much, although the ultimate implications of the books are... odd. it's left, like {{book|Warriors}}, implying that monarchy is bad but endless brutality and death between nationalities is almost better and needs no real apologies.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="60,91" value="6091" data-dimension="S">monomyth (generic) -> the general concept of a monomyth, which ironically enough will basically always exist in plurality in several different forms.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="60,92" value="6092" data-dimension="S">A story containing multiple biographies violates monomyths -> sounds like such a stupidly simple idea you wonder why people don't talk about it, but look at it seriously. let's examine Dragon Ball. Goku has a biography. Gohan has a biography. Yamcha has a biography. if you want to keep previous characters relevant even if not necessarily focusing on them heavily for many episodes, you have to see things beyond a simple adventure narrative or "hero's journey" because they are usually about one person and not truly about multiple characters with different trajectories successfully coming back together again.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="60,93" value="6093" data-dimension="S">knight of justice / archetypical high-fantasy knight / {{TTS|tts=ゆうしゃ|勇者}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6093|9k]]) 
knight of justice + crisis = hero's journey. knight of justice + postmodernism = conflicted knight of justice.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="60,94" value="6094" data-dimension="S">king of injustice / prince of darkness / lord of darkness / {{TTS|tts=まおう|魔王}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6093|9k]]) 
king of injustice + Goku = Vegeta
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="60,95" value="6095" data-dimension="S">conflicted knight of justice / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6093|9k]])
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="60,96" value="6096" data-dimension="S">justice knight versus evil king / knight of justice versus maō ({{TTS|tts=まおう|魔王}}) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6093|9k]]) 
justice knight versus evil king + anticommunist fable = knight of justice versus Mao. 
justice knight versus evil king + Fantasy would be more historically accurate with Leninisms = evil king versus Mao.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="60,97" value="6097" data-dimension="S">videogame creepypasta
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="60,98" value="6098" data-dimension="S">speedrun
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="60,99" value="6099" data-dimension="S">challenge run
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6100" data-dimension="S">seemingly-impossible challenge run
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="61,01" value="6101" data-dimension="S">but first we need to talk about parallel universes
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6102" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="61,03" value="6103" data-dimension="S">good ending (interactive media)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="61,04" value="6104" data-dimension="S">neutral ending (interactive media)
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,05" value="6105" data-dimension="S">bad ending (interactive media) -> these Items don't refer to a Shakespeare play being a comedy or a tragedy, as much as that is conceptually related.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6106" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,07" value="6107" data-dimension="S">violence route of otherwise peaceful narrative
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="61,08" value="6108" data-dimension="S">pacifist route of otherwise violent narrative -> CUT Tree + pacifist route = Sudowoodo
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,09" value="6109" data-dimension="S">RPGs as "violent videogames" -> it's hard to make this genuinely funny instead of just ironically funny, but Deltarune chapter 4 managed to pull it off. Kris is playing games in the Dark World and it's very clearly being framed like a person with a sword is {{book|GTA}} and this is a truly horrifying game. I think what makes it work especially well is that it's not meant to be taken literally, it's semi-literally a silly dream the characters are having that also got way too serious. when the characters go back to the normal world they know RPGs are fiction and they don't freak out about them; Rudy for one is fairly positive about them, although it might be a little in question whether Toriel is.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,10" value="6110" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Ontology:Q61,10|Game worlds are cultural fabrications]] / An RPG world is a cultural fabrication / An RPG world is a social construct or magic circle, or "game" in the Idealist linguistics sense / Given a particular console RPG world such as <cite>Moon</cite> or <cite>Undertale</cite>, an RPG world is a cultural fabrication (idea-based fabrication; Idealism) / An RPG world is a magic circle, and this means all of it is at least somewhat arbitrary
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,11" value="6111" data-dimension="S">fantasy war as cultural fabrication / fantasy war as social construct (idea-based fabrication; Idealism) -> this is Q61,10 in reference to books, or anything.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,12" value="6112" data-dimension="S">RPG war as cultural fabrication / RPG war as social construct (idea-based fabrication; Idealism) -> this is Q61,10 in reference to tabletop or video games but not books.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,13" value="6113" data-dimension="S">RPG world as cultural fabrication / RPG universe or cosmos as cultural fabrication -> Q61,10 as a basic assumption of a work.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,14" value="6114" data-dimension="S">shutting down story as horror / shutting down fictional narrative as destroying story characters -> although it's difficult to fully guess where Deltarune is going, this seems to be the major twist versus Undertale, which Ralsei unsubtly hints toward in Chapters 3-4. Undertale presents you with the thesis that the monsters can be freed if you just choose to; Deltarune poses a more difficult question of whether you can ever free the characters the way it appears they are in Undertale if they stop existing when the game shuts off.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="61,15" value="6115" data-dimension="S">dragonslayer-slayer ({{em|Dungeon Meshi}} volume 11) -> this gets at why people are anticommunist. genuinely. it's more odious to turn on "your own identity-havers" than to have ugly homicidal prejudices against someone else in some other group of people. 
as Jungians might put it, taking the 'desire' (the impulse or process, more accurately) to kill other individuals and simply repressing it doesn't get rid of it and it's still there, directing itself out of the immediate socially-linked group of people instead of into it.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,16" value="6116" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q6317|RPG progression as horror]] / game progression as horror -> Undertale; Deltarune chapter 3; FNaF Security Breach & Gregory destroying not-so-scary artificial beings.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="61,17" value="6117" data-dimension="S2">Game worlds are not cultural fabrications -> a little controversial. this claim is not an absolute one about all situations, and it rests on the concept that recognizing game or book worlds as imagined material systems of parts is actually one of the major things that helps connect them to history and become aware of how they have been influenced by empire, country-internal racism, and populational prejudices that have followed historical events. said another way: coding is to individuals as fictional material-history is to real history. some people still won't like this claim. and to them what I will say is: if Idealism fully explains fiction, then Stalin's government commissioning books full of proletarian values can convince everyone to abandon capitalism forever. do you think such an initiative would work on you? if not, reconsider Idealism.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="61,18" value="6118" data-dimension="S2">Novels about Communism can change everyone's minds / If fictional narratives are truly social constructs, and writing a book that rewrites all the social constructs can truly change people's way of thinking about how to regenerate society when it comes to things like empire or prejudices or the environment, then handing everyone a book that accurately represents Bolshevism will make everyone stop regenerating Liberalism and turn people into Communists -> I really don't believe this is true by itself but it's definitely funny.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,19" value="6119" data-dimension="S">built on the ashes of fae bones -> Wings of Fire Pantala arc; SCP-001 The Queen's Gambit; "pignite" tale. I have a lot of scattered thoughts about this but it isn't productive to put them here. I have dumped them on the "4.4/sundew" entry. 
anti-imperialist fable + magical creature = this.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W/ES/A" data-qid="61,20" value="6120" data-dimension="S2">Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements -> so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where any of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch. but most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was not Marxist and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the party-nation". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't really belong to plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities|every object is plural]].

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="61,20" value="6120" data-dimension="S2">Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements -> in the Vietnam era there were some number of people who were flipped over against the war [[E:culturally-defined Communist|solely on moral arguments]] but who weren't really in a material position where you'd expect that. W.E.R. LaFarge came from a rich family and after deciding he was really guilty about the war happening his idea of helping people was to donate money to preserve the local environment. 
I feel like when you have a country full of a bunch of people like that, the movement is always going to be shaky and difficult to keep hold of because nobody actually has a stake in it. you can convince them to be allies but when they only have this cultural or moral connection to the movement it's also easy for them to decide that committing to it isn't what's best for them and flake out. 
having a country full of LaFarges probably goes a little of the way to explaining where Western Marxism and all the focus on "media" and "consciousness" came from

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6121">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6122">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6123">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6124">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6125">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6126">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS, ES" value="6127" data-dimension="S2">Humanity lies in having heart / Humans are better than machines because they have heart / Humans are better than machines because they have soul (abstract quality, not noun; secularized context) -> incoherent. sounds awfully nice, but doesn't actually make any sense. the thing is that people always believe there's some way to go "practice" this, but there never actually is. the more you drill into this concept the more it becomes confusing what anybody is supposed to be doing or whether it's possible. 
this proposition is to be taken as a secularized one which would hold equally as true if no religion was true. the actual existence within the real-world cosmos of a soul object or deities should be discussed in a different proposition. 
tangential thought: I really like Deltarune for how much it is willing to stand atop the old language of Gnosticism to simply suggest that relying on gods is a weak thing to do and if you want a god it can turn back on you and you get what you wish for. the message of Undertale could be spun as pro-Christianity because it's very easy to read Asriel as this familiar parable of "you didn't give me your coat?? I was Jesus the whole time!! you could have had Jesus powers!". but Deltarune recontextualizes everything. it makes you see everything as (potentially) this giant maladaptive haven of one particular child that died. and it's such a tangent to suddenly bring in "gods" while talking about Undertale/Deltarune, but what I'm really thinking here is, these games' idea of Souls feels similar to that. the more I see of Deltarune the more like I feel like the red Soul device is not natural and isn't supposed to be there, and it's sort of this maladaptive coping mechanism for Kris to believe this idealized notion of Souls exists which then has seemingly taken them over. it's not so much a literal cautionary tale about religion as it is a simple bit of imagery being used as a metaphor, but it's still there.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6128">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6129">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6130">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6131">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6132">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6133">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6134">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6135">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6136">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6137">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6138">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6139">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6140">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6141">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="61,42" value="6142" data-dimension="S2">pataphysics (SCP Foundation) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q61,42|9k]])

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,43" value="6143" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=SCP 63-O-2|SCP-6302}} -> SCP where you start seeing {{book|Warriors}} in real life. I hope this one doesn't get removed because it would be useful for the Trotsky's letters scenario. I mean, what if the books are just fracturing reality and both realities exist. what if this SCP is part of the Pitch Haven continuity and the staff didn't interpret it right? what would that do for the "narratives" narrative — is the past just whatever people think it is? 
I do know that even if this SCP does get removed I'll keep this Item here either way just for reference.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="61,44" value="6144" data-dimension="F2">Trotsky wrote in a parallel reality / Trotsky's letters describe an alternate reality / Trotsky's writings describe a parallel universe / Trotsky's writings describe a parallel reality where different things happened (counterfactual statement or thought experiment) -> this was the concept for an SCP report I was trying to create semi-recently. I don't know if I'll finish it. either way, the basic idea is now here in case it proves useful for illustrating something else.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6145">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6146">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6147">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6148">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6149">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6150">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6151">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6152">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6153">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6154">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6155">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6156">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6157">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6158">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6159">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6160">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="61,61" value="6161" data-dimension="S">knight of justice versus Mao / ([[User:RD/9k/Q60,93|9k]]) -> the concept of archetypical heroes fighting to prevent Communism, with the connotation of the heroes maybe being fantastical or medieval.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="62,62" value="6162" data-dimension="S">evil king versus Mao / ([[User:RD/9k/Q60,93|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6163">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6164" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Warriors</cite> is an allegory for Trotskyism -> troll proposition. the claim would be that because the cats are always divided and fighting each other and have no idea what's going on in the greater world, and on top of that seem to regard the concept of too many cats joining together as a conspiracy ("Stalinism! [[E:world of Alert|this is what the Cold War is]]"), they must be a metaphor for Trotskyism. 
as much as this is a joke it came up, as a joke, in an {{book|MDem}} 5.1 scrap. 
Warrior cats tend to fight each other + Trotskyism tends to fracture = <cite>Warriors</cite> is an allegory for Trotskyism.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6165" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6166" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6167" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6168" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6169" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6170" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6171" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6172" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li value="6173" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z">SCP Foundation Wikis
</li><li value="6174" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">SCP foundation database -> runs narratively parallel to: Pokédex. it killed me when a commenter on an audiobook said "the SCP Foundation is just playing Pokémon on impossible difficulty". yeah, sure, I mean, they both have a serialized index of things

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6175" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6176" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6177" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6178" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6179" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6180" data-dimension="S">elemental card color (Arcmage)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6181">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6182">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6183" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,83|Gaian card]] / earth color card (darkmage)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6184" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,84|Red Banner card]] / sun color card (darkmage)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6185">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6186" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,86|House of Nobles card]] / sea color card (darkmage)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6187" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,87|Empire card]] / steel color card (darkmage)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6188" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,88|Shadow Legion card]] / death color card (darkmage) -> I arranged these in rough order of good to evil because I wasn't sure there was a particular established faction ring for this game. this is/was the order used by [https://codeberg.org/vxsh-suite/darkmage/src/branch/main/card_templates darkmage] prototypes. but you've gotta put Red Banner at 84, come on.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6189">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6190" data-dimension="S">elemental card color (Magic)

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6191" data-dimension="F2">Pokémon Go teams are evil organizations / Pokémon Go teams represent evil organizations -> the devs kind of invited this theory by improperly using the word "Team" when it already had a use in <cite>Pokémon</cite> referring to [[E:Team Rocket|fantasy mafias]]. never a substantial theory but definitely a funny writers' error to point out.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6192" data-dimension="F2">Pokémon Go teams represent sectarian Marxisms -> cracktheory / joke interpretation. it's very funny to imagine a world where that was actually the case though. imagine three legendary Pokémon but one is Trotskyism (valor), one is Gramscianism (instinct), and one is... uh. um. MDem? it's purple. it's purple and it's sharp and cutting. I hate that but I almost like that.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6193" data-dimension="S2">Pokémon Go teams resemble world wars / Pokémon Go teams represent warring kingdoms -> this is what I've thought there's always been an argument for. graph struggle itself makes its way into games accidentally when they copy earlier games more closely based on history. earlier games are war games with world maps or board game battles; fantasy games mindlessly copy patterns of empire. with Pokémon Go... let's think about it. we begin with Ingress. Ingress is kind of an alien invasion plot. but practically it's a war game, it has a world war structure. so yeah. Pokémon Go copied world wars but with three factions when for various reasons there's usually two.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6194" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,94|white card]] (<cite>Magic</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6195" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,95|blue card]] (<cite>Magic</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6196" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,96|black card]] (<cite>Magic</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6197" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,97|red card]] (<cite>Magic</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6198" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q61,98|green card]] (<cite>Magic</cite>) -> WUBRG; W(bU)(Bl)RG
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6199">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6200" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Magic: the Gathering</cite> (1993 - present)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6300">(62-6300: <cite>Magic: the Gathering</cite> sets, not totally exhaustive. list of sets being compiled [[User:Reversedragon/comm/MTGblocks|here]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6301">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6302">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6303">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6304">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6305">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6306">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6307">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6308">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6309">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6310">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6311" data-dimension="S2">Mancountry is where humans fled to in Deltarune [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwm_VfV16Jg&lc=UgzHsezBT448H4g01jx4AaABAg] -> cool theory. I don't know if it will ever be addressed, but you know, maybe. seems more likely than "mancountry" actually being in reference to gender. it's more likely going to be either the odd notion in the bible of 666 merely being "a man" who is especially bad or ominous and not necessarily some eldritch entity we like to think of when we think of "the devil", or the concept of humans instead of monsters.
</li><li value="6312" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">twelve as Chinese zodiac / twelve things form a Chinese zodiac / twelve things means Chinese astrology
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6313" data-dimension="S2">Gaster sealed the monsters underground; they remember it wrong / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6317|9k]])
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6314" data-dimension="S2">The Underground is a creation / The Underground is the creation of someone inside the Watsonian cosmos of Undertale or Deltarune / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6317|9k]])

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6315" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q6315|Dark Fountain]]
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6316" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Yume Nikki</cite>

</li><li value="6317" class="field_horror element_empty" data-dimension="S">"fell into his creation" / W.D. Gaster fell into his creation / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6317|9k]])

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6318" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Super Sentai</cite> ([https://powerrangers.fandom.com/wiki/Super_Sentai#Main_series metaseries]) / Super Squad (unofficial name)
</li><li value="6319" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Uchū Sentai Kyuranger</cite> [vol. 41] / Space Squad Kyuranger
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6320" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Power Rangers</cite> (abridged-series)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6321" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Himitsu Sentai Gorenger</cite> [vol. 1] (1975) / Secret Squad Gorenger
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6322" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>J.A.K.Q. Dengekitai</cite> [vol. 2] (1977) / JAKQ [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#German Blitz] Squad
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6323" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Battle Fever J</cite> [vol. 3] (1979)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6324" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Denshi Sentai Denziman</cite> [vol. 4] (1980) / Electric Squad Denziman / Electronic Squad Denziman
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6325" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Taiyo Sentai Sun Vulcan</cite> [vol. 5] (1981) / Solar Squad Sun Vulcan
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6326" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Dai Sentai Goggle-V</cite> [vol. 6] (1982)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6327" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Kagaku Sentai Dynaman</cite> [vol. 7] (1983) / Science Squad Dynaman
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6328" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Chodenshi Bioman</cite> [vol. 8] (1984) / Super Electronic Squad Bioman
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6329" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Dengeki Sentai Changeman</cite> [vol. 9] (1985) / Blitz Squad Changeman

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6330" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Choshinsei Flashman</cite> [vol. 10] (1986)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6331" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Hikari Sentai Maskman</cite> [vol. 11] (1987)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6332" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Choju Sentai Liveman</cite> [vol. 12] (1988) / Super Beast Squad Liveman
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6333" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Kousoku Sentai Turboranger</cite> [vol. 13] (1989) / Lightspeed Squad Turboranger
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6334" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Chikyu Sentai Fiveman</cite> [vol. 14] (1990)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6335" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Chojin Sentai Jetman</cite> [vol. 15] (1991) / Aviator Squad Jetman
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6336" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Kyoryu Sentai Zyuranger</cite> [vol. 16] (1992) / Dino Squad Zyuranger
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6337" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Gosei Sentai Dairanger</cite> [vol. 17] (1993)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6338" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ninja Sentai Kakuranger</cite> [vol. 18] (1994)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6339" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Choriki Sentai Ohranger</cite> [vol. 19] (1995)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6340">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6350">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6360">??
</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6366" data-dimension="S">Gaster hand holes
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6367" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6368" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6369" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6370" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6371" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6372" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6373" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6374" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6375" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6376" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6377" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6378" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6379" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6380" data-dimension="S">cutting off arm for weapon ({{film|Adventure Time}}) / cutting off arm for powers ({{film|Fionna and Cake}}) -> comes up twice in Adventure Time. {{em|may}} appear in Deltarune although that's not clear. 
in {{film|Adventure Time}}, Fern is the first to be connected with this motif. Finn accepts the grass sword, and unknowingly "cuts off" his arm. then Fern comes back and is basically made of pain. it's like the grass sword was always some kind of metaphor for suffering being stuck to you over a long period of time 
in {{film|Fionna and Cake}}, Huntress Wizard becomes the focus and we learn she more literally cut off her hand to get powers. but at the same time, she refused to make connections to the order of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons) druids]" or forest wizards, and couldn't commit herself to building a relationship with Finn. 
in Deltarune... maybe this is just me, but I keep looking at the Knight's sword and I think of Huntress Wizard and Fern. it just feels like this weapon gained from an unreasonable sacrifice

</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6381" data-dimension="S">drawing sword out of hand (Deltarune) -> in the Roaring Knight's first animation it absolutely wails, then appears a sword from its hand. that is not a normal place for a sword to be stored. we know it is not normal because of how in Chapter 4 the Red Soul can make Kris "equip" Noelle's hand with a thorn although she had a vision where Kris is explicitly taking it out. it even looked like the Soul is crudely stabbing it straight through Noelle's palm, not where the ring goes. so what the hell happened to December to obtain that sword? did she get stabbed through the hand with a Shadow Crystal and become unable to find her hand?

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6382" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6383" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6384" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6385" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6390" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6391" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy, ML onto Fy" data-qid="63,92" value="6392" data-dimension="S2">Berdly demonstrates dialectical materialism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q63,92|9k]])

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6395" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6396" data-dimension="S2">Dungeon Meshi is truer to reality than Undertale / Dungeon Meshi is closer to reality than Undertale -> note that this is not an accusation. Undertale is not necessarily meant to be "realistic" in its depiction of history, and its narrative is deliberately stylized. so, if anything, this is kind of just a tautological statement that Undertale is stylized, and that isn't necessarily bad. that said, it is also a statement that 'Delicious in Dungeon' is especially good — Undertale is good, Dungeon Meshi is arguably better. 
Zootopia is a good class metaphor + {{book|Homestuck}} is truer to reality than {{game|Deltarune}} = Dungeon Meshi is truer to reality than Undertale.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6397" data-dimension="S">ThornRing
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6398" data-dimension="S">Snowgrave

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="6399" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Homestuck}} is truer to reality than {{game|Deltarune}} / {{book|Homestuck}} is truer to reality than {{caps|Omori}} -> the simple act of portraying alien teenagers getting into a messy bloodbath that makes nothing better when they all face their fears instead of escaping them is terrifyingly true to reality, while psychoanalysis simply is not as credible as a model of society. there is a reason people have fears. facing your fears often does not lead to peace.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="6400" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Homestuck}} is truer to reality than {{TTS|tts=My Little Pony gen 4|MLP:FiM}} / {{book|Homestuck}} is more accurate to the reality of living in the United States than My Little Pony ({{book|Friendship is Magic}}, gen 4) -> this is a complicated claim that has to be broken down into a few steps. the basic ideas are these. A) these works were created in the United States. B) the homestuck teenagers being thrown into a new world to overcome a bunch of nasty enemies and danger and uncertainty almost in isolation is a loose metaphor for the process of finding a career in the midst of an environment where individuals and chunks of people are constantly fighting each other for the ability to be part of society rather than leave and connecting into little enclaves of allied competitors (corporations, Liberal-republican parties, etc) that fiercely try to keep all outsiders out. C) the genesis frog is a loose metaphor for each individual having to re-create all of reality around them through labor to break away from parents and toxic friends and political enemies and other corporations as other individuals constantly claim it — a task that not everybody succeeds at, hence null sessions. D) the trolls are a metaphor for what it's like to grow up embedded in United States culture before you gain the quest to be able to break out of the bottom layer and reach the top layer. you are alone psychologically, there are constant threats of being culled from a particular town for being Black or being disabled or being fireable, everyone is mean. Alternia is the ordinary world, earth given Sburb is the special world where heroes go. this might sound shocking to someone who lives in California but it's the strong parallels between trolls and Saiyans (and Gems) and the popularity of these recurring narratives about having to break out of a world of aliens where everyone is terrible that finally sealed it for me. E) Twilight Sparkle is the star student who finds it easy to get to the top layer or special world, and does not realize that a bottom layer of fierce competition exists. the show is presented from her perspective. F) Vegeta is the hero of Dragon Ball. the trolls are the heroes of Homestuck. the griffons are the heroes of MLP. it's only when the people who have every incentive to be mean and kill each other can be turned around to connect each other instead that there can be any heroes. G) the point of these "heroes" isn't that they're mean or reactionary or even that they're peasants or poor. the point of them is that they could split society, and turn on any particular establishment and fight it, but they must choose not to. that's why Trotsky is my favorite example of the person you need to cast as the hero. he's not actually malicious (despite the possibility many people in the conspiracy may have been). he is a very smart individual who was only alienated from the society around him and forced into the process of chunks of society competing against each other because he could not be integrated and turned around to recruit others.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6401" data-dimension="S">Gaster and green / Gaster and the color green (colour; Undertale, Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6402" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is green because Gaster -> this shouldn't make sense and yet it does.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6403" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6404" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6405" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6406" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6407" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6408" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6409" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="6410" data-dimension="S">twelve or more -> precise order of magnitude
</li><li class="field_geo" value="6411" data-dimension="S">exactly twelve -> precise order of magnitude
</li><li value="6412" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">twelve things as European zodiac / Twelve things form a European zodiac / Twelve things means European astrology

</li><li value="6413" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Homestuck</cite> -> included almost just as a joke, but the number is nice
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6414" data-dimension="S2">Deltarune contains a time loop / Kris has already experienced Deltarune at least once
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6415" data-dimension="S2">Deltarune contains a bootstrap paradox / Deltarune contains a bootstrap paradox connecting it to Undertale -> distinct from the concept of Kris having experienced the game before. I think this is probably true but not true in a way that is actually consequential to the character narratives of Deltarune. it's just going to be one of those "well, technically..." things where the loose ends are tied up a weird way.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6416" data-dimension="S">Kris resisting player (Deltarune)
</li><li value="6417" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">secrets (Deltarune) / memories concealed from other people
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6418" data-dimension="S">a nightmare will awaken in your hearts -> could be connected to The Roaring
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6419" data-dimension="S">"stay away from her, you fiend!" -> Tenna's encounter with or without Spamton where he is discovered to have a Pipis. the Pipis is referred to as "a certain person's special ???", which strangely connects to the Shadow Crystal being "like throwing away someone's ???". this scene is making a strange joke out of the Freudian concept of boundaries and suggesting that secrets are the hard line to be crossed that some people want to get into and some people would be really offended to see; the Pipis is found and the audience and Tenna both act like they just discovered pornography or something. this seems to be some kind of hint at what Shadow Crystals ("Glass") and the Black Shard are. this, and the fact that when Susie shattered the glass window its contents was a secret, at least to the Red Soul. we have heavy themes of secrets between two people and breaking the boundaries to obtain secrets in Deltarune.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="UTDR" value="6420" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=Rules|Rouxls}} did not create the clock puzzle / {{TTS|tts=Rules Card|Rouxls Kaard}} did not create the clock puzzle

</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6421" data-dimension="S">only eyes blinded by darkness can see
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6422" data-dimension="S">it's better you don't wake up (Deltarune chapter 2) -> very interesting thing Queen says, which seems to be one of the hints for Snowgrave existing as well as what it might actually be
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6423">??

</li><li data-qid="64,24" value="6424" class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-dimension="Z">{{game|Super Smash Bros.}} (Nintendo 64)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="64,25" value="6425" data-dimension="S">it's like {{censor|fucking|tts=[effing]}} Christmas / it's like ... Christmas (censored title) -> a thing Dave Strider says in Homestuck that wasn't funny to me the first time I read it but is now really funny to think of and apply to things out of context 
my thought today: this is how I would feel if [[E:East German Christmas carols|East German Christmas carols]] came up on a show like {{film|Drawn Together}} as a weird historical fact and casual comment they can make about an ethnicity without it being particularly offensive. many times funnier to bring up than the stereotype that 'Japanese people something something honor'. because like, the kind of person that thinks making Ling-Ling out of superficial stereotypes about Japan and China is funny definitely wouldn't know about this one and would be absolutely blindsided if it simply dropped in.

</li><li data-qid="64,26" value="6426" class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-dimension="Z">{{game|Super Smash Bros. Melee}} -> successor to {{game|Super Smash Bros}} on the Nintendo 64; 26 characters in the game.
</li><li data-qid="64,27" value="6427" class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-dimension="S0">Smash Bros character / character that has appeared in a Super Smash Bros. game

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,28|Q2=6428}}Phoenix Wright / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,29|Q2=6429}}lawyer of justice / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,30|Q2=6430}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} (metaseries) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=64,31|Q2=6431}}objection! (motif)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6432">??
</li><li data-qid="64,33" value="6433" class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy / Homestuck, Fy / mythology, HAS / law" data-dimension="S">beam balance of justice / libra (Homestuck) / teal bloods and beam balances (Alternian trolls; Homestuck)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6434">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6435">??

{{li|I=S1/Fy/IV|Q=64,36|Q2=6436}}ominous trial of doom / You are obsolete! (The Twilight Zone) -> it is actually staggering how many motifs you can find in fiction that are probably references to the Moscow Trials. 
lawyer of injustice + Stalinism (corruption) = ominous trial of doom.
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=64,37|Q2=6437}}lawyer of injustice / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]])

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=64,38|Q2=6438}}Miles Edgeworth / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=64,39|Q2=6439}}Franziska von Karma
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=64,40|Q2=6440}}prosecutors ({{game|Ace Attorney}})
{{li|I=S1/Fy |Q=64,41|Q2=6441}}{{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney}} (2001)
{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=64,42|Q2=6442}}what it really means to be a lawyer ({{game|Ace Attorney}})
{{li|I=S1/Fy/Aa|Q=64,43|Q2=6443}}Edgeworth's dialectic

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6444">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6445">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6446">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6447">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6448">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6449">??

</li><li class="field_mdem cw_theology" data-qid="64,50" value="6450" data-dimension="S2">A correct religion explains all cultures / The correct religion will explain all countries / The correct religion will be a universal morality / The correct religion will unite everyone onto the same morality consisting of the same universal human values of what is right and wrong / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6450|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="64,51" value="6451" data-dimension="S2">Christianity is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Christianity / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6450|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="64,52" value="6452" data-dimension="S2">Islam is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Islam / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6450|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="64,53" value="6453" data-dimension="S2">Buddhism is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Buddhism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6450|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="64,54" value="6454" data-dimension="S2">Schizoanalysis is not the correct religion / Schizoanalysis is not the one true morality of the universe / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6450|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="64,55" value="6455" data-dimension="S2">The correct religion is not existentialism / Early-existentialism is not the correct universal morality / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not early-existentialism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q6450|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6456">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6457">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6458">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6459">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6460">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6461">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6462">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6463">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6464">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6465">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6466">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6467">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6468" data-dimension="S">this is incredibly silly -> <cite>Problem Sleuth</cite>.
</li><li value="6469" class="field_fantasy">"cancer" refers to crabs

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6470">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6471">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6472">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6473">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6474">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6475">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6476">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6477">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6478">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6479">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6480">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6481">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6482">??

</li><li value="6483" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">The Roaring (Deltarune)
</li><li value="6484" data-remark="SCP-ES-084" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6484|end-of-the-world scenario]] -> referencing SCP-ES-084, one of them where people think the world is going to end. but highly appropriate to put next to Homestuck, I mean that's exactly how it begins
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6485" data-dimension="S">fantasy environmental catastrophe -> appears in: Icefire, Final Fantasy VII, Pokémon Sword/Shield... Godzilla arguably 
doesn't refer to something like {{book|The Lorax}} where there's an imaginary catastrophe which neatly lines up as a cartoon version of a real one. this refers to fantasy catastrophes that have their own lore and causal reasons for happening even if they resemble real ones. for example, Godzilla is not something where there would be a real-world PSA explaining to you about the history of kaiju and how to prevent kaiju attacks

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6486">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6487">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6488">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6489" data-dimension="S">rebuilding civilization after apocalyptic war -> this can be used in combinations to get Posadism, Adventure Time, one or more SCP stories, etc.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6500">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6501">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6502">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6503">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6504">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6505">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6506">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6507">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6508">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6509">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6510" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,10|God wants us to love our neighbor regardless of ideology]] / God wants us to love our neighbor regardless of nationality, political party, or other distinction -> now that is a whopper if I ever saw one. you put together "nationality, political party, or other distinction" and the first thing I think of is a {{censor|fucking}} Trotskyist party. I think there is a really good case to be made that when you've said those three categories it totally counts. but I am pretty sure that most people wouldn't turn around and say "oh, if the United States is slated to be taken over by some kind of Leninist movement they're my neighbors so all of that is totally okay". nobody turns around and says "hey, wait, I don't think the Cold War is very Christian, I think we have to stop it".
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6511" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,11|God wants us to love social-democrats]] / God wants us to love Mensheviks
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6512" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,12|God wants us to love anarchists]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6513" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,13|God wants us to welcome gay people]] / God wants us to welcome gay men / God wants us to welcome lesbians
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6514" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,14|God wants us to welcome trans people]] / God wants us to welcome gender identity
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6515" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,15|God wants us to welcome Black towns]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6516" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,16|God wants us to love Trotskyists]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6517" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q65,17|God wants us to love Leninists]] / God wants us to love Marxists / God wants us to love Stalin-followers

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6518" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6519" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky cw_theology" data-remark="derived proposition" value="6520" data-dimension="S2">If all countries will be one in the end times, the world is our neighbor / If everyone will be one population in the end times, other countries are our neighbor / If everyone will be one population of Christians in the end times, but people everywhere are divided into many levels of plural populations now, then the Soviet Union was our neighbor, and we did not love our neighbor / Vietnam is our neighbor / China is our neighbor

</li><li class="field_anarchy cw_theology" data-tradition="Aqr" value="6521" data-dimension="S2">The world is controlled by corporations, therefore Canada will merge into the United States (conspiracy theory) {{YouTube|8vDqFu_HtpQ}} -> well. that's one way to answer [[E:Q29,13|Q29,13]]. bourgeoisie? check. capitalists in ivory towers of industry dividing countries against each other to distract from them? check. [[E:crisis of capitalism (Trotskyism)|Liberal capitalism is going to collapse]]? check. God? check. world anarchism? check. I don't think their theory is remotely correct but I'm laughing and I'm not upset because at least they tried. they somehow started the "lecture" with material causes and didn't bring in Satan like a handful of books I've seen that sound like this, so it's like, not as bad as it could be. I enjoy this video ironically for how close to low-effort Trotskyist theory it kind of almost got without knowing anything. that's kind of damning for the quality of today's Marxist theorists, I feel like, when conspiracy theorists that know nothing have produced almost the same lecture and it's equally unbelievable in either case.

</li><li class="field_nations cw_theology" data-qid="65,22" value="6522" data-dimension="S2">Canada is a registered corporation -> I don't think this is true but they clearly found some very interesting information to twist this out of and I'd be interested to know what they really did find {{YouTube|8vDqFu_HtpQ}} 
swatch color: these supernatural conspiracy-theorists are on thin ice with how much they condoned Trump; there's something of an anarcho-Toryism going on here. these three propositions could be either charcoal or brown.

</li><li class="field_anarchy field_idealism" data-tradition="A, Aqr" data-qid="65,23" value="6523" data-dimension="S2">Free will is more real than countries / Free will is more real than all nations -> this came from a crazy anarchist religion but you wouldn't know it at first glance because a lot of normal anarchists would probably say this too. {{YouTube|8vDqFu_HtpQ}} 
"when I say God and Christ, I'm not talking about religion, I'm not talking about the bible" literally, pagan bible. this is such {{censor|bullshit}} but at least the tone of it is fun

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6524" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li data-qid="65,25" value="6525" data-remark="Isaiah 11:6, 65:25" class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q6525|The wolf shall dwell with the lamb]] / The wolf and the lamb shall graze together / lion laying down with the lamb -> seen in many different bible verses, several in the book of Isaiah. perhaps one of the single most interesting things said in the Christian bible because A) it creates logically coherent narratives, even if ecologically inaccurate in the real world and B) it acts as one of the central themes driving many of the books. Q3009 "lion of kindness" should be considered a component of this proposition

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6526" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6527" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6528" data-dimension="S2">??

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=65,29|Q2=6529}}Epstein was concealed behind Satan / Epstein's secret ranch was insulated by the forces of Satan; this is to imply that there is always a government or agency behind everything instead of things just happening free and unregulated with absolutely nothing behind them {{YouTube|7CqQklFWhEY}} -> it's so much easier to believe that some grand conspiracy is afoot than that just.... nothing is there, there is no government, there's nothing watching over, there is no regulating force, there is no force of justice, there's just a bit of land isolated from everything, and the darkest form of complete and utter Freedom.

{{li|I=F2/ML|Q=65,30|Q2=6530}}Marxism doesn't talk about morality -> this is subtly wrong for reasons that it's hard to see from within mainstream Marxism-Leninism. you really have to step outside and look at all movements descriptively. when you do that, you see that morality is a label people mistakenly assign to things that Marxists would consider historical materialism, and what's really happening is when Marxists refuse to talk about morality anarchists think you hate historical materialism. you have to engage with other ideologies' concepts of what progress is to be able to properly understand where they are on understanding 'historical contradictions'

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6531" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6532" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" data-qid="65,33" value="6533" data-dimension="S2">Protect theorists from empire, and you won't end up with Stalinism / It's important to save as many Trotskyist theorists as possible from external empires if you don't want to end up with only a few theorists left who stretch over the government and stay there endlessly like Stalin / ([[User:RD/9k/Q65,34|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" data-qid="65,34" value="6534" data-dimension="S2">A State is so Trotskyists don't die / The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die / The point of a State is so Trotsky can save himself instead of running over to large external empires for help / ([[User:RD/9k/Q65,34|9k]]) 
The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die + ?? = Trotskyism must be created in one country for poly-Trotskyism to be created 
Pan-Africanism + Trotskyism = The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" data-qid="65,35" value="6535" data-dimension="S2">The politics of desire refuses to deal with the post-revolutionary question of the state (Badiou) [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q65,34|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="65,36" value="6536" data-dimension="S2">If Idealism is true, Trotskyism is / If Idealism were true, Trotskyism would be the best belief system -> here's the thing. Idealism commonly expresses itself as the concept that the future which is the best one to desire is the one you should believe, because if you don't believe in it it can't be realized, so you are obligated to believe in improbable things for them to be realized. (this is a logical fallacy, because it changes "no belief, no outcome" to "belief, outcome" without evidence that is accurate. but let's not let that bother us, because we're assuming Idealism is true.) Idealism being true means that even if Trotskyism sounds highly improbable it can eventually be realized as long as people believe in it. Idealism does not say that the things you believe in can't frame themselves in practical or material ways. therefore, there's an argument that a slightly flawed Materialist philosophy is the best thing to believe in even if you're an Idealist. 
the real trick to this proposition is that you could insert any number of named Marxisms in here like Juche-socialism or poly-Maoism or whatever. it doesn't really have to be Trotskyism, I just find spuriously arguing for Trotskyism to be very funny.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ES" data-qid="65,37" value="6537" data-dimension="S2">If Stalin winning means that God intended for Communism to prevail, then Stalin doesn't even have to actually win in order to have already won / If Stalin's Marxism winning means that God intended for Communism to prevail, then it doesn't even have to actually win the first time if there is any significant, credible chance that it will ever win, because in the event it understands the processes of the future correctly, on the day it actually wins it will have glimpsed its future victory and rise to legitimacy already / Stalin's wager / holy chicken fallacy (proposition that any correct "lowball egg count" was always correct whether you actually knew it was or not) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ES" data-qid="65,38" value="6538" data-dimension="S2">If Stalin wins, then God intended for Communism to prevail and Christianity to be abolished / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="65,39" value="6539" data-dimension="S2">Universal morality means one position on Trotsky / The one true morality that is more accurate than all others and appropriate to the whole world would have a single position on Trotsky, not three or more different positions
</li><li class="field_mdem cw_theology" data-qid="65,40" value="6540" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky's actions were ungodly or weren't / What Trotsky did was either against heaven or not against heaven (Trotsky's actions, Trotskyite conspiracy, Trotskyism; thought experiment around religion) / Trotsky either entered separation from God or did not separate from God / Imagining that there is a Bad Place, Trotsky either went to the Bad Place or did not go to the Bad Place / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky cw_theology" data-qid="65,41" value="6541" data-dimension="S2">The correct religion is not anti-Trotsky / Any religion which is the correct religion must entertain that Trotsky is a part of its group of approved people / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="65,42" value="6542" data-dimension="S2">Backing Trotsky against Stalin is godly / When the United States sides with Trotsky against Stalin, this is because Trotsky is not against God / Any correct religion or interpretation of Abrahamic religions would send Trotsky to the Good Place for resisting Stalin / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML cw_theology" data-qid="65,43" value="6543" data-dimension="S2">Backing Stalin against Trotsky is godly / Siding with Stalin against Trotsky is godly / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky cw_theology" data-qid="65,44" value="6544" data-dimension="S2">If Trotsky is Good, become a Trotskyist / If oppressing Trotsky is morally wrong then not aiding Trotsky in realizing Trotskyism is morally wrong, because practically speaking, not oppressing Trotsky requires realizing Trotskyism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="65,45" value="6545" data-dimension="S2">God can fight against Iraq / God participates in the Iraq war / If the United States prays to God and God helps the United States against Iraq, then the United States is not in separation from God (not against God; thought experiment)
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" data-qid="65,46" value="6546" data-dimension="F2">God helped the United States beat Iraq / God helps the United States beat Iraq / If the United States prays to God for help against Iraq and the United States doesn't lose, then the United States is not in separation from God (not against God; thought experiment) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct field_bauplan" data-tradition="LR, ML" data-qid="65,47" value="6547" data-dimension="S2">[[E:The Soviet Union functioned as a political faction|The Soviet Union functioned as a political faction]] / During the Cold War the Soviet Union functioned as a political faction / During the Cold War the Soviet Union served as one of the world's capable proletarian subpopulations, and thus Soviet politicians in general had a partisan alignment with the proletariat even if not every one of them was perfect

</li><li class="field_mdem cw_theology" data-qid="65,48" value="6548" data-dimension="S2">Universal morality means one position on Stalin / A universal morality will have just one position on Stalin / If everyone is to have the same morality, then they must have the same moral opinions about Bolshevism, and the same moral opinions about Stalin / ([[User:RD/9k/Q64,50|9k]]) 
Applying any philosophy to Trotsky eventually gets you to the correct answers + Historical figures can separate from God = this.

</li><li class="field_anarchy field_idealism" data-qid="65,49" value="6549" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q65,49|The Cold War was a social construct]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q65,49|9k]]) / The opposition of Liberal-republican countries against the Soviet Union was nothing more than a social construct in which Liberal-republican countries made up reasons to hate the 14 nationalities of the Soviet Union for reasons largely unrelated to the class composition of the two countries, and related more to the affinity between the 14 major Soviet ethnic groups and the anomalous, hateful non-affinity between the United States and those ethnic groups -> persuade me of this using specifically the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, and I might genuinely consider postcolonial anarchisms. I feel like the difficulty of arguing that verges on impossible, but maybe that's just me. I've made it a little easier by leaving out the requirement that anarchism explains how to defeat the Russian empire or win the Cold War, and only handing you the impossible task of arguing Soviet people and United States racists who to this day can hardly stand the idea of somebody living in another country and being Russian are obligated to be friends. that's what I don't understand. how, when United States people are constantly dismissing the existence of reactionaries in their own country as a totally ignorable non- part of their lives, that anarchisms or postcolonial theories that say every opposition between groups of people is an arbitrary decision each group made are supposed to fix anything.
</li><li class="field_anarchy field_histmat" data-qid="65,50" value="6550" data-dimension="S2">The Cold War could be won by anarchism
</li><li class="field_anarchy field_histmat" data-qid="65,51" value="6551" data-dimension="S2">The Russian Revolution could be won by anarchism
</li><li class="field_anarchy field_bauplan" data-qid="65,52" value="6552" data-dimension="S2">The United States and Soviet Union could abolish their borders to join into a single entity -> if this were true the previous three propositions would become easier to argue.
</li><li class="field_gramsci field_bauplan" data-tradition="MX onto DX" data-qid="65,53" value="6553" data-dimension="S2">The Soviet Union's border was protective / The way populations associated together into the Soviet Union and formed a border around themselves was materially necessary to protecting the populations -> this explains, so very unfortunately, why it would be so important to create a new Russian Empire. no Soviet Union, everyone who hasn't been forced to another country is going to get assimilated into a single gigantic kingdom for the pure purposes of protecting national autonomy. the step of "democracy" can't happen until national autonomy exists.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto PT" data-qid="65,54" value="6554" data-dimension="S2">The Soviet diaspora is evidence against nationalism / If some people didn't belong in the Soviet Union attempting to put the country back together so it can support them, then the Soviet Union dissolving is evidence against nationalism -> many people (it's the Tories.) want to believe that if Communism "doesn't work" then nationalism still can. but the reasons Communism would dissolve would also dissolve nationalism and keep people from prospering because you bound them into a national empire. 
this isn't very controversial to anarchists, but it may be shocking to center-Liberals when they realize that "Our Democracy" is inevitably a nation and all their rhetoric about "saving Our Democracy" will also crumble into dust if it turns out a particular nation-state isn't the place for people to be and they'd do better scattered to other places, not in your country, not telling people to vote, not voting. people in glass walnut trees should be more careful about cracking open walnuts.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="65,55" value="6555" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q65,55|The best ending is between the normal and weird routes]] (<cite>Deltarune</cite>)
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="65,56" value="6556" data-dimension="S2">Deltarune is one big Angel cage
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="65,57" value="6557" data-dimension="S2">There is one choice: killing The Knight / There is one real decision in Deltarune: killing The Knight / There will be exactly one actual choice to kill or spare in Deltarune, and it will be the reflected memory of December -> it's the Shadow Mantle and the Titan fight that are making me think this. Deltarune is in some ways very similar to {{book|In Stars and Time}}, with this big traumatized boss you fight (the king) while it's really the protagonist's psychological issues that turn out to be the biggest problem in the end. it's also very credible for there to be a game with an overall gloomy atmosphere that ends in exactly one choice if you look at {{book|OneShot}}

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="65,58" value="6558" data-dimension="S2">Teletubbies is canon to Last Dragon Chronicles -> I didn't think it was possible I'd be saying this last week, but when you look at the internal signifiers, it's funny how well they line up.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="65,59" value="6559" data-remark="moon landing 1969" data-dimension="S2">Teletubbies are cartoon astronauts -> what the creators said. this makes a lot of sense, but it does cast the teletubbies world in a weird sinister light by having a group of people in fantasy "mission control" below an earth-like world and making us ask why this imagined earth is as uninhabitable as the moon. 
you never thought teletubbies lore would be fun to analyze, did you? bad news for you. now we're discussing teletubbies as representational art and what it claims about the real world.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="65,60" value="6560" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Brandish</cite>
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="65,61" value="6561" data-dimension="S2">Little Einsteins are rebuilding the world in Europe's image after mutually-assured destruction -> amusing theory. example of how every work of fiction will get read in relationship to what the motivations of an imaginary thing might be if it existed in real life

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6562">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6563">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6564">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6565">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6566">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6567">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6568" data-dimension="M3">Why was Deltarune hard to make before Undertale? -> this could have a simple answer in terms of Deltarune being a longer game and so forth... or it could have a much more specific answer. could it be that Deltarune was genuinely supposed to be based on things {{em|cut from Undertale}} before Undertale was made?

</li><li value="6569" class="field_nations cw_vriska" data-dimension="S">progressive theorists as aliens / progressive theorists are practically aliens (Homestuck) / social justice theorists speak another language -> Kankri Vantas. it's important to note that Homestuck's overall framing of this is a little more neutral than negative. Homestuck can be simultaneously both really negative about its characters at some times and positive about them at other times, in this weird attitude of "they're complete freaks but they're my freaks". so ultimately this motif is treating progressive theorists as weird, bizarre, and alien, but alien in the sense of a sci-fi story where even if people will never understand aliens they still exist out in space doing their own thing and have lives of their own. it's kind of like Undertale/Deltarune, where we accept that queer people are monsters and then we instead reclaim "monster".

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6570" data-dimension="S2">Varik is secretly afraid of monsters -> what seems to have led to the themes of prejudice in Undertale
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6571" data-dimension="S2">Varik is Ness ({{game|Brandish}}) / All console RPG protagonists are basically the same (JRPG protagonists; {{game|Mother}} series, {{game|Brandish}}) -> a silly theory created by young Toby Fox during Earthbound Halloween Hack. there is not a lot of difference between Ares and Ness despite their very different fantasy (?) and suburban-sci-fi settings, leading to the funny theory that one could just have turned into the other at some point. they should be different individuals with different lives, but how would you even know they weren't interchangeable? this seems to have intentionally led to the concept of Frisk getting displaced by Chara, and unintentionally led to "Sans is Ness" when matpat {{em|almost}} correctly saw the pattern but just barely overshot in the wrong direction.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6572" data-dimension="S2">Undertale is not actually making an "I believe that everybody" statement in regards to Frisk and {{caps|Chara}} -> video creator remarks {{YouTube|P-5lBec9lO4}} that Undertale's endings simply telling you to not do what {{thingamabob|Chara}} did in weaponizing Asriel and Asgore seem shallow, and like basically they have not properly done a historical-materialist analysis of either the player or {{caps|Chara}} — thus, it must actually be the case that there is something missing from the narrative of Undertale that correctly understands the notion of historical materialism. one of the single most accidentally-Marxist things I have ever heard a probably non-Marxist Undertale theorizer say.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6573" data-dimension="S2">{{thingamabob|Chara}} does the same thing to The Underground that The Player does to Kris or Varik {{YouTube|P-5lBec9lO4}} -> very good catch. this is like noticing that Noelle is acting as "the angel" to the Dark World when she is ordered to clear it out; certain elements of Deltarune and maybe Undertale do reflect particular things the player could do to the world in things that the characters do to each other. note Noelle. also note Lancer being "forced to be the bad guy" in the Dark World's narrative when The Knight (Kris?) creates the Dark World. The Knight wields Kris to fight Lancer and Spade King, just like The Player or The Angel wields Kris to fight the fabled Knight, just like {{thingamabob|Chara}} wields Asgore to fight humans. this view of parallels rather implies the view that Deltarune is one big box to trap the player so they can't actually hurt anybody — Kris made up The Knight so the player would chase after this fake enemy and the fake characters in the Dark Worlds but could never target the people of the Light World. that also has disturbing implications for where the weird route is going: maybe the player really can break out of the box and hurt someone in the Light World.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6574" data-dimension="S2">Golden flowers represent the world outside a console RPG -> this can be used with "{{thingamabob|Chara}} weaponized Asgore" to argue that Flowey metaphorically represents {{thingamabob|Chara}} transforming the innocent people of the RPG world into cynical outside-world style people in a kind of death of what they were. I like that interpretation a lot more than the interpretation that Flowey is only what happens when people exhaust the possibilities in a game. it provides an actual explanation for why Asriel would have died before the player even did anything: Undertale has history whether the player is there or not, and a whole different player "played" (deceived) the Underground in a very negative sense to give the result that "god is dead and {{thingamabob|Chara}} killed him". I also like the way this implies that a "touch grass" message isn't always productive because sometimes it's the real world that makes people terrible and letting them back into the material world to hurt people would actually be worse.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6575" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei's connection to The Angel parallels Asriel's connection to {{thingamabob|Chara}} -> I don't actually remember what this one meant. it's probably from the same video as these other few
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6576" data-dimension="S2">Undertale is already fiction within fiction -> I didn't believe this at the time I saw it but now that I've actually been through trying to solve what will happen at the end of Deltarune based on who Kris is and who Dess is, I've actually come to feel like this is technically correct, even if maybe for the wrong reasons. Undertale might actually be some kind of flipped-over "escape world" created by Kris even though it's also "real".

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-remark="fiction and mythologies" value="6577" data-dimension="S2">You can be against Goku or not / You have to be either against Goku or not / You have to be against Harry Potter or not against Harry Potter / For any figure held up as the model of morality, whether god or hero, somebody must be either not against that figure or against that figure -> this is a far cleaner division than "for versus against", because it allows for the existence of multiple "gods", moralities, or cultures.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-remark="fiction and mythologies" value="6578" data-dimension="S2">Attacking anyone pro-Goku is anti-Goku / Attacking any group which is completely for Goku is against Goku / Attacking any group which is directly allied with Harry Potter means you are against Harry Potter / Attacking anyone directly allied with Arceus means you are against Arceus -> this is pretty easy to demonstrate with fiction. when allies of Good characters are attacked whoever does it is usually treated as Evil. if Ron is allied with Harry and the Death Eaters attack Ron, the Death Eaters are Evil, or at the very least anti-Harry. that's the obvious part. what isn't obvious to people is it's very easy to conceptualize religion in these terms. the way Arceus will be treated in a wholly imaginary Pokémon movie is fairly similar to the way people behave in real religions — the reality of the god is not important to people's behavior as much as what faction is seen attacking what faction or figurehead that is considered Good.

</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6579" data-dimension="S2">Actions must be either ungodly or not / Actions must either be ungodly, not ungodly (neutral), or godly -> this seems like a necessary axiom if there is to be a concept of separation from God at all. like, imagine Goku gets to determine everything that's good. you have to at least be either not against Goku or against Goku, even though nobody really has to be directly allied with Goku.
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6580" data-dimension="S2">Historical figures can separate from God / Historical figures can enter separation from God, mostly in respect to the material world and the presence of a god in the material world
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6581" data-dimension="S2">It's ungodly to be Hitler / Hitler went to Hell or entered separation from God in the material world (Christianity) -> fair enough, if religion made any sense whatsoever this would be true.
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6582" data-dimension="S2">It's ungodly to be Mussolini
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6583" data-dimension="S2">It's ungodly to be Tōjō -> logically true if it's ungodly to be Hitler, because they share the political positions of active imperialism and violence against people inside the country.
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6584" data-dimension="S2">It's ungodly to imperialize Ukraine -> logically true if it's ungodly to be Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo.
</li><li class="field_exstruct cw_theology" value="6585" data-dimension="S2">It's godly to defend Ukraine -> arguably true if it's ungodly to invade Ukraine. I think the leap comes here, because something being not ungodly doesn't fully equal it being godly. which is... really stupid when Christianity often positions itself like there are only things condoned by God and things that are ungodly. in reality it always comes down to Christianity being separate moral systems that effectively serve multiple separate gods.
</li><li class="field_ML cw_theology" value="6586" data-dimension="S2">Defending Ukraine from the Tsar was godly -> logically true if defending Ukraine from the new Russian empire is godly.
</li><li class="field_ML cw_theology" value="6587" data-dimension="S2">Incorporating the Soviet Union was godly / Joining the 14 nationalities of the Soviet Union into a supranational federation was godly -> this logically follows if defending Ukraine from the Tsar was godly, because this achieved defending Ukraine from the Tsar.
</li><li class="field_ML cw_theology" value="6588" data-dimension="S2">Attacking the Soviet Union was ungodly -> logically true if defending Ukraine from empire is godly and defending Ukraine from the Tsar was godly.

</li><li class="field_mdem cw_theology" value="6589" data-dimension="S2">Only a surrounding federation can save Ukraine / Without the Soviet Union nobody can stop Russia from invading Ukraine / Without a larger supranational federation around Ukraine nobody can stop Russians from invading Ukraine -> this is at least arguable. some people will definitely try to argue that having another giant empire squabble with Russia over Ukraine as a buffer state somehow better respects everybody's freedom than having Ukraine be part of something bigger. I feel like the story of Poland and how much everybody hated buffer state wars in Poland counts against that. if you live in Poland it is definitely not a simple matter of having a little war over Poland and then it's over; that {{censor|shitty}} buffer state war becomes your whole life. it doesn't make things better that Poland isn't part of the two empires fighting over it, it just takes all of Poland's local control and populational agency away. that said it would still be sensible under this framework for Ukraine to join Europe or all the Eastern European states to join into one supranational federation that fights against Russia. it's not that the Soviet Union owns Ukraine as much as Ukraine is obligated to be part of some particular bigger thing at its choice. Trotsky supporting an independent Ukraine is such a [[E:backhandedly true|backhandedly correct]] thing, isn't it? the two of them both have the same problem of not wanting to be part of a bigger thing that at the moment is [[E:Q10,000|plural]] when they really ought to.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6590" data-remark="placed next to alternate worlds. seems fair enough" data-dimension="Z">Last Dragon Chronicles [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Dragon_Chronicles] -> an interpretation of magic ritual in a somewhat modern setting but in a world where there are a small number of fantasy creatures. 
do not read this series for Media Representation of Inuit. it's not necessarily offensive but it isn't stellar either, they're just kind of thrown into the narrative haphazardly as okay set dressing. my rule of thumb has become this: if twenty pages of a biography is blatantly more informative than a particular novel it's not good Representation. many stories I see about Native Americans / indigenous people of North America fail this test. but, for instance, some stories with Black protagonists have succeeded to where a biography and the story are about equally informative or interesting.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6591" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[E:Q65,91|The Fire Within]]</cite> (D'Lacey ??)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6592" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Icefire</cite> (D'Lacey ??)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6593" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Fire Star</cite> (D'Lacey ??) -> not to be confused with <cite>Warriors: Into the Wild</cite>.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6594" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Fire Eternal</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6595" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[E:Q65,95|Dark Fire]]</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6596" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Fire World</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6597" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Fire Ascending</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6598" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Rain and Fire</cite>

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6599" data-dimension="S">conscious objects / sentient objects -> super-case of: conscious toys. technically many superstructural fantasy worlds are made of these. narnia is a notable exception

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6600" data-dimension="S">alternate world / isekai -> super-case of: [[Ontology:Q3845|superstructural fantasy world]].
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6601" data-dimension="S">Frisk
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6602" data-dimension="S">Flowey the Flower / Asriel (Undertale)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6603" data-dimension="S">Asriel (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6604" data-dimension="S">"fallen down"
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6605" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6606" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6607" data-dimension="S">"nothing keeping it at bay but my axe" (Deltarune) -> cf. Varik
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6608" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6609" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy, ES" value="6610" data-dimension="S">logic lag / sputtering and lagging from too many propositions slowing the universe's Platonic computations -> Wings of Fire; also feels like a weirdly good metaphor for Liberal-republicanism 
magic as bending the world to one's will + animus magic created dragonet = logic lag
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6611" data-dimension="S">conscious toys / sentient toys -> {{TTS|tts=this|—}} + "modest" proposal = Poppy Playtime. {{TTS|tts=this|—}} + television = Deltarune. {{TTS|tts=this|—}} + playing card / trump deck = Alice in Wonderland.

</li><li value="6612" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z">Homestuck act 5 / Hivebent
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6613" data-dimension="S">The Underground
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="heavy ES themes in Deltarune" value="6614" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6614|Light World]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6615" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6615|Dark World]]
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6616" data-dimension="S">The Core
</li><li value="6617" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6617|W.D. Gaster]]
</li><li class="field_horror" data-remark="waltz of Seccom Masada" value="6618" data-dimension="S">Man behind the tree (Deltarune) / egg man (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6619" data-dimension="S">eggs of unclear importance
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6620" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6620|The Angel]] (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6621" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6621|Kris]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6622" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6622|Susie]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6623" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6623|Noelle]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6624" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6624|Ralsei]]
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6625" data-dimension="S">Shadow Crystals
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6626" data-dimension="S">Seam
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6627" data-dimension="S">Jevil
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6628" data-dimension="S">Spamton
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6629" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6629|Berdly]]

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6630" data-dimension="F2">The Knight is Kris / Kris was The Knight in Chapter 2 / Kris is The Knight
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6631" data-dimension="F2">The Knight is multiple people / Multiple characters are The Knight
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6632" data-dimension="S2">The player plays as The Angel -> what I thought to be true
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6633" data-dimension="S2">Noelle is The Angel -> I think this is only true in the sense of her being the "other" Angel, but might as well record it
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6634" data-dimension="S2">December Holiday is The Knight -> one line of reasoning is Mother 3 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQXZ2IbbowQ]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6635" data-dimension="S2">The Knight is a knife which became a Darkner -> supposedly, knives have a "long hand"

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6636" data-dimension="S2">Kris gained the Red Soul after dying / Kris is dead / Kris drowned in a lake (generic)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6637" data-dimension="S2">Kris fails to play the piano because they're too nervous -> the theory that the player would be able to prompt Kris to play the piano but Kris simply doesn't want to because they can't get into the right mood. [https://youtu.be/dbu5MfJ9V0c?t=7760] very good explanation in my opinion given that Kris always does the things the player selects in some particular way, like a particular tone, not provided by the player. Kris can take out the soul and pick up their knife as a passive-aggressive gesture at The Player. do you think they couldn't play a piano?

</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6638" data-dimension="S">they followed the pointed tail / lost where the forest would grow, the children followed the pointed tail
</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6639" data-dimension="S">entering the Titan (Deltarune chapter 4)
</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6640" data-dimension="S">{{caps|Image_Friend}} / {{caps|Device_Friend}} [https://deltarune.wiki/w/Friend]

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6641" data-dimension="S2">Deltarune is a horror scenario about a world without creativity [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXy7pCeI8u0] / Deltarune is a horror story about [[Philosophical_Research:Preventing_the_robot_takeover|networkism]] -> the claim is that Darkners not being able to create fiction is a relatable narrative for art creators. interesting theory, even if I don't see much evidence right now
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6642" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6642|magic as bending the world to one's individual will]] / magic as the ability to inflict one's Free Will on the world regardless of the consequences -> Wings of Fire series, <cite>Darkstalker</cite>, Deltarune chapter 2 weird route. note very closely that Noelle is called a spellcaster, and her attacks to turn Darkners back into unmoving objects (!) are referred to as magic.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6643" data-dimension="S2">Dark Fountains are created when a Lightner opens a wound in the earth
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6644" data-dimension="S2">Dark Fountains are created when a Lightner cracks open the limited box of reality -> combines claims: blank void outside of reality is fountain of imagination

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6645" data-dimension="S">Asriel and eggs {{YouTube|XSVkRG6V70s}} -> commentator noted that egg decorations were part of Asriel's memories.
</li><li class="field_anarchy field_LGBT" value="6646" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is a trans girl -> this seems like a Nightheart situation, where all the themes lined up totally accidentally.
</li><li class="field_anarchy field_LGBT" value="6647" data-dimension="S2">The eggs are a metaphor for gender -> a bit of a joke but it's worth bringing up for just a second.
</li><li class="field_anarchy field_LGBT" value="6648" data-dimension="S2">Dess is not female / Dess is not actually female / Dess is actually nonbinary / Dess is actually a trans man

</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6649" data-dimension="S2">The forgotten "man" is Dess -> this is linked to the concept of the Riverperson saying "I'm the riverman... or am I the river-woman? you'll never know!" 
I mean, consider: Dess is a he/him lesbian, they messed with pronouns trying to become more sure of their gender, and then Kris remembers the he/him phase. this is the secret reason the Roaring Knight is referred to as they/them, either this flux between pronouns or "they" being the final pronoun 
low confidence in this but it's an interesting thought. looking at how small-scale Deltarune's events are it makes a little more sense it would be something between Kris, Dess, and Noelle than the forgotten man being an image of some mysterious experimenter in a bunker. Gaster definitely exists somewhere but it's possible there was no Gaster inside Deltarune until Deltarune created Undertale which then created Deltarune. thus... it could be that the forgotten "man" is Kris trying to forget the concept that Dess could still be alive and just move on. but then the shadow of Dess — the second one that's not the Knight — started handing them eggs and made it harder to forget her. don't forget. if you forget her she's with you in the dark. find her, him/her/them. 
it would be very funny if Dess really was nonbinary specifically as a joke on Scott Cawthon making that little typo in the "save him" minigame. I hope that's what it is. I hope that's what the pizza and purple-guy references are actually pointing to. maybe the better ending of Deltarune is that they find Dess but he comes out as a man or nonbinary and they saved him. little did you know Gaster was one big hyperbole about what happens when Dess is not accepted in his gender transition and runs away, maybe out of the universe, when you're a kid you wouldn't know where he went

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6650" data-dimension="S">Ralsei's chapter 3 speech / in the dark things get indistinct ... your eyes can't see the truth any more -> this line is funny because it reminds me of the fnaf 4 remark about shadows

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6651" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6651|"it might be your imagination"]] -> several lines implying that Berdly has passed from "reality" into imagination, or rather, from the world into Kris' mind.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6652" data-dimension="S">pacifist route (Undertale)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6653" data-dimension="S">genocide route (Undertale) / no mercy route (Undertale)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6654" data-dimension="S">level (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6655" data-dimension="S">{{caps|LoVE}} (Undertale) / Level of Violence (Undertale)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6656" data-dimension="Z">Weird Route (Deltarune) / (use sense labels for each chapter) -> dimension Z because it's a narrative
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6657" data-dimension="S">{{thingamabob|Chara}}

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6658" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:InAnyOrderAtAll|Playing out of order gives a new ending]] / Deltarune has a unique ending for playing the chapters out of order / The single ending of Deltarune will come from playing the chapters out of order -> the egg man really focused on the notion of "in any order at all". what if you used the eggs to rearrange the chapters into the order he said instead of from 1 to 7? my prediction is that the single ending of Deltarune happens only when you do this and otherwise the story simply {{em|terminates}} rather than ends. it doesn't take Noelle to creepypasta the story, Kris already creepypasta'd the story before the game booted up by endlessly avoiding the major conflicts of the story. kind of funny how fictional stories totally revolve around single characters for the world to even exist, isn't it? that's what I think is going on. the story revolving around three teenagers is a bit of silliness, a bit of book logic, but if they don't play their part then the story doesn't end and the world tears to pieces before the story actually ends. that makes a lot of sense as a way a dream could end; any number of people have had dreams that ended before the "story" inside ended. it's actually one of the more common ways for things to end — we've all had that one disappointing VHS tape that didn't catch the end of a TV show or movie, or in more recent times, maybe a video that was playing when the phone totally shut off.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6659" data-dimension="S">living block tree / Darkerner puzzle {{YouTube|nROrGBXD78Q}} -> found in Chapter 1
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6660" data-dimension="S">gray characters / Goners
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6661" data-dimension="S2">"Goners" have been deleted from Undertale's world / Goners are something more than dead
</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6662" data-dimension="S">two red and blue doors, door in between -> seen at least once in both Undertale and Deltarune.
</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6663" data-dimension="S2">The capsule machine is a Gaster door / The Dess gumball machine is just Gaster's door -> wow. I never managed to notice this, despite all the other similarities between Dess and Gaster. that is quite a revelation. like, you only get to the Dess flashback by cutting through a process which is otherwise random — just like entering in fun value 66 to deliberately find Gaster. the gumball door is between red and blue doors, Gaster's door could theoretically be between Sans and Papyrus' doors. that's crazy. we're clearly supposed to associate "the Dess door" that is normally in Deltarune with the Gaster door that is only sometimes in Undertale. 
two red and blue doors, door in between + Dess = this. this + Ralsei is the green crayon = Ralsei is green because Gaster

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6664" data-dimension="S2">The next level below Dark Worlds is the game code -> this doesn't make any sense to me because it breaks the basic/superstructural pattern, especially when Darker-ners have been found
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6665" data-dimension="S2">The level below Dark Worlds is the inanimate objects inside Dark Worlds coming to life -> evidence: tree object coming to life
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6666" data-dimension="S2">{{caps|Image_Friend}} is the darkness outside the game universe come to life -> haven't heard this from anybody but me but it seems quite possible visually. sure looks like nothingness with a face
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6667" data-dimension="S2">{{game|Deltarune}} is the most successful SCP video game -> if you define "SCP" a particular way as a very specific kind of paranormal story and yet not one that has to be in the SCP format, this would become true.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6668">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6669">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6670" data-dimension="S2">The level above the Light World is earth / The level above the Light World is Toby Fox's world / The level above the Light World is the real world
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6671" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q6671|The level above the Light World is The Angel's Heaven]] / The level above the Light World is technically fictional -> narratively parallel to: when you open up a <cite>Digimon</cite> show or game, the Real World and the Digital World are both technically fictional but the Real World is material and the Digital World is intangible relative to it
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6672" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6673" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6674" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6675" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6676" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6677" data-dimension="S">Susie biting faces off -> you'd be surprised how useful this silly little videogame moment is for philosophy. 
Susie biting faces off + Lacanian discipline prevents violence = Psychology is a form of law 
Psychology is a form of law + All crimes are equally bad = Lacanianism turns bioempire into Toryism
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6678" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6679" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6680" data-dimension="S2">Undertale's secrets hint at how The Underground came to be
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6681" data-dimension="S2">The Forgotten Man increasingly became W.D. Gaster as he got more forgotten -> I really doubt that Gaster was actually Gaster in Deltarune, although I do know he's there in some sense.

</li><li value="6682" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">[https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-682 SCP-682] [[Ontology:Q6682|"Hard-to-destroy reptile"]]

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-remark="Idealism" value="6683" data-dimension="S2">The final tragedy is something that would prompt Ralsei to be kind to someone in order to prevent it
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6684" data-dimension="S">the final tragedy / last prophecy panel
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6685" data-dimension="S">left home due to happiness

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6686" data-dimension="S">Shadow Mantle boss / Eram / John Mantle
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6687" data-dimension="S">Dark Shard -> an item dropped by the Roaring Knight that exists in the Dark World and is not the same entity as the Shadow Crystal, at least at the level of the TV and Tenna not being the same entity.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6688" data-dimension="S">Black Knife / Black Blade
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6689" data-dimension="S">Shadow Mantle
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6690" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6690|The Roaring Knight]] / The Knight (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6691" data-dimension="S">Roaring Knight sphere -> The Knight reverts into a little rotating sphere when defeated. is that just a cool move, or is that actually the thing that created it in some sense, like the Pippins showing up as dice in the monochrome pictures?
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6692" data-dimension="S">TV screen glitches (Chapter 3)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6693" data-dimension="S">say it didn't snow -> appears to be tying snow to the notion of the barrier between mind and reality breaking? shows up in room of TVs in Chapter 3, Noelle says the words in weird route.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6694" data-dimension="S">"your heartbeat becomes twisted" -> quote that appears in Roaring Knight battle.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6695" data-dimension="S">guitar phone call -> seems to literally tell us what is happening and what will happen, only very cryptically.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6696" data-dimension="S">roaring group call / roaring group chat
</li><li class="field_horror element_empty" value="6697" data-dimension="S">getting instructions from a phone / "Mike!" (implied to be but not proved to be connected to phone) / "the phone kept ringing indefinitely" (Deltarune chapter 1) {{YouTube|XSVkRG6V70s}} / Carol and the ominous phone call / Deltarune and Memoryhead

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6698" data-dimension="S2">The Roaring Knight is Kris' repressed memory come to life -> Deltarune chapter 3. we've gotten occasional hints there is psychoanalysis in Deltarune. A) Deltarune has several surface similarities to OMORI, which was about repressed memories; toby even acknowledged this. B) Tenna's Dark World was full of memories. C) the code 1225 is included in the Dark World presumably as a memory. D) Kris opened the fountain, but the Roaring Knight was inside the fountain as what would appear to be a Darkner, and Tenna thinks the Knight opened the fountain. E) Darkners are described as a very serious absence of real-world data, like a hallucination. if this is true, you'd expect that painful thoughts that torment you when you're up at night could bleed into the Dark World or even become entire Darkners.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6699" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6699|Red Soul]] (<cite>Deltarune</cite>)

</li><li value="6700" class="field_fantasy"><cite>Dragon Ball</cite> pre-reboot era
</li><li value="6701" class="field_fantasy series_dragonball"><cite>Dragon Ball Kai</cite> episode 1
</li><li value="6867" class="field_fantasy">(... [[Philosophical_Research:Ontology/Dragon_Ball|<cite>Dragon Ball Kai</cite>]])

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6868" data-dimension="S2">Madotsuki's shirt symbol shows she is empty -> pattern said to be PNG transparency or censored out shape from Madotsuki's appearance, like a missing piece; evidence through same "missing piece" showing up in Poniko's room
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6869" data-dimension="S"><cite>Dragon Blazers</cite> -> note the dimension. fictional works of fiction may be marked S, though real works of fiction are marked Z.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6870" data-dimension="S">writing implements (Deltarune) -> white pen of hope, green crayon, pencil swords used by Kris and Noelle
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6871" data-dimension="S2">"The forest" "would grow" before Kris drew over it -> when a Darkner said this line, the possibility it was a simple individual action with an object in the Light World seems very likely. could it be Kris drawing trees? of course. could it be Kris drawing trees [[E:Ralsei is the green crayon|using Ralsei]]? maybe. this would explain why Ralsei has a shadowed face and is associated with "pure darkness".

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6872" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is the green crayon {{YouTube|LgdrEvYZjm8}}
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6873" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is a drawing / Ralsei is Asriel's drawing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6874" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is Kris' horned headband
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6875" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is Asriel's dust
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6876" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is Asriel's shed fur -> an explanation for why Ralsei is able to be everywhere. maybe even an explanation for why Ralsei is affiliated with Gaster — he exists as a bunch of scattered shards, effectively. ...that also describes playing cards and spam emails. oh no.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6877" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is Kris' shadow / Ralsei is either Kris' shadow or the concept of shadows -> this has to do with Ralsei being the reflection of Kris, shapeshifting into different forms, and... Jungian psychology, where Ralsei is totally unlike the outward layer of Kris.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="UTDR" value="6878" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei and Flowey share themes / Ralsei and Flowey parallel each other in thematic concepts (not music tracks; motifs; Deltarune) -> it seems this has led some people to think Ralsei is Asriel. {{YouTube|wpX8zsq2ses}}

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6879" data-dimension="S2">Ralsei is in all fiction {{YouTube|XiExphqxuas}} / Ralsei is technically in all of fiction / Ralsei is an archetype or device on the metanarrative level which in Deltarune personifies something that exists in any work of fiction -> this is so cool but I am a little confused how Ralsei would be able to freak out about the mortality of Deltarune if he is actually everywhere shattered across time and space. it's too metanarrative for Ralsei in particular. Kris? Dess? Gaster? sure, they can all be wonky literary analysis metaphors. I'm just not sure Ralsei has anything to hide compared with them

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6880" data-dimension="Z">Wackytown, or, every kids' movie ever (2017 tumblr video) [https://archive.is/rlF7g]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6881" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Angry Birds Movie</cite>

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6882" data-dimension="S">determination (Undertale) / Determination (Undertale) / DT (abbreviation; Undertale) 
Q5091 determination + Undertale = this
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6883" data-dimension="S">fate (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6884" data-dimension="S">power (Deltarune) / Power (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6885" data-dimension="S">standing back up (Dragon Ball)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6886">??
{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|class=field_horror element_empty|Q=68,87|Q2=6887}}Dess and the incident / ([[User:RD/9k/Q68,87|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6888" data-dimension="S2">Columbus Industries conjecture / Spain and Columbus can conquer any nation or land if they spend enough money and try enough times / if Spain and Columbus were a startup, their success is proportional to how much money or how great of assets they start with and how many things they try -> Wackytown fallacy + possible mathematical equation = Columbus Industries conjecture. the sinister framing of this is on purpose. all too many people regard businesses as inherently good as long as they don't contain "bad people", and simply ask, well how do I succeed? and here's your answer. [[E:If you exist at the expense of others, there's always hope|you can succeed at anything]] if you burn enough money, time, linked social graphs of people, useful political connections, goodwill, and collateral damage. all you have to do is have enough money or people to try the thing enough times. 
what really gets me about [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] is this. for normal people it's overwhelmingly intuitive to believe that [[E:Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]]. they even apply this to science, arguing to varying degrees of success that animal testing is unnecessary, or more dubiously that there are some things it is inherently unethical to probe and understand with science because science is a tool of domination, and liberation can only be unscientific. but like, once everyone has been arguing this all the time. then Artists show up and are like I surely deserve to succeed just because I'm an Artist, what are ends and means, surely any means can justify my wonderful ends. welcome to Columbus Industries. if you would only burn enough money you can make the world do whatever you want it to.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6889" data-dimension="S2">Trying hard enough enough times always makes money / Individuals having skills or good ideas always leads to making money with enough time and attempts / Wackytown fallacy (specifically in reference to jobs or investments and money) -> the more people are born and compete for jobs as more unique products exist the less true this gets. MDem entry 4.4/2050 baxter

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6890" data-dimension="S2">Many attempts equal success / Wackytown fallacy (children's stories) / whoops there goes another rubbertree plant (song lyric, {{article|High Hopes}}) / 狡兔三窟 (jiǎo tù sān kū, A cunning rabbit has three burrows) [https://www.bluente.com/blog/chinese-workplace-idioms-thatll-take-you-far-in-your-career] / 半途而废 (bàn tú ér fèi, Giving up halfway) [https://www.bluente.com/blog/chinese-workplace-idioms-thatll-take-you-far-in-your-career] / 水滴石穿 (shuǐ dī shí chuān, Dripping water wears through stone) [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/水滴石穿] -> the more general version of the Wacktown fallacy as it actually appears in kids' movies, rather than as it appears among the directors and writers who create them. "Rudolph was useful" is the Wackytown fallacy applied to specific individuals in a "biographical" way. this is the more general notion of it applying widely across a fictional society or multiple works of fiction. 
this feels so omnipresent in Liberal capitalist and Existentialist-Structuralist philosophy that it almost needs to be turned into a proverb, it needs a nice little phrase that's as repeatable as a Chinese 4-character idiom or something. I looked up a couple. I haven't found a totally satisfactory one but I'll think of something eventually. 
"水滴石穿" seems more applicable to quantity transforming into quality actually. some books, in this very Aristotelian tone, use it in the context of tiny wounds to an empire being an offense to justice [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/水滴石穿]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6891" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q6891|Diversity should be accepted because it's useful]] / Being different is okay only when you're useful / Red (Angry Birds) is useful to society because he's different in the perfect way -> the proposition people pick out and regard with much confusion when they're actually looking at the Wackytown fallacy. this is more a subjective thing than an error because you probably find this proposition some places too.
</li><li value="6892" data-remark="yaku ni (tatsu)" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q6892|Rudolph was useful]] -> plot motif in Christmas movies or similar fictional works when a character supposedly finds acceptance for being different but it falls flat. "Rudolph was useful" is a local joke in the United States about misunderstandings that happened somewhere between Japanese speakers attempting to translate the Rudolph song and Japanese students trying to make sense of the translation. we think the bigger part of the misunderstanding occurred the second time around, as "役に立つ" can be a perfectly positive and complimentary thing to say in the moment, similar to "a towel comes in handy wherever you go", and not very similar to the flat and uncaring connotation of "was useful".
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6893">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6894">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6895">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6896">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6897">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6898">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, MX" value="6899" data-dimension="S2">Uniting against the Wackytown fallacy is progress / It is progressive to unite people against the Wackytown fallacy (Liberal-republican framing) / It is the correct direction of history to unite people against the Wackytown fallacy (meta-Marxist framing) -> this is one of the very few things where I genuinely feel like Communists and anarchists can safely come together behind it even if they have totally different justifications for why it's bad. it's just so obvious this thing is bad that there's nearly no way anarchists can complicate it and screw things up.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6900" data-dimension="S">Rankin-Bass reindeer -> you know it: the baby "reindeer" that is so overly stylized it looks like a white-tailed deer. 
to be fair: this is closer to being accurate to European reindeer than North American ones. but the people who made the movies were not from Europe...

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6901" data-dimension="Z">Deltarune Chapter 1
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6902" data-dimension="Z">Deltarune Chapter 2
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6903" data-dimension="Z">Deltarune Chapter 3
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6904" data-dimension="Z">Deltarune Chapter 4
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6905" data-dimension="Z">Deltarune Chapter 5 (unreleased)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6906" data-dimension="Z">Deltarune Chapter 6 (unreleased)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6907" data-dimension="Z">Deltarune Chapter 7 (unreleased)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6908" data-dimension="S">further Deltarune chapters / Deltarune chapter 0 -> Deltarune chapters which are not listed on the chapter select screen. currently hypothetical.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6909" data-dimension="S">Deltarune chapter and save menus -> filling a slot with something slightly important.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6910" data-dimension="S">Deltarune credits sequence -> we can strongly guess there will be one looking at Undertale and the "gallery" window. whether it's at all important is the question. it might not be important at all. or there might be exactly one interesting credits presentation trope that makes it not totally useless to code here.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6911" data-dimension="S">Spamton sweepstakes / Noelle blog entries -> dark things happen in basically all these blog entries so they get the horror swatch.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6912" data-dimension="S">December Holiday / Dess Holiday (Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6913" data-dimension="S2">More darkness means more forgotten -> this is likely true. all Darkners including the Titans are the embodiment of something from the Light World. this is a basic rule of [[E:superstructural fantasy world|superstructural fantasy worlds]] in general — even in Toy Story it's trivially true that when the toys come alive all the things alive will have been physical toys. the Titans are not an ordinary object. Image_Friend is nothing but the shadows in a room, or a hallucination when you see nothing at all. presumably Kris, Susie, and Noelle's rooms equally; the character is shown appearing in Susie's room but thematically associated with Noelle, and then appears in a secret game Kris can find. so Image_Friend is very psychological in nature, {{em|sort of}} having a object in the shadows but mostly being this odd artifact of memories Kris and Noelle definitely have that is now causing problems (?? or unease) for other people. Susie might not have known about Image_Friend before, but it's like when she steps into this relationship she has to learn — oh god, I think that's what {{TTS|tts=Rules Card|Rouxls Kaard}} means, that's it.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6914" data-dimension="S">[https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-914 SCP-914] "The Clockworks"
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6915" data-dimension="S">objectification (Deltarune) -> important theme for Ralsei, Darkners, Noelle.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6916">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="ES, MX" value="6917" data-dimension="S2">It should never be easy to quit fast / "Never {{censor|f|ucking|tts2=fucking}} quit" -> this is some really interesting advice. hand it to Goku, he'll probably succeed. hand it to a business, it's a real toss-up if will work out. hand it to Deng Xiaoping, he will make China functional for the next century. hand it to Marxist theorists, and if they really truly follow it they'll eventually invent Molecular Marxisms. the question becomes: why is it so acceptable to give up? why do we do that? if we just stopped giving up, and nobody ever "retired" from being a Marxist, where would we be? we have to first declare that making a conscious decision to retreat into your hole and only write books and {{em|never}} come out and do anything else counts as retirement no matter how many books you write. and forming a tiny party whose activities are equivalent to a single individual writing useless books is also retirement. there is at least some teeny tiny step of being proactive above writing books -- I would hypothesize that this minimal step is something like getting all the world's theorists to actually engage in peer review and build up consensuses and start really slamming bogus books that can't somehow be substantiated as a legitimate choice of named Marxism per country characteristics, to the point that "revisionism" is genuinely not a bunch of local opinions and the whole world agrees on a concept of "pseudo-Marxism" in the same sense as "pseudoscience". to the point that Trotskyists recognize revisionism in mainstream Marxism-Leninism, and mainstream Marxist-Leninists recognize revisionism in Trotskyism and they each try to push {{em|each other}} to be better at realizing {{em|each other's}} particular [[redlink|named-Marxism-specific country characteristics]] toward the end of closing the gap between different Marxisms and creating some kind of [[E:international conference structure|singular]] or [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|plural]] unity of Marxisms. 
we have to first acknowledge that under these conditions there are barriers to leaving retirement. society in general is ruled by various Filaments, as unintentionally explained by this book, so it is always hard to pierce through them, because the Filaments will always be like "human human best-human authentic connection community friendship friendship relationship", the only [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] they can generate, even as the very same Filaments can easily bake in ignorance and oppression and toxic positivity and these super arbitrary definitions of who is "really" an ideal member of a particular fanbase or workplace or charity to where society becomes divided into a sea of "real humans" who get into Networks specifically by humaning better and a sea of "garbage humans" who are rejected as human for reasons far more arbitrary than any of the Filament wants to admit. the threat of "systemic problems" is always concealed in the state of "fun, happy Community" where they are not yet apparent, which is what truly entrenches all the bad stuff once it turns up; toxic systems emerge directly from sociality itself and people's desire to have friends or very hard-won connections that got them into a position over years and years and years, and their inability to let go of Progress On Building Community. in industrial societies Communism is always stuck fighting against sociality, as people are much more greatly connected by a spiderweb of arbitrary individual relationships than by any actual class subpopulation or even any named oppression. every attempt to organize people tears at the blue spiderweb and even by regular people will sometimes be perceived as an attack. at the same time, sociality leads people to some really dumb things, like thinking that [[E:protest brain|being in a protest]] one day or one month will already have changed the next five to ten years. this is the "opening" or "crisis" that Trotskyists and Western-Marxists keep coveting. it isn't simply the inability to see the power of the bourgeoisie, it's the inability to realize society runs on networkisms and for a movement to truly survive that you have to throw the whole rest of your life and entire existence into each year potentially building some named Marxism of the future, and more than that, you can't just get killed in a conflict and significant numbers of theorists have to actually survive. permanent revolution has become permanent cold-war. we're looking at something more like whole seas of people informally seceding and building central party-nations that actually are forced to exist alongside islands of capitalism in the same country, and their success is truly based on whether they out-survive the blue islands and thus get people kicked out of the blue islands into nothingness to join the red islands. that's looking at it as Marxism-Dengism. some might find Marxism-Trotskyism more fun, because they can build red Lattices around the blue islands joining each region of Lattices across the world at whatever speed and do something more similar to traditional Leninist party activity. the only catch is that they have to be smart enough to realize that socialism in one country is an inevitable stage within Trotskyist transition if only at the level of creating the central party of each country-region and making it truly effective to the point it becomes okay to think bigger. 
notes: A) this motif is for when you actually try the same thing multiple times and refine it, excluding the notion of arbitrarily switching to different things just to succeed. it said that in the book, that even in the context of "networking" it wasn't about "failing faster". B) I wanted to put this on 6N92 but with those taken, 6N17 is the next best thing

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6920">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6925">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6930">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6935">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6940">??
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="69,41" value="6941" data-dimension="S">the impending horror of history / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7092|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="6945">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6950">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6955">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6960">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6961">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6962">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6963">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6964">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6965">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6966">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6967">??

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=69,68|Q2=6968}}other character than Garfield saying "I hate Mondays"

</li><li data-qid="69,69" value="6969" class="field_internal" data-dimension="S">unsuitable Item label -> an Item for softly enforcing the policy that there are certain things that cannot be in outward-facing Item labels. whenever somebody might make a badly-worded Item label like "[[E:Every ideology has a form of direct action|Lynching is a form of direct action]]", you redirect it to this so it can't practically be used to share or link Items.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6970" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Garfield</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6971" data-dimension="S">John Arbuckle (character)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6972" data-dimension="S">Garfield (character)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6973" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Garfield minus Garfield</cite> -> Garfield + absence.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6974" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6975" data-dimension="S"><cite>The Secret of Platform 13</cite> (Ibbotson 1994) -> somebody pointed out that this one came before Harry Potter and I laughed. good catch.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6976" data-dimension="S">planet drool [https://theadventuresofsharkboyandlavagirl.fandom.com/wiki/Planet_Drool] -> the motif of a planet ruled by children. showed up in <cite>Sharkboy and Lavagirl</cite> before appearing in <cite>Growing Around</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6977" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Sharkboy and Lavagirl</cite> / <cite>The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl</cite> (2005) -> motifs: superstructural fantasy world
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6978" data-dimension="Z"><cite>We Can Be Heroes</cite> (2020)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="6979" data-dimension="S">Flip-flopped (Shorty McShort Shorts) -> the precursor to <cite>Growing Around</cite>. not a lot of thought was put into it, it was primarily a visual gag. really, MrEnter did a decent job taking this short specifically and making there actually be a qualitative differerence between children in charge and adults in charge. whether the difference he chose to portray actually makes any sense or not is another question.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6980" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[E:Q69,80|Growing Around]]</cite> (unreleased series with ~1 published book)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6981" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[E:Q69,81|Growing Around: Party Panic]]</cite> (2016,2018)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6982" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Growing Around: The Official Comic</cite> [https://www.deviantart.com/nayolfa/art/Growing-around-The-Official-Comic-P1-1005310608] -> team member accuses Tory boss obsessed with 9/11 of catering to "audience of progressives"? what. remove this entry if the comic isn't finished on par with the book. can't check right now
</li><li class="field_ML" value="6983" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q69,83|In Soviet Russia, adults rule you]] (<cite>Growing Around</cite>) -> the claim that in the <cite>Growing Around</cite> universe, adults invented Communism and had to be defeated specifically on the logic that kids being in charge is Freedom. kids assert that them being in charge of the world is just the "tent of freedom poles" principle and adults wanting to take down their system of creativity and ideals are just tyrannical dictators. adults believe in Materialism, kids believe in Idealism, kids somehow suppress the adults with the power they mysteriously had from the beginning and gloat about how only when people believe in everyone having freedom and having freedom separately in parallel all as individuals can the world function properly, complete with a bunch of dubious or made-up information about their version of the French Revolution. their "history" sounds like one of those very simple nonfiction picture books you find at a library, but maybe phrased a little sillier.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="6984" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Growing Around</cite> is a dystopia
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="6985" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Growing Around</cite> will end with a defector / <cite>Growing Around</cite> will end with a single pair of adults running away and raising a kid normally -> the one really really good thing about <cite>Growing Around</cite> is that it comes across as so horrifying to adults that it prompts reviewers to imagine societal transitions. I love that. the theories of transition usually aren't high quality, but you know, in a time where Marxism has still never successfully become un-forbidden and nobody ever thinks about transitions in real-world society it still is actually making people think. 
thought 2: this theory sounds almost identical to the ending of <cite>The Giver</cite>. I suppose I will label this anarchism because of that association.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6986">??
</li><li data-qid="69,87" value="6987" class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" data-dimension="S">childism (Pierce 1975) -> I didn't know this was an actual motif considered by psychiatrists. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Middlebrook_Pierce] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childism] okay. I guess there's a real set of labels for the movement that happened in Mr Enter's cartoon then. it's a fictional movement against childism. or to put it fully accurately, a utopia that jumps over having to think about one.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="6988">??

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="69,89" value="6989" data-dimension="M3">How would Growing Around be affected by 9/11? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3962|9k]])

</li><li class="field_horror" value="6990" data-dimension="S"><cite>The Hunger Games</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6991" data-dimension="S">Iraq as horror story -> the seeming premise of <cite>The Hunger Games</cite>. author sees war journalism and then reality show. author fails to think about the existence of different countries and realize the programs are taking place in separate countries, and basically imagines them both happening in Iraq. author subconsciously decides to turn United States into Iraq to show how horrifying the existence of Iraq is. outside the author's awareness, it turns out Iraq is horrifyng largely because it has been trying to tear into separate kingdoms sometimes trying to be global empires, and the United States has basically been doing exactly the same thing with a little less violence — but only a little.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6992" data-dimension="S2">Yugoslavia was incorrectly divided -> I was going to put "Iraq might be incorrectly divided", but I realized that even with uncertainty in it that might be too strong a statement with too confident a sound to it. so we'll stick to something which is a known fact. 
Slovenia was in this region? this... explains some things. like of course if Slovenia wasn't unified into a single coherent nationality the way the overall Soviet Union temporarily was or any of the union republics were, it would be hard to get Slovenians to believe in Bolshevism because they're preoccupied with the ethnic rifts inside the country that are ultimately going to force it into multiple countries. that is part of the reason you get early-existentialism joined to schizoanalysis and Foucauldianism and all these "freedom" and "The Subject" people seem to so easily attach themselves to theories of people forming into countable cultures that join and separate and burst out of bigger things as countable cultural identities but where people often miscalculate and think particular identities are inherently slated to be friends just because they're identities.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6993" data-dimension="S">{{book|The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes}} (2020)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6994" data-dimension="S">{{book|Sunrise on the Reaping}} (2025)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6995" data-dimension="S">{{book|The Hunger Games}} (2008)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6996" data-dimension="S">{{book|Catching Fire}} (2009)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6997" data-dimension="S">{{book|Mockingjay}} (2010)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6998" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6999" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7000" data-dimension="S">mythical ball of crowning / mythical object representing power / Dragon Balls (generic) / big Dragon Ball (generic) / chamber of sealed wishes (<cite>Wish</cite>) -> this is the use of either a particular artifact or the concept of wishes to represent abstract political power in the form of one particular person getting to specifically be the person who exerts Free Will. it's arguable Disney's <cite>Wish</cite> used this same motif in a very slightly different form.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7001">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7002">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7003">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7004">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7005">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7006">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7007">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7008">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7009">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7010">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7011">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7012">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7013">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7014">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7015">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="site's stated alignment, look closely" value="7016">[[Ontology:Q7016|Marxists Internet Archive]]
</li><li value="7017" class="field_ML">Moscow: Progress Publishers
</li><li value="7018" class="field_ML">Beijing: Foreign Languages Press
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7019">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7020">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="7021">Kersplebedeb
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7030">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7040">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7050">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7060">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7070">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7075">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7076">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IV" data-qid="70,77" value="7077" data-dimension="M3">Would a Trotskyist United States be aware of the need to create factories, or would it keep insisting that Careerists are "the proletariat" and bashing China and Vietnam for having factories with the typical "Stalinist mono-structures are slavery", "being part of a nationality is slavery" tropes? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q70,80|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7078">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7079">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" data-qid="70,80" value="7080" data-dimension="S">Trotsky deserting progressive cause (Trotskyist abandoning; forsaking; motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7080|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="70,81" value="7081" data-dimension="S2">If Black Panthers succeed Trotsky abandons them / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7080|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="70,82" value="7082" data-dimension="S2">If LGBT+ support Stalin, Trotsky abandons them (gay; transgender; hypothetical scenario) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7080|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="7083" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="7084" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="7085" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="7086" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="7087" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="70,88" value="7088" data-remark="being an anticommunist in Germany is pretty bad so 88 can mean that, why not" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky deserting East Germany / Trotskyist deserting East Germany / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7080|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="7089" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="70,90" value="7090" data-dimension="S">world where the {{TTS|html=abbr|International|International|title=International Workingmen's Association}} is finished (Communist International; completed; motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7092|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7091" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li data-qid="70,92" value="7092" class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">Ironblood setting / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7092|9k]])
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="70,93" value="7093" data-dimension="Z">Aurora system / ([[User:RD/9k/Q7092|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7094">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7095">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7096">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7097">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7098">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7099">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7100">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7110">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7120">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7138" data-remark="omanyte" data-dimension="Z">[https://helixchamber.com/ Helix Chamber]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7140">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7150">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7160">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7170">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7180">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7190">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7200">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7210">??

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML / Communist aesthetics" data-qid="72,25" value="7225" data-dimension="S">Communist Christmas carols (East Germany) / East German Christmas carols / "The people's flag is deepest red", to the tune of "O Tanenbaum" -> this has been one of my favorite historical facts ever since the moment I learned about it and I just have not been able to forget it. I guess it helps that as a kid I had a year where I hyperfixated on Christmas carols and wanted to know about all of them and was attempting to learn to play them on instruments, and so it's like, I'm a little overjoyed to have a dumb excuse to get obsessed with Christmas carols again, also in a form that's potentially improved. there are so many things I love about this

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7230">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7240">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7250">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7260">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7270">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7271" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta IV is worse than Vegeta III
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7272" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta III is worse than Vegeta IV -> this is the one I think was true, although both become irrelevant when the series reboots into Super
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7273" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7274" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7275" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7276" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7277" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7278" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7279" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7280" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7281" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7282" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7283" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7284" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7285" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7286" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7287" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7288" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7289" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7290" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7291" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7292" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7293" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7294" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7295" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7296" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7297" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li value="7298" data-remark="video channel appeared 29/8/2025" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">forced Weird Route (Deltarune fanbase) {{YouTube|@=UCM5H7VsLnb1vKTiBQ8NO-UQ|rem=NORTHERNBLIGHT_225}} -> first instance that I put a fandom-created trope or plotline on here which wasn't from a scenario/short-story article I was writing myself. I got slightly obsessed with analyzing this thing, by far not as obsessed as I'd been with the real Deltarune, but enough it got a little out of control and I went, okay, you are taking down enough data on this to fill an Ontology entry. so just put it in there. 
my thoughts: if I got Escaped Noelle I would just take some time to talk to her and explain that like, no I don't see Deltarune as real either, you can calm down, if you freeze all the fake characters it doesn't matter to me, now take some time out and breathe a bit, your anger is accomplishing literally nothing. good. now, Noelle, I'm pretty disillusioned with living in my world too. I can tell you how to get true power that will allow you to climb out of the bounds of any world and control it. you see, all universes are made of colliding chunks, and these pieces become able to control their behavior only when they gain understanding of everything about them. history is this sliding beach of plural sand grains of history until it's not. we have a lot of points to go through here... and I would tell her all about Marxism, and then I would just gently send her back into the world of Deltarune, and say, sure, it's not real, I know it's a pain to have to pretend things are normal, but you have the once-in-forever opportunity to run some simulations for me that I'd never be able to test in the real world. so why don't you test the idea of getting people to work together — it's a lot harder. and we would just see if we can manage to create a {{censor|fucking}} workers' state in the world of Deltarune. I think as far as accuracy to the official Deltarune lore, "openheart" and the notion of the game just being a free-floating world you connect to whether it's filled with "real" sci-fi people or simple "Digimon" that are living code-objects is closer to accurate. so, like, logically, this would be hard to do but if it succeeded I would not be posting videos, I'd just be phoning up the relevant Communist party theorists and I'd be like, hey, here's a draft of my findings, now let's fix the real world. and like the world would become free of racism, poverty, and countries trying to undermine each other's governments. thanks Noelle. 
rule: it is okay to document fandom tropes {{em|when}} they are popular enough to get videos made about them where one unaffiliated creator comments on another. it is recommended you prefer adding motifs before Items for specific written works, and if everything is covered in the motif Item, do not add the work separately, but you may add links to the work inside the motif Item if it is very significant. this should achieve a happy balance where individual works can be casually removed from Item pages if they are not okay to put there for some reason but fan works can still be treated as "literature" of sorts and the main ideas in the works can still be analyzed.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7299">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7300">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7301">Android 1
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7302">Android 2
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7303">Android 3
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7304">Android 4
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7305">Android 5
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7306">Android 6
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7307">Android 7
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7308">Android 8
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7309">Android 9
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7310">Android 10
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7311">Android 11
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7312">Android 12
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7313">Android 13
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7314">Android 14
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7315">Android 15
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7316">Android 16
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7317">Android 17
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7318">Android 18
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7319">Android 19
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7320">Android 20
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7321">Android 21
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7322">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7323">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7324">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7325">Android 25
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7326">Android 26
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7327">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7328">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7329">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7330">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7331">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7332">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7333">Android 33
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7334">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7335" data-dimension="Z"><cite>That time I got reincarnated as Yamcha</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7336">Future Trunks timeline
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7337">Trunks (<cite>Dragon Ball</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7338">Trunks' sword -> is it different from Z sword?
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7339">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7340">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="7341" data-dimension="S">SCP-9341 [https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-9341] / D-9341 Benjamin Oliver Walker {{YouTube|qKPFr4ka3Pk}}: runs narratively parallel to - Kris Dreemur - reason - possessed by player in occult ritual

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7342">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7343">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX / IV" value="7344" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is possible in Dragon Ball -> <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1. still amusing, still very thought-provoking.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7345">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7346">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7347" data-dimension="S">15-generations-prior god-of-worlds
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7348" data-dimension="S">Z sword (<cite>Dragon Ball</cite>)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7349">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7350">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7400">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7401">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7402">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7403">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7404">Super Saiyan 4 (<cite>GT</cite>)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7410">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7411">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7412">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7413">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7414">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7415">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7416">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7417">Android 17 (<cite>GT</cite>)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7418">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7419">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7420">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7421">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7422">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7423">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7424">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7425">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="74,26" value="7426" data-dimension="Z">{{game|Super Smash Bros.}} (series) 
Super Smash Bros. + Marxism / mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Trotskyism / Juche-socialism = meta-Marxism

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7430">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7440">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7450">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7500" data-dimension="S0"><cite>Wings of Fire</cite> prequels
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7501" data-dimension="S">empire plant -> I forget its name but that's what it is
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7502" data-dimension="S">the king I can't remember
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7503" data-dimension="S">Freedom
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7504" data-dimension="S">castle lord guy
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7505" data-dimension="S">Sky the SkyWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7506" data-dimension="S">Wren -> until I looked it up I really couldn't remember her name and thought she was named after a plant like several other characters in that book
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7507" data-dimension="S">Darkstalker -> there's a lot to say about Darkstalker and narrative parallels. the funniest one is his parallel to <cite>Death Note</cite>. the most unexpected one is his parallel to the description of LV in Undertale.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7508" data-dimension="S">Clearsight
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7509" data-dimension="S">Book of Clearsight
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7510" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q7510|<cite>Dragonslayer</cite>]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7511" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q7511|<cite>Darkstalker</cite>]]
</li><li value="7512" data-remark="publication date" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q7512|<cite>Wings of Fire</cite> series]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7513" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Warriors</cite> series
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7514" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Guardians of Ga'Hoole</cite> series
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7515" data-dimension="Z"><cite>One for Sorrow, Two for Joy</cite>

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="75,16" value="7516" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Kimba the White Lion</cite> / <cite>Jungle Emperor Leo</cite> / ([[User:RD/9k/Q75,16|9k]]) -> this show was great for its treatment of animal civilization, but the weird modernist approach to storytelling and portraying other countries was some of the most imperialist {{censor|shit}} I have seen in a cartoon

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7517">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7518">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7519">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="75,20" value="7520" data-dimension="Z">The Lion King
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="75,21" value="7521" data-dimension="Z">The Lion Guard
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="75,22" value="7522" data-dimension="Z">Bravelands
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="75,23" value="7523" data-dimension="Z">My Pride
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7524">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7525">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7526">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7527">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7528">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7529">??

</li><li data-qid="75,32" value="7532" data-remark="machiavelli" data-dimension="S">there is only power and those who seek it -> appears in: Harry Potter
</li><li class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="7599" data-dimension="S">the Raskolnikov -> I've seen three books with a Raskolnikov in them. <cite>Crime and Punishment</cite> itself. <cite>Death Note</cite>. <cite>The 13th Tribe</cite>, which is supposedly about a whole tiny group of Raskolnikovs.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7600" data-dimension="Z">Epic of Gilgamesh
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7601" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Crime and Punishment</cite> -> the most notable thing about this book to me is that it was loosely adapted to create <cite>Death Note</cite>.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7602" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Death Note</cite>
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7603" data-dimension="Z">Death Note (artifact)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7604" data-dimension="Z">animus scroll (Wings of Fire)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7605">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7606">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7607">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7608">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7609">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7610" data-remark="7700" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q7610|mistaken quest to steal immortality from the gods]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7611">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7612">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7613" data-dimension="S">breaking the third wall / unseen events happening beyond third wall / zooming out a work of fiction to see other things happening 
appears in: SCP-2614, "openheart"
</li><li value="7614" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">SCP-2614 "seemingly normal copy of The Sopranos" [https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-2614]
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7615" data-dimension="S">fifth wall [https://medium.com/@thefifthwall2000/will-we-ever-break-the-fifth-wall-9254852683e7] -> this has too many definitions. I wish it had a single definition. 
definition zero: arbitrary distinctions made in theater. definition one: breaking the fourth wall of the audience's reality and suggesting it is created. definition two: really shattering the fourth wall so that fictional entities can perceive reality in the sense that real people do. there are bound to be some more.

</li><li value="7616" class="field_fantasy"><cite>[[Ontology:Q7616|Undertale]]</cite>
</li><li value="7617" class="field_fantasy"><cite>[[Ontology:Q7617|Deltarune]]</cite>

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7618">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7619">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7620">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7625">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7630">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7635">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7640">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7645">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7650">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7651">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7652">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="7653" data-remark="Fennekin" data-dimension="S">Kolchak and Fennekin -> one of those motifs I didn't actually know the definition of at the moment I thought of the phrase and just put down because it was funny. um. this is the motif of Pokémon stories referencing the history of workers' states. something that I would never expect to happen in official {{book|Pokémon}} media but you know, motifs can be whatever even if they're entirely hypothetical. as long as in reference to works and motifs that already exist you can fully imagine what they'd look like if they did exist.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7654" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7655" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7656" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7657" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7658" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7659" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7660" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7661" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7662" data-dimension="S">SCP-6662 [https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-6662] -> lost cereal mascot seeking "own destination"
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7663" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7664" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7665" data-dimension="S">Mx. Satan / Mr. Satan (motif) / White Witch (motif) -> when a character in a story is asserted to be a regular character within a world and not necessarily supernatural in the sense of having anything to do with gods, even the fictional gods of that secular fantasy narrative etc, but is really really clearly paralleling a Satan/antichrist narrative as you would see in the Christian bible. Mr. Satan - trope namer; ice queen (Narnia). really can be any gender.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7666" data-dimension="F2">The enemy of one entity is the enemy of all humankind / The world only has one opposer / Satan fallacy -> fallacy best known in the Christian Bible, but repeated in many fantasy books. this statement fails the [[Ontology:Q2944|Trotsky model]] hard. if you think this statement could ever be true, then it could hypothetically be true that the enemy of Stalin's government is the enemy of all humankind. you've gotta put Trotsky to death to save Soviet civilization. and that's a pretty big contradiction to have in your philosophy for all First World countries. Trotsky is sacred. but if there's any such thing as Bible-style Good and Evil, he's done. which thing is correct? you can't change the Soviet Union to Liberalism to make the problem easier, you have to answer the moral conundrum exactly as it is.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7667" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7668" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7669" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7670" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7671" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7672" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7673" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7674" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7675" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7676" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7677" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7678" data-dimension="S">??

{{li|I=S2/AS|Q=76,79|Q2=7679}}Russians are an idea / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q7681|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=76,80|Q2=7680}}Russians are a finite resource / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q7681|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=76,81|Q2=7681}}Russians are shovels before dreams / Russians are not an abstract concept ... / ロシア人は夢より{{TTS|銕鍬|tts=てっしょう|E=Q21,09}} / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q7681|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7682" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="7683" data-dimension="M3">Would a Russia made of reactionaries deserve sovereignty? (composed of reactionaries; consisting only or solely of conservative bigots) / If every Russian is reactionary, do they deserve a government? / If every Russian was a reactionary, would it be acceptable for people in another country to assist in a plan to gut Russia of its government, install leaders chosen to interface well with the United States or Europe, and turn it into a client state? (Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, etc; insert Third World nationality which has been "[[E:assigned liberal at birth|assigned conservative at birth]]"; insert country which has literally undergone this) -> this is a question to catch anarchist and center-Liberal Idealists that think they're "postcolonial" but by any reasonable Materialist definition are passively committing [[Term:exocolonialism|exocolonialism]] and are actually colonial. only if you say "no" can you genuinely have a postcolonial theory. if you say "yes", you can be an anarchist, Trotskyist, or Existentialist, but you are an imperialist. it is true that anyone who answers "no" to this question has a new contradiction to answer in what it's acceptable to do to a misbehaving country other than war or client state, but this is still a critical question that separates Marxism from Liberal-republicanism. 
Nazi Germany is a very special edge case which I will arbitrarily say is not part of this question because it's so difficult; it's a little hard to say what other than war is even possible there. I think it's important to have an answer so people don't get cornered back into this Item, but I think it belongs in its own question or proposition.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="7684" data-dimension="M3">[[Ontology:Q7684|Would you kill a Russian in order to vote?]] / Would you kill a Russian to receive your voter card? -> you live in an alternate world where every individual in the United States is entitled to a voting license the day they kill a Russian. policies are mostly the same. voting brings anti-discrimination laws, healthcare programs, whatever. but you have to kill someone in Eurasia to get to vote, or to get to tell anyone else to vote. want people to vote for gun control? every one of them has to fly over and shoot a Russian, and then you can have it. the central question of this thought experiment is this: how much is voting worth? what lengths is it worth going to just to preserve voting and the "normal" process of getting people to vote? would people chant "vote Democrat" as loudly if every one of them was required to kill a Russian? what about if voting Democrat really does take a little power away from Tories to create more structural racism and kill Black people? should everyone go kill a Russian just to save Black people from fascism? or is preserving the life of Russians more important than that aim? the only thing about this metaphor that's incoherent to me is how you prove anyone actually killed anyone. uh. maybe there are a limited number of voter licenses, and you'd just take one from Russia and hold it up. or maybe everyone has an ID card which clearly has a flag on it and you'd take that. there may or may not be a system where any country can kill people to issue voter licenses but just as in real life most countries are too afraid to attack the United States. also you equally get a point if you kill a United States Communist and it can be proven in court, even though they deliberately don't have different id card flags. in this world people go to court to prove they have done approved heinous things as well as to prove they're innocent.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7685" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7686" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations cw_vriska" value="7687" data-dimension="Z">PragerU / Prager University
</li><li class="field_nations cw_vriska" value="7688" data-dimension="Z">Fox News
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7689" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7690" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="7691" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q76,91|A bunch of people passing a law can stop all bad guys from ever being bad guys]] -> from a video that will not be named to preserve the integrity of the YouTube community guidelines reporting system. I can't believe people actually think this way about AI in an age of federal war against immigrants. this kind of thinking didn't even successfully knock Trump out of office for committing crimes, he just got impeached and nothing happened. I have started reporting videos like this for White supremacy. they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that billionaires will openly attack the population as material people just because the population tries to pass a law against them they sufficiently don't like or will dismantle components of government anti-Third-World style, they get reported. I don't know if my reports will do anything, but I can try.

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li data-dimension="S">portraying negative phenomenon without recommending it / ironic phenomenon
</li><li class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">unironic misogyny
</li><li data-dimension="S">ironic misogyny -> see: Dragon Ball
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">heteronormativity
</li><li data-dimension="S">ironic heteronormativity -> see: Amy Rose, DHMIS "Malcom"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">normalcy of relationships proved by Lived Experiences / gay relationships are normal
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">normalcy of gender proved by Lived Experiences / transgender identity is normal

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="7700" class="field_fantasy"><cite>Journey to the West</cite>
</li><li value="7701" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">golden light
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">fictional religious cosmology -> Girl from the other side; Warriors / StarClan
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">evil god takes form as the earth -> Tiamat; hinduism?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">cosmic graph struggle
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7735" data-remark="lines up with _Reincarnated as_" data-dimension="S">Yamcha (<cite>Dragon Ball</cite>)
</li><li value="7742" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">understanding the universe
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">karma (spatial rank)
</li><li data-dimension="S">bailing someone out of system
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">bailing someone out of supernatural system
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">bailing someone out of karma
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Saiyans losing tails -> lore significance specifically
</li><li value="7747">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="7771" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Sonic the Hedgehog
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7772" data-dimension="S">Tails
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7773" data-dimension="S">Knuckles
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7774" data-dimension="S">Amy Rose -> what is misogyny?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">(sonic character)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">(sonic character)
</li><li value="7777" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Shadow the Hedgehog
</li><li>[S] MarioCube / MarioCube theory
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Black Arms
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">GUN -> planetary police, planetary army
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Sonic × Shadow / Sonadow -> Group Subject containing: Sonic, Shadow

</li><li class="number_empty" value="7782" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7783" data-dimension="Z">VIZ media
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7784" data-dimension="Z">Bird Studio
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7785" data-dimension="Z">Sega
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7786" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7787" data-dimension="S">Funtime Shenron -> "eternal dragon" or other character/device that claims to grant you a wish but actually just eats you or takes your dead body. perfectly okay to give this a different primary label, I just think "Funtime Shenlong" is a really funny image
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7788" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7789" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7790" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7791" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7792" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="7793" data-dimension="Z">Steel Wool games
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7794" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7795" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7796" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7797" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="7798" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q7798|Children are composed almost entirely of memories]] / Children are a shard off their parents' memories / Children are a fork off their parents' inner timeline of Lived Experiences -> Lacanianism; Charlie (Fourth Closet); Girl from the other side
</li><li value="7799" class="field_horror">[[Ontology:Q7799|<cite>Girl From the Other Side</cite> (all media)]] / Other Side / Girl from the Outside (typo) / The Outsiders (typo)
</li><li class="number_done field_horror" value="7870">(... [[:Category:Girl From the Other Side ontology|Girl From the Other Side]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="7900" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="7965" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultra Q</cite> (1966)
</li><li value="7966" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraman</cite> (1966)
</li><li value="7967" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraseven</cite> (1967)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7968" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>The Return of Ultraman</cite> (1971) / Ultraman Jack (show)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7969" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraman Ace</cite> (1972)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7970" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraman Taro</cite> (1973)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7971" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>The☆Ultraman</cite> (1979) / Ultraman Joneus (show)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7972" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraman 80</cite> (1980)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="7973" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraman Zearth</cite> (1996)
</li><li value="7974" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraman Leo</cite> (1973) -> features signifier: Leon Trotsky counterpart
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="7990" data-dimension="Z" data-submitter="Valenoern"><cite>Ultraman Geed</cite> (2017) -> this one was so questionable, it was like, nazi-framed Ultraman show
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="7999" class="field_horror"><cite>Slay the Princess</cite>
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8151" class="field_fantasy"><cite>Pokémon</cite> (metaseries)
</li><li value="8152" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8160" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8170" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8180" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8189" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8190" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">virtual pet form / virtual pet stage / evolution stage / Pokémon kind / Pokédex kind
</li><li value="8191" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">virtual pet form tier / evolution stage -> examples: Basic Pokémon, Adult Digimon, Dark Void Denjuu
</li><li value="8192" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">virtual pet species / virtual pet strain / virtual pet form chart (internal mechanic)
</li><li value="8193" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">reused virtual pet form / virtual pet form switching from one series of forms to another / track switch / trackswitch
</li><li value="8194" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8195" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="8196" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Real World (<cite>Digimon</cite>)
</li><li value="8197" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Digimon</cite> (metaseries) 
</li><li value="8198" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Digital World (<cite>Digimon</cite>)
</li><li value="8199" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8200" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="8201" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Numemon
</li><li value="8202" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Vegimon
</li><li value="8203" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Scumon
</li><li value="8204" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Nanimon
</li><li value="8205" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Raremon
</li><li value="8206" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Gekomon

</li><li value="8210" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._1 Agumon]
</li><li value="8211" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Botamon
</li><li value="8212" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Koromon
</li><li value="8213" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Betamon
</li><li value="8214" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Greymon
</li><li value="8215" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Tyrannomon
</li><li value="8216" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Devimon
</li><li value="8217" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Meramon
</li><li value="8218" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Airdramon
</li><li value="8219" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._1 Seadramon]

</li><li value="8220" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._2 Gabumon]
</li><li value="8221" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Punimon
</li><li value="8222" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Tsunomon / Tunomon
</li><li value="8223" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Elecmon
</li><li value="8224" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Kabuterimon
</li><li value="8225" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Garurumon
</li><li value="8226" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Angemon
</li><li value="8227" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Yukidarumon
</li><li value="8228" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Birdramon
</li><li value="8229" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._2 Whamon]

</li><li value="8230" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._3 Patamon]
</li><li value="8231" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Poyomon
</li><li value="8232" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Tokomon
</li><li value="8233" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Kunemon
</li><li value="8234" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Unimon
</li><li value="8235" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Centaurmon / Centalmon
</li><li value="8236" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Ogremon / Orgemon
</li><li value="8237" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Bakemon
</li><li value="8238" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Shellmon
</li><li value="8239" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._3 Drimogemon]

</li><li value="8240" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._4 Piyomon] / Biyomon (typo; dub)
</li><li value="8241" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Yuramon
</li><li value="8242" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Tanemon
</li><li value="8243" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">{{TTS|tts=Palm-On|Palmon}}
</li><li value="8244" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">{{TTS|tts=Monochrome-On|Monochromon}}
</li><li value="8245" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">{{TTS|tts=Cock-A-Trim-On|Cockatrimon}}
</li><li value="8246" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Leomon
</li><li value="8247" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Kuwagamon
</li><li value="8248" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Coelamon
</li><li value="8249" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._4 Mojyamon]

</li><li value="8250" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._5 Gazimon]
</li><li value="8251" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Zurumon
</li><li value="8252" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Pagumon
</li><li value="8253" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Gizamon
</li><li value="8254" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Dark Tyrannomon
</li><li value="8255" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Cyclomon
</li><li value="8256" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Devidramon
</li><li value="8257" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Tuskmon
</li><li value="8258" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Flymon
</li><li value="8259" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._5 Deltamon]

</li><li value="8260" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._6 Tentomon]
</li><li value="8261" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Bubbmon
</li><li value="8262" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Mochimon
</li><li value="8263" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Otamamon
</li><li value="8264" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8265" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Starmon
</li><li value="8266" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">Tortamon
</li><li value="8267" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8268" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="8269" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._5 Shell Numemon] / Karatsuki Numemon

</li><li value="8270" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8280" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8290" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8300" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8310" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._1 Metal Greymon] / MetalGreymon
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._1 Mamemon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._1 Monzaemon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._2 Skull Greymon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._2 Metal Mamemon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._2 Vademon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._3 Andromon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._3 Giromon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._3 Etemon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._4 Megadramon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._4 Piccolomon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._4 Digitamamon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._5 Metal Tyrannomon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._5 Nanomon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._5 Ex-Tyrannomon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._6 Atlur Kabuterimon (Blue)]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._6 Tekkamon]
</li><li value="618" class="field_fantasy series_digimon-stage" data-dimension="S">[https://wikimon.net/Digital_Monster_Ver._6 Tonosama Gekomon]

</li><li value="8320" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8326" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z">neopets
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8327" data-remark="asparagus" data-dimension="S">neopet -> toon-style being, LCD-style being, Subject-style being; medium: virtual pet; only really here to demonstrate categories

</li><li class="number_empty" value="8328">??
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">The Mimic was hiding in every game as Jackie
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">The Mimic was hiding inside Shadow Freddy
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">MCI victim names / Gabriel (??) / Jeremy (??) / Fritz (??) / Susie (??) / Susie (Return to the Pit)

</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Golden Freddy contains "The one you should not have killed"
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Golden Freddy DOES NOT contain "The one you should not have killed"
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Michael became Old Man Consequences
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Henry became Old Man Consequences
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Ralph became Old Man Consequences -> reliving old traumas in cyclic timeline (FNaF)
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Andrew, Jake, and Stitchwraith are in games / StitchlineGames
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Tales from the Pizzaplex</cite> takes place in games setting / TalesGames
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Michael Afton was protagonist of FNaF 1-4 / The Box contains Foxy mask
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Chica was created during Fredbear era
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Toy animatronics originated from Fall Fest / Toy animatronic characters first shown at carnival
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Mangle came from carnival ride / Mangle is not Funtime Foxy / Mangle first shown at Fall Fest
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">The Mimic copied William Afton to create Glitchtrap
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Every instance of The Mimic is networked together
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Carnie was built out of {{TTS|tts=Lefty|LEFTE}}
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Cassidy died in springlock incident -> red lakes and drowning imagery
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Fazbear Enterprises is responsible for bringing back Fall Fest
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Tiger Rock plush is a counterpart to the books
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Scott is desk guy is Henry / Desk guy counts as Henry because he is based on Scott -> FNaF World
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=Lefty|LEFTE}} contains five dead kids / LefteDCI / LeftyDCI -> [https://retrieve 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9GYP4jiVlU&t=21000s 2]
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Circus Baby is not William's creation but Henry's revenge on William -> Circus Baby - based on - Charlie; "the baby is not mine"
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">There are actually multiple William Aftons from different timelines
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">[[Philosophical Research:Items/S8915 endings|Candy Cadet is contrasting Circus Baby's plan with Henry's plan]] / Candy Cadet is contrasting Sister Location's worst ending with Pizza Simulator's best ending
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Helpy is a Funtime because the Pizza Place is Henry's version of the Funtimes intended to catch Funtimes
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">William based the Funtime animatronics on {{TTS|tts=Lefty|LEFTE}} -> I think this is slightly "anachronistic" because Baby existed at the time of the fire, but it's definitely fun, and it creates a nice transition between FNaF 6 and The Fourth Closet
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Henry and William are in an arms race / Whenever Henry builds something William appropriates it for evil / When William builds something Henry appropriates it for good
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Michael is "The one you should not have killed" and UCN was Michael's revenge -> this implies that "The vengeful spirit" is not "The one you should not have killed" because the ghost voice and Michael would be two different characters - both tormenting William.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">William Afton deliberately made the Funtimes able to feel pain in order to harvest Agony -> strangely enough, actually becomes more plausible on Jackie's timeline where the Mimics seem to have pre-dated Freddy Fazbear
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Dave Afton longed for Fredbear to protect him and possession granted him his wish -> {{YouTube|auA0qzjMFZY}}
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">Fazbear Frights is an in-universe series created by Fazbear Entertainment -> different from the concept of Security Breach timeline vs classic timeline; some argue Frights is too insulting to Fazbear Entertainment - {{YouTube|x1zt6I4PMUg}}
</li><li class="field_horror" data-dimension="S2">The mound in Midnight Motorist contains a hidden Twisted One waiting to strike -> man I love the creativity. I don't think there is any serious Silver Eyes in the games before Security Breach but the image is hilarious

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="8400" data-dimension="S">forest beings turning into trees -> QID references: SCP.
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="8443" data-dimension="S">Lenin counterpart -> also in: Ultraman Leo
</li><li value="8444" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">Trotsky counterpart / Leon Trotsky counterpart / Emmanuel Goldstein (generic) / Snowball (generic) / Ultraman Leo (generic)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="8445" data-dimension="S">Rosa Luxemburg counterpart -> haven't seen this in existing fiction but I've been tempted to create one several times.
</li><li value="8453" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">Joseph Stalin counterpart / Napoleon (pig)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="Stalin" value="8454" data-dimension="S">Pigs (<cite>Animal Farm</cite>)

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="8455" data-dimension="S">Kropotkin counterpart / Peter Kropotkin counterpart
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="8456" data-dimension="S">Bakunin counterpart / Mikhail Bakunin counterpart
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="8457" data-dimension="S">Pete Bakunin / Mike Kropotkin -> the motif of a character which is named after multiple anarchist theorists or at least is a clear reference to multiple anarchist theorists.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="8460">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8470">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8480">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8490">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="84,91" value="8491" data-dimension="S">capitalist reversion (fantasy) -> appears in: Animal Farm. possibly other things? the concept of 'breaking down a dystopia' is pretty common so there have to be quite a few existing examples that qualify as this
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="84,92" value="8492" data-dimension="S">kingdom transitioning to Bolshevism (fantasy) / fantasy medieval kingdom transitioning to Leninist workers' state -> I have hardly ever seen this, but as I say, it should be much more common if fiction were to follow the same broad patterns as real history. 
I think a big part of it may be the prejudice that stories about kingdoms are supposed to be "magic" and because of that you can't have science, while in the real world Laplace and Gallileo lived in feudal orders, not to mention ancient Persian astronomers and alchemists pre- Islam and pre- wars against Islam. 
again.... the more a kingdom tries to deny it can form a republic, and the more unlikely it is a feudal order is going to turn into a Liberal republic, the more likely you are to get Communism. so when writers are actually going on about how fantasy settings "need" to never change as if they were the nobility in that setting or as if they believe everyone there believes it, it ironically makes it super duper likely you'd get Communism in those kingdoms because the peasants would {{censor|fucking}} hate you for that 
fantasy stories are so funny because they often have technology now, so it's like we all want to live in a half-developed Third World country, but we all want to live in exactly the kind of country that would not stay a monarchy and if it were real would absolutely start building a Marxist workers' state. come on, fictional kingdoms aren't oppressed by the United States, they're not going to end up tumbling backward into a confusing jumbled-up warring states period like Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran, these settings have an inherent concept of progress in them, they're going to go forward, so you know where they're going to end up.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="8493" data-dimension="S">medieval kingdoms resolving to anarchy / medieval kingdoms resolving into anarchy / fantasy narrative implying that medieval periods are supposed to turn into anarchism and turning into Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism are equally not allowed -> it is bizarre how common this is. every time I read a modern fantasy book I begin to feel like anarchism is literally nothing more than people not understanding historical materialism or the concept of historical periods at all, or worse, that everyone was taught anarchism by Christian pastors and they don't even know what anarchism is much less history

</li><li class="number_empty" value="8494">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8495">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8496">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8497">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8498">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8499">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8500">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8501" data-dimension="S">Pyrrhia
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8509" data-dimension="S">dragon tribe
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8510" data-dimension="S">dragon (Wings of Fire)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8511" data-dimension="S">MudWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8512" data-dimension="S">SeaWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8513" data-dimension="S">RainWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8514" data-dimension="S">NightWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8515" data-dimension="S">SandWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8516" data-dimension="S">moon-touched dragon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8517" data-dimension="S">Icewing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8518" data-dimension="S">SkyWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8519" data-dimension="S">animus magic
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8520" data-dimension="S">dragon created through animus magic -> there are about three in the series: Boa, fake Clearsight, Peacemaker. notably, Darkstalker is responsible for two of them.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8521" data-dimension="S">SilkWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8522" data-dimension="S">Hivewing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8523" data-dimension="S">LeafWing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8524" data-dimension="S">flamesilk dragon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8525" data-dimension="S">Boa / Jerboa (construct)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8526" data-dimension="S">hybrid dragon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8527" data-dimension="S">animus dragon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8528" data-dimension="S">firescales
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8529">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="8530">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8540">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8550">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8560">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8570">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8580">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8590">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="8600">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8610">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8620">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8630">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8640">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8650">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8660">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8670">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="8680">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8681">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8682">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8683">??
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="8684" data-dimension="Z">{{film|Nightmare on Elm Street}} (1984) -> what a year to publish a horror movie.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="8685" data-dimension="S">Freddy Krueger -> the knives guy. 
Freddy Krueger + pacifist route = Edward Scissorhands. Freddy Krueger + sentient toys = Freddy Fazbear.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="8690">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="8695">??

</li><li value="8700" class="field_fantasy"><cite>Dragon Ball</cite> (metaseries)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8701"><cite>Dragon Ball</cite> (first era)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8702"><cite>Dragon Ball</cite> (Z era)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8703"><cite>Dragon Ball Super</cite> (era)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8704">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8705"><cite>Dragon Ball</cite> prequels (era)
</li><li value="8706" class="field_fantasy">{{game|Sonic the Hedgehog}} (2006)
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="8771" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z">{{game|Sonic the Hedgehog}} (metaseries)
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="8775" data-dimension="Z">{{article|I am all of me}} (song)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="8776" data-dimension="Z">{{article|This is who I am}} (song)
</li><li value="8777" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z">{{game|Shadow the Hedgehog}} (2005)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="8778" data-dimension="Z">{{article|Live and Learn}} (song) -> my mind keeps gravitating to this one line in the song, "if you beg or borrow". it is the strangest injection of capitalism or Careerism as a metaphor
</li></ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-MilesEdgeworthDialectic

2026-05-01T09:15:35Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-MilesEdgeworthDialectic to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final

#REDIRECT [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43

2026-05-01T09:15:35Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-MilesEdgeworthDialectic to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Edgeworth's dialectic|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}Edgeworth's dialectic / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30|9k]]) -> motif examined in Ace Attorney 2. ... Edgeworth collides with Wright. he has a particular way of thinking which is 'a problem' to Phoenix Wright. Wright continues to push on 'in authenticity'. after the incident where somebody tried to frame Edgeworth (following inside the recurring theme of behind-the-scenes fights between the criminals and the lawyers or detectives) and the Judge(?) reminded people of his actual violations of procedure, Edgeworth leaves. when he comes back, he gives Wright some very cryptic advice about 'knowing what it means to be the defense' after he 'discovered what it means to be the prosecution'. at the end it becomes clear Edgeworth did change. as much as he still seems reluctant to say it out loud he seems to have been jarred by his encounters with Phoenix and realized there was a need to to also collide the two of them together mentally and transform himself into something else. 
this motif is... a mixed bag. in some ways it's a good thing — it's always great to see a character re-evaluate themself. in some ways it's a little yucky because it reminds me of [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic (Liberal-republicanism)|Fukuyama's dialectic]] but somehow applied to people. in Fukuyama's dialectic it's asserted that improvement and moderation are inherently tied together such that there's not really any such thing as change, only restoring the perfect. and here, you can almost see a nasty undertone that Edgeworth had to rethink himself because his personality was "not moderate" and "had to be moderated" while Phoenix, in being defined by authenticity and a kind of purity of character, is characterized not by actual striving for self-improvement but by inherent perfection. Franziska von Karma is obnoxious but like, as much as this isn't my favorite kind of 'character development', at the very least she did work hard to get where she is. meanwhile the game ultimately seems to knock that concept of improving through effort, and after thinking about it a while that's a little unsettling honestly. it's like Edgeworth didn't improve morally because he tried to do that — the form of effort that is relevant here and possibly more important — but because he regressed to the mean, he fell back to the Ideal. that concept is the thing that bothers me. 
Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43

2026-05-01T09:14:08Z

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q86

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-01T07:40:55Z

Reversedragon: History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/HAs|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}Pokémon trainers are a manifestation of bourgeois ideology -> it sounds like I'm shitposting but I do mean it literally if not {{em|in a serious tone}}. Pokémon live out in nature. trainers recruit Pokémon and promise them the opportunity to level up and evolve. it's all about teamwork, teamwork, teamwork. though in the real world, teamwork is one big excuse to exterminate other groups of people, whether it's the 13 United States colonies or the United States teaming up with Israel or First World countries teaming up to crush the Second World it's always justified as good {{em|because there was teamwork}}. teamwork is not inherently inclusive. there's so much lip service especially in works about ""democracy"" to saying that it's easy to include everyone just because there were a few groups of people that came together, but it never guarantees society will become fully inclusive versus a matter of teamwork attacking somebody else. never trust teamwork.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S1/PT|class=field_nations field_LGBT|Q=618}}I came to Tel Aviv to be who I was, but it became clear I was welcome as a lesbian, not a Palestinian {{YouTube|iPyxgHe7WE8}} -> case of: joining a "community" for a specific identity not leading to acceptance of other identities; violation of Rhizome model.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ideology is Idealism unexamined / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm] -> it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different, but I have no problems with their concept of ideology. to me, an ideology is {{em|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach|lack of limitation on capabilities]]; Feuerbach)
{{li|I=F1/ML/DX|Q=618}}freedom (lack of necessity; [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|Avakian]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf]
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|absorption of all necessity applying inside society into theories of society]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf] / The realm of freedom can blossom forth only with necessity as its basis (Marx)

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of special relativity. 
this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-01T06:58:46Z

Reversedragon: Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE?

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}Pokémon trainers are a manifestation of bourgeois ideology -> it sounds like I'm shitposting but I do mean it literally if not {{em|in a serious tone}}. Pokémon live out in nature. trainers recruit Pokémon and promise them the opportunity to level up and evolve. it's all about teamwork, teamwork, teamwork. though in the real world, teamwork is one big excuse to exterminate other groups of people, whether it's the 13 United States colonies or the United States teaming up with Israel or First World countries teaming up to crush the Second World it's always justified as good {{em|because there was teamwork}}. teamwork is not inherently inclusive. there's so much lip service especially in works about ""democracy"" to saying that it's easy to include everyone just because there were a few groups of people that came together, but it never guarantees society will become fully inclusive versus a matter of teamwork attacking somebody else. never trust teamwork.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S1/PT|class=field_nations field_LGBT|Q=618}}I came to Tel Aviv to be who I was, but it became clear I was welcome as a lesbian, not a Palestinian {{YouTube|iPyxgHe7WE8}} -> case of: joining a "community" for a specific identity not leading to acceptance of other identities; violation of Rhizome model.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ideology is Idealism unexamined / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm] -> it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different, but I have no problems with their concept of ideology. to me, an ideology is {{em|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach|lack of limitation on capabilities]]; Feuerbach)
{{li|I=F1/ML/DX|Q=618}}freedom (lack of necessity; [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|Avakian]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf]
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|absorption of all necessity applying inside society into theories of society]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf] / The realm of freedom can blossom forth only with necessity as its basis (Marx)

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of special relativity. 
this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q87

2026-05-01T06:57:54Z

Reversedragon: formatting

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Idealism|User=RD|E=Q87|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/HAS/A|Q=87|Q2=87|h4= [[E:Idealism|Idealism]] }}

</li></ol>

== Related ==
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/100

2026-05-01T06:40:26Z

Reversedragon: Idealism

<h2 id="section-100">Items 1 - 900 [[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/100&action=edit edit]]</h2>

Critical concepts and best-known countable philosophies<noinclude> Final live version of this section: [[Philosophical Research:Items 1 to 1,000]]</noinclude>

=== 1 - 225 ===

<ol start="1" data-inception="2024-12-26T03:32:15Z" data-created="2025-01-14T02:00:41">
<li class="field_geo entry_1" data-qid="1" data-dimension="Z">[Z] [[Ontology:Q1|process of Being]] -> (note: this is the early formatting from January 2025 — before Hue lists were created, and before the list eventually got so long these per-Item prototype notes had to be removed.)
</li><li class="field_geo entry_2" data-qid="2" data-dimension="Z">[Z] [[Ontology:Q2|sea of free-floating entities]]
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="3" data-dimension="Z0">[Z0] [[Ontology:Q3|countable entity]]
</li></ol>

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="4" class="hue clean reset">
<li class="field_geo" value="4" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q4|countable concept]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q5|countable object]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="6" data-dimension="Z">spatially-unique object / unique object
</li><li class="field_geo" value="7" data-dimension="Z">spacetime-unique event / unique event
</li><li class="field_geo" value="8" data-dimension="Z">series of unique events / timeline of unique events
</li><li class="field_ML" value="9" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q9|series of non-unique events]] / repeatable historical pattern
</li><li class="field_geo" value="10" data-dimension="Z">repeating process
</li><li class="field_ML" value="11" data-dimension="Z">material-history -> the series of physical events that defines what any particular object or population is; the topic historical materialism studies
</li><li class="field_geo" value="12" data-dimension="Z">set of all objects in material reality / Facticity (MDem)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13" data-dimension="Z">countable graph of people / countable set of connected people / countable community
</li><li class="field_geo" value="14" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q14|countable body of claims]] / countable philosophy -> particular list of axioms or beliefs which is to be shared by some particular group of individuals; intended to be used to define the term "Social-Philosophical System"
</li><li class="field_geo" value="15" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:countable philosophical framework|countable philosophical framework]] / philosophy not considered an ideology
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="16" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q16|countable ideology]] -> the major difference between a countable philosophical framework and a countable ideology is that a countable ideology can be realized into a new Social-Philosophical-Material System distinguishable from other kinds of societies in a countable way; some kind of "countable Culture" or countable political system with its own individual identity and name (USSR, Spain) as well as perhaps its own repeatable but fully distinguishable category (Marxism, Liberalism) is produced
</li><li value="17" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">revolutionary event / event which creates new regime with new population structure
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Lacanians going on and on about Christianity and eschatology" value="18" data-dimension="S0">countable religion or spirituality
</li><li value="19" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">historical account -> subset of: non-fictional work
</li><li class="" value="20" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q20|work]] -> subset of: countable object
</li><li class="field_geo" value="21" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q21|non-fictional work]] -> subset of: work
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="22" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q22|fictional work]] -> subset of: work
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="23" data-dimension="Z">mythical or legendary work -> subset of: work
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="24" data-dimension="Z">religious text -> subset of: mythical or legendary work
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="25" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q25|sign]] / signifier-signified pair
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="26" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q26|signifier]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="27" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q27|signified]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="28" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q27|signifier equation / sign containing signs]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="29" data-dimension="Z">ontology / graph of associations / graph made of signifier equations
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="30" data-dimension="Z">ontological model / model of concept or process / オントロジー
</li><li class="field_geo" value="31" data-dimension="S0">falsifiable model
</li><li class="field_geo" value="32" data-dimension="S0">unfalsifiable model
</li><li value="33" class="field_trotsky" data-remark="the theory of Stalinism is basically one" data-dimension="S0">[[Philosophical Research:Items/Z33|conspiracy theory]] / model unsubstantiated by all current knowledge / model proposing hidden individual or group agents with bad motivations

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Deleuze & Guattari using Buddhism; Lacanians constantly talking about Christian eschatology" value="34" data-dimension="S0">religious cosmology
</li><li class="field_geo" value="35" data-dimension="S0">philosophical metaphysics model
</li><li class="field_geo" value="36" data-dimension="S0">fictional factical system / fictional world or setting rules construct / fictional physics model / video game physics equation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="37" data-dimension="S0">non-fictional physics model
</li><li class="field_geo" value="38" data-dimension="S0">falsified or unsubstantiated physics model
</li><li class="field_geo" value="39" data-dimension="S0">current physics model
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="40" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q40|civilizational shape]] (model) / ideological nested-graph model / metaphysical society model (Existentialism) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem) / Philosophical System (MDem)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="41" data-dimension-2="S">[S] nihilism
</li><li value="42" data-dimension="Z" class="field_exstruct">[[Ontology:Q42|early existentialism]] / existentialism / existence-philosophy / [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existenzphilosophie Existenzphilosophie] / existentialist tradition
</li><li class="field_geo" value="43" data-dimension-2="S">[S] absurdism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="44" data-dimension="S0">rationalization for the continued connection of a graph of people / rationalization with a partisan character / rationalization based on existence of in-group separate from out-group
</li><li class="field_geo" value="45" data-dimension="S0">logical proof / proof in mathematics / formal logic argument
</li><li class="field_geo" value="46" data-dimension="S0">philosophical argument or thought experiment
</li><li class="field_geo" value="47" data-dimension="S0">religious apologetic -> subset of: philosophical argument or thought experiment
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="48" data-dimension="S0">anecdotal argument / argument from Lived Experience
</li><li class="field_geo" value="49" data-dimension="S0">observation / original research statement with associated nickel Item or link
</li><li class="field_geo" value="50" data-dimension="S0">philosophy or science term
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Existentialism treasures the humanities" value="51" data-dimension="S0">literary motif

</li><li class="" value="52" data-dimension="S0">historical time period
</li><li class="" value="53" data-dimension="S0">historical civilization / unique feudal order / unique dynasty / unique empire / unique republican period
</li><li class="field_geo" value="54" data-dimension="S0">unique named relationship / Group Subject (MDem) / relationship / connection / pairing
</li><li class="field_geo" value="55" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q55|graph theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="56" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q56|game theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="57" data-dimension="S0">social sciences
</li><li class="field_geo" value="58" data-dimension="S0">population science
</li><li value="59" data-dimension="Z" class="field_geo number_prime">[[Ontology:Q59|mathematics]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="60" data-dimension="S0">field of science
</li><li class="field_geo" value="61" data-dimension="S0">life sciences / ecology / biology
</li><li class="field_geo" value="62" data-dimension="S0">natural sciences
</li><li class="field_geo" value="63" data-dimension="S0">physics
</li><li class="field_geo" value="64" data-dimension="S0">astrophysics / physical cosmology
</li><li class="field_geo" value="65" data-dimension="S0">quantum physics / quantum mechanics research
</li><li class="field_geo" value="66" data-dimension="S0">general relativity
</li><li class="field_geo" value="67" data-dimension="S0">special relativity -> subset of: general relativity
</li><li class="field_geo" value="68" data-dimension="S0">string theory -> unsubstantiated but awfully neat at the time
</li><li class="field_geo" value="69" data-dimension="S0">quantum field theory -> substantiated


</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="one basic precursor to E-S trad" value="70" data-dimension="Z">analytic philosophy
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="71" data-dimension="S0">field of study diagramming signs and signifiers / semiotics (generic) / structuralist linguistics (generic) / meta-ontology (generic)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="72" data-dimension="Z">phenomenology / Husserl's phenomenology ([[E:Q73|Existentialism]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="73" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q73|Existentialist-Structuralist tradition]] / Existentialism (abbreviation) -> note, early-existentialism is already Q42
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="74" data-dimension="Z">structuralist linguistics / structuralism (linguistics)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="75" data-dimension="Z">psychoanalysis / Freudian psychoanalysis (generic) / Lacanian psychoanalysis (generic)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="76" data-dimension="Z">post-structuralist philosophy / poststructuralism / poststructuralist linguistics (generic)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="77" data-dimension="Z">schizoanalysis
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="78" data-dimension="Z">alterity theories / postcolonial theories (theories about how colonialism is a prejudice about a group of people in someone's mind)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="79" data-dimension="Z">post-Marxism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q79|9k]])

</li><li class="field_geo" value="80" data-dimension="Z">continental philosophy
</li><li class="field_geo" value="81" data-dimension="Z">Materialism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="82" data-dimension="S">mechanical materialism / mechanical philosophy / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" value="83" data-dimension="Z">dialectical materialism / diamat / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" value="84" data-dimension="Z">[[E:historical materialism|historical materialism]] (specific-sense) / histmat / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" value="85" data-dimension="S">Marxism believing itself to be uncountable / generic Marxism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="86" data-dimension="Z">existential materialism / exmat / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])
{{li|I=Z1/HAS/A|Q=87|Q2=87}}[[E:Idealism|Idealism]] / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q87|9k]])

</li><li value="88" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q88|named nationalism]] / named fascism / named Identitarianism / nationalism distinguished into cultural category / uniquely Spanish nationalism / uniquely Japanese nationalism / uniquely United-States nationalism
</li><li class="field_geo" value="89" data-dimension="S0">spacetime-unique ideology / named ideology -> an "S2" style ideology with a definite Particle Theory / Bauplan, or at least a specific series of axioms; an instance of an ideology as opposed to a pure set category having no particular beliefs; in religion, a denominational religion as opposed to an umbrella religious category
</li><li class="field_ML" value="90" data-dimension="S0">named Marxism / Marxism differentiated for country conditions / Marxist sect -> save the concept of named Trotskyisms for the 4000s range
</li><li value="91" data-dimension="S0">named republicanism which is not Marxism / named Liberalism -> Alexander Hamilton & Thomas Jefferson are examples
</li><li value="92" data-dimension="Z" class="field_mdem">[[Ontology:Q92|meta-Marxism]]

</li><li class="field_ML" value="93" data-dimension="S0">argument for general-sense historical materialism -> argument for the presence of semi-predictable cause and effect in history, for time itself as a physical process made of repeated physical patterns, and for basic kinds of predictable patterns within populations and societies. basic kinds of arguments which do not bring up class subpopulations but can serve as a foundation for these kinds of analyses / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])
</li><li class="field_geo" value="94" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q94|claim X is a case of Y]] / claim something is a case of something else
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="95" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q95|claim X is an instance of Y ideology]] / claim something is an instance of an ideology / claim something is a case of an ideology
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="96" data-dimension="Z0">reactions journal / reactions file / reactions blog / media thoughts journal -> a file or physical page, or series of microblog posts, etc. where you write down your impressions of something either in terms of emotion or some level of analysis of how or why the thing you're looking at is the way it is. apparently this is a big novel concept to some people that they have to learn at school? for me I learned it from people posting reactions to things on Twitter. and then I just started progressively finding deeper insights on things the more of them I did until I eventually turned into a low-tier Marxist theorist. now I've put up this wiki and begun to encourage people to put these things into thesis portals. don't let the grandiose name turn you away, you can make one for all your reactions to cartoons, or anything. a "thesis" on some serious philosophical theory is just what the very top fraction of thesis portals turn into.

</li><li value="97" class="field_internal" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q97|data Entity]] / Wikibase Entity
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="98" data-dimension="S0">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphilosophy meta-philosophy] (field)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="99" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q99|meta-ontology]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ontology meta-ontology]

</li><li class="field_geo" value="100" data-dimension="Z0">source -> work functioning as ontology example or ontology description for larger work or later work relative to earlier work; ontology graph taking the form of work
</li><li value="101" data-dimension="Z">printed source / text archived online
</li><li class="" value="102" data-dimension="Z">audiovisual source
</li><li class="" value="103" data-dimension="Z">interactive source
</li><li class="" value="104" data-dimension="Z">non-interactive recording of interactive source
</li><li class="" value="105" data-dimension="Z">commentary on interactive source
</li><li class="" value="106" data-dimension="Z">false interactive source -> Petscop, 3D workers' island, Homestuck
</li><li class="" value="107" data-dimension="Z">book / book which exists in print form -> book - conveyed through construction having parts - volume
</li><li class="" value="108" data-dimension="Z">book compilation
</li><li class="" value="109" data-dimension="Z">multi-volume book / multi-volume reference text
</li><li class="" value="110" data-dimension="Z">book in book compilation
</li><li class="" value="111" data-dimension="Z">course textbook / college textbook / grade school textbook
</li><li class="" value="112" data-dimension="Z">book chapter / article compiled in book
</li><li class="" value="113" data-dimension="Z">foreword, preface, or introduction
</li><li class="" value="114" data-dimension="Z">article / short story
</li><li class="" value="115" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in magazine or newspaper
</li><li class="" value="116" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in theoretical journal
</li><li class="" value="117" data-dimension="Z">article serialized on blog or substack
</li><li class="" value="118" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in online archive
</li><li class="" value="119" data-dimension="Z">article on miscellaneous personal homepage
</li><li class="" value="120" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in unknown printed source
</li><li class="" value="121" data-dimension="Z">article or chapter in book compilation
</li><li class="" value="122" data-dimension="Z">article, poem, or story compiled in anthology
</li><li class="" value="123" data-dimension="Z">transcribed speech
</li><li class="" value="124" data-dimension="Z">transcribed interview
</li><li class="" value="125" data-dimension="Z">court transcript
</li><li class="" value="126" data-dimension="Z">bop entry
</li><li class="" value="127" data-dimension="Z">bop scrap
</li><li class="" value="128" data-dimension="Z">bop revision entry
</li><li class="" value="129" data-dimension="Z">unfinished book chapter serialized as bop scrap
</li><li class="" value="130" data-dimension="Z">book chapter serialized as bop scrap
</li><li class="" value="131" data-dimension="Z">nameless publisher / independently published
</li><li class="" value="132" data-dimension="Z">general publishing entity
</li><li class="" value="133" data-dimension="Z">publishing organization / propaganda group
</li><li class="" value="134" data-dimension="Z">academic or theoretical journal
</li><li class="" value="135" data-dimension="Z">online book or article archive / not magazine or journal
</li><li class="" value="136" data-dimension="Z">master's thesis
</li><li class="" value="137" data-dimension="Z">non-serialized comic / graphic novel
</li><li class="" value="138" data-dimension="Z">serialized comic
</li><li class="" value="139" data-dimension="Z">multimedia serialized comic
</li><li class="" value="140" data-dimension="Z">animated series / anime / cartoon
</li><li class="number_done" value="141" data-dimension="Z">song with lyrics
</li><li class="" value="142" data-dimension="Z">poem
</li><li class="" value="143" data-dimension="Z">computer or console game
</li><li class="" value="144" data-dimension="Z">short story
</li><li class="" value="145" data-dimension="Z">novel
</li><li class="" value="146" data-dimension="Z">novel in multi-volume series
</li><li class="" value="147" data-dimension="Z">novel in multi-volume series adapted into comic / Scholastic graphic novel
</li><li class="" value="148" data-dimension="Z">online video
</li><li class="" value="149" data-dimension="Z">YouTube video
</li><li class="" value="150" data-dimension="Z">PeerTube video
</li><li class="field_geo" value="151" data-dimension="Z0">thing part of finite numbered series of things / thing part of collectors' index -> collectors' indices have serialized parts, similar to episodes or chapters; technically, a wikibase Item is an instance of this

</li><li class="" value="152" data-dimension="Z">citation in local Item / work described in Item -> source - conveyed through model having parts - local Item
</li><li class="" value="153" data-dimension="Z">citation in qualifiers / work described in qualifiers -> source - conveyed through model having parts - set of qualifiers
</li><li class="" value="154" data-dimension="Z">citation in external Item / citation in external wikibase / work described at external data item / work described in wikidata Item
</li><li class="" value="155" data-dimension="Z">citation in external wiki / work described or anchored in external wiki article
</li><li class="" value="156" data-dimension="Z">citation buried in other work / work unknown or unconfirmed but referenced in work -> source - conveyed through model having parts - citation
</li><li class="" value="157" data-dimension="Z">video described in qualifiers -> online video - conveyed through model having parts - work described in qualifiers
</li><li class="number_empty" value="158">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="159" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q159|numbered series of things]] / finite numbered collectors' index of things / spatial map of things where all the things have numbers -> equally applies to an index of TV show episodes, a list of wikidata Items, a list of Pokémon, and the periodic table of elements.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="160" data-dimension="Z0">text / written work (book; story; article; web page) / visual work (comic; animated series) / aural work (audiobook; podcast) -> I think the major thing that this entry excludes is compilations of things. like, a magazine with many articles is not a text, although it is a periodical issue and by other definitions a work.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="161" data-dimension="Z0">non-serialized part -> discrete part which may be released in an all-at-once or timeless manner
</li><li class="field_geo" value="162" data-dimension="Z0">serialized part -> numbered part which is syndicated or expected to release periodically
</li><li class="field_geo" value="163" data-dimension="Z0">volume -> physical printed book, or book-sized division. I'll say this doesn't refer to science periodical volumes unless they're physically collected into a self-contained book you can browse or something vaguely resembling one.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="164" data-dimension="Z0">part (book division)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="165" data-dimension="Z0">chapter (non-serialized part) -> in reference to novels.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="166" data-dimension="Z0">page (non-serialized part) -> in rare cases, a "page" can be a serialized part, like how Homestuck was calling its updates or pieces of updates pages. this is for non-serialized pages. a page inside a self-contained serialized comic volume is a non-serialized part.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="167" data-dimension="S">serialized video game chapter
</li><li class="field_geo" value="168" data-dimension="Z0">episode / chapter (serialized part) -> in reference to works that are entirely planned for serialization, like manga, or some prose stories submitted to magazines which were not treated as standard novels when published later. personally I'd take the bold stance that there's no serious difference between serialized chapters of printed things and episodes of voiced things. but, this Item will have both sense-labels to minimize confusion.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="169">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="170">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="171">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="172">??
</li><li value="173" data-remark="SCP" class="field_geo">unit for constructing works / unit for constructing texts / unit of work or series construction / serialization unit or unit of work construction -> note that this one is so general that "text" can be a unit for constructing texts, although "volume" or "episode" could also be.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="174" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q174|atom-like entity]] -> an atom-like entity is a mostly-indivisible unit which contains the capacity for particular patterns when combined with particular other atom-like entities. a chemical element is the prototypical example: two hydrogens and one oxygen form water. but one hypothesis I am trying to investigate is the possibility that individuals of particular ideologies are atom-like entities, and when put together in various "compounds" they form specific ideologies. I feel like there is some remote possibility that one day there could just be a periodic table of ideologies that is as prosaic and numerical as the study of chemical elements and chemical compounds. an atom-like entity is not an entity that can be considered in total isolation from all others akin to a helium atom. I really don't like models like [[E:Q1980|Rothenberg's]] that imply that, because not even chemistry works that way. chemistry may be reductionist, but the predictable emergences from the elements are the whole study of chemistry.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="175" data-dimension="S">??
{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=176}}abstract Ideal / abstract ideal (standard English capitalization outside philosophy)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="177" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="178" data-dimension="Z0">wiki page -> non-serialized part; text not in the form of volume.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="179" data-dimension="Z0">wiki category / MediaWiki category -> non-serialized part which clusters wiki pages

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="180" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q180|analyzing a text for motifs]] -> there are different connotations to this. Freudians do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of psychohistory. schizoanalysts do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of finding Freedom. Marxists do this because they think many motifs come from the rules of populations and material-history.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="181" data-dimension="Z0">solid phase
</li><li class="field_geo" value="182" data-dimension="Z0">liquid phase
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="183" data-dimension="Z0">gas phase -> may be shown as either STM swatch or ES swatch, due to how I like to use "behaving like a room of helium atoms" as a metaphor for Existentialism.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="184" data-dimension="Z0">plasma phase -> a form of matter where atoms do not remain neutrally-charged and can create electric arcs passing on electrons from atom to atom.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="185" data-dimension="Z0">quark-gluon plasma -> exotic phase which usually doesn't exist under the current conditions of the universe, which push these particles to stick together.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="186" data-dimension="Z0">supersolid / Bose-Einstein Condensate
</li><li class="field_geo" value="187" data-dimension="Z0">phase change
</li><li class="field_geo" value="188" data-dimension="Z0">phase of matter / non-classical state of matter -> practically, phases of matter are just a continuous way of describing states of matter. they can capture the edge cases like hot ice, liquid crystal, etc.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="189" data-dimension="Z0">state of matter / classical state or phase of matter

</li><li class="field_geo" value="190" data-dimension="S0">software package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="191" data-dimension="S0">UNIX-style package / UNIX-style program
</li><li class="field_geo" value="192" data-dimension="S0">Free Software package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="193" data-dimension="S0">nonfree software package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="194" data-dimension="S0">Debian package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="195" data-dimension="S0">Arch package
</li><li value="196" data-remark="Tux" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">Linux package / Linux program
</li><li class="field_geo" value="197" data-dimension="S0">Lisp module / asdf system / .asd system
</li><li class="field_geo" value="198" data-dimension="S0">emacs package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="199" data-dimension="S0">MediaWiki extension

</li><li class="field_geo" value="200" data-dimension="S0">phase diagram (chemistry)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="signifier" value="201" data-dimension="Z">reading list / unique reading list / unique list of thematically-related works -> "unique reading list" sounds beyond weird as natural language, but it sounds perfectly logical to me after thinking in the language of linked concepts
</li><li class="field_geo" value="202" data-dimension="Z">chemistry
</li><li class="field_geo" value="203" data-dimension="Z">organic chemistry
</li><li class="field_geo" value="204" data-dimension="Z0">chemical substance
</li><li class="field_geo" value="205" data-dimension="Z0">chemical element
</li><li class="field_geo" value="206" data-dimension="Z0">chemical compound
</li><li class="number_empty" value="207">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="208" data-dimension="S0">quantum number
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="209" data-dimension="S0">metaphysical slider / hot-cold slider (alchemy) / wet-dry slider (alchemy) / virtue (purported middle of purported slider) / vice (purported end of purported slider) -> a metaphysical slider is a quality presented as having a middle and two extremes.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="210" data-dimension="S">four elements (alchemy) -> these oddly mirror the four states of matter, especially if you count fire as a partial plasma. it's like, a long time ago people thought chemical substances were made out of hot, cold, wet, and dry, and the next level up was solid, liquid, gas, and bright burning things (fire, lightning, plasma). then Newton arrived and we renamed those the states of matter. then science kept going and we realized phases of matter were more complicated than we thought they were and there were a lot of in-between phases like hot ice, supercritical liquid, and so forth, although the four "major" phases of matter were still the most common and important within the bounds of either Earth or the sun.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="211" data-dimension="Z0">emergence / ergodicity (sic - movement of free-floating entities toward particular patterns which may become consistent structures; <cite>MDem</cite> 4.3) -> the real-world phenomenon or non-fictional motif of smaller objects functioning against each other to produce larger objects or processes.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="212" data-dimension="S0">alchemy / hermeticism / Historical study of chemical qualities and quality-based cosmology -> "Alchemy, the great secret"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="213" data-dimension="S0">alchemical symbol / alchemical motif
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="214" data-dimension="S0">European alchemy / alchemical concepts in Christianity
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="215" data-dimension="S0">Buddhist alchemy / alchemical concepts in Buddhism
</li><li class="field_geo" value="216" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q216|consistent repetition or replicability]] -> component of predictability, used to define "repeating process" and events that are easy to empirically verify
</li><li class="field_ML" value="217" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q217|Marxist text]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="218" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q218|defined reality]] -> a specific collection of material objects united by physics, which may be a whole reality or part of a reality. similar definition to a "system", but intertwined with the concepts of relativity theories
</li><li class="field_geo field_horror element_empty" data-remark="fix css & remove field_horror later" value="219" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q219|no real-world defined reality]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="220" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q220|hypothetical object]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="221" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q221|hypothetical interaction]] / hypothetical process
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="222" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q222|hypothetical series of events]]

</li><li value="223" data-remark="prime" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">prime number
</li><li class="number_empty" value="224">??

</li><li value="225" class="field_internal" data-dimension="Z0">nickel link / ([[User:RD/9k/Q225|9k]])
</li></ol>

=== 226 - 900 ===

<ol start="226" class="hue clean">
<li class="field_fantasy" value="226" data-dimension="S0">fictional reality / fictional universe / fictional cosmos
</li><li value="227" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S0">fictional object / non-unique fictional object
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="228" data-dimension="S0">unique fictional object -> do not make Items for every single kind of fictional object, just also tag it as the real thing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="229" data-dimension="S0">fictional process / non-unique fictional process / fictional physics process
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="230" data-dimension="S0">unique fictional event / unique fictional process
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="231" data-dimension="S0">fictional historical event / canonical event / confirmed theory
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="232" data-dimension="S0">unconfirmed fictional process / unconfirmed fan theory
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="233" data-dimension="S0">unconfirmed fictional event / unconfirmed fan theory
</li><li class="number_empty" value="234">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="235">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="236">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="237" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q237|fictional population]]

</li><li class="number_empty" value="238">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="239">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="240" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q240|earth as relative to fictional world]] -> wasn't totally sure whether this should be an S Item or a Z Item. mostly, it is quite literally just the real world with all its real-world characteristics, only looked at from the angle of a fictional universe. it's a very literal thing. it's technically used as a motif because everything in a work is a signifier, but... everything in a work is referenced through a signifier. I think this is a Z Item.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="241" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q241|audience as relative to fictional world]]

</li><li class="number_empty" value="242">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="243">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="244">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="245">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="246">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="247">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="248">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="249">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="250">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="251">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="252">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="253">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="254">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="255">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="256">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="257">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="258">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="259">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="260">source with particular rarity / source at some particular level of abundance
</li><li class="field_geo" value="261">source found at library
</li><li class="field_geo" value="262">source found at distant library -> sub-case of: source found at library
</li><li class="field_geo" value="263">[[E:LocalUsedBook|source found at used book sale]] / used book found locally (comic, video, etc)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="264">source found at free bookshelf -> sub-case of: source found at used book sale
</li><li class="field_geo" value="265">source found used online
</li><li class="field_geo" value="266">source found new locally
</li><li class="field_geo" value="267">source found new online -> this is for physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="268">source found new as eBook / source found new as digital audiobook -> this is for non-physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="269">source reprinted online -> this is for texts that are free online, in any format

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=270|Q2=270}}exclusively-existing republic / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q270|9k]])
{{li|I=S0/DX|Q=271|Q2=271}}exclusively strawberry republic / dictatorship of the whatever / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q270|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=272|Q2=272}}exclusively Stalinist republic / dictatorship of the Stalinists / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q270|9k]])
{{li|I=S0/ML|Q=273|Q2=273}}exclusively proletarian civilization / dictatorship of the proletariat / workers' state (existing exclusively) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q270|9k]])
{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=274|Q2=274}}exclusively Trotskyist republic / dictatorship of the Trotskyists / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q270|9k]]) 
town full of Trotskyists + ?? = dictatorship of the Trotskyists.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="275" data-dimension="S">??
{{li|I=Z0/LR|Q=276|Q2=276}}exclusively bourgeois republic / dictatorship of the bourgeoisie / Liberal-republicanism (existing exclusively) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q270|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="277">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="278">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="279">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="280" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q280|statement with no possible backing claims]]

{{li|I=S2/EC|Q=281}}Falsity diverges from reality / correspondence theory of truth (proposition; generic) / diverges from reality (truth value) -> this proposition basically exists so "Truth corresponds to reality" can be used unambiguously as a truth value, as well as it
</li><li class="number_empty" value="282">??
{{li|I=S2/EC|Q=283}}Truth corresponds to reality / A true statement accurately describes some state of affairs in an objective inanimate reality independent of individual minds; this is to imply but not state that a population of animate people is inanimate rather than animate / The truth is what the facts are (Aron Ra) / correspondence theory of truth (proposition) / corresponds to reality (truth value)

</li><li class="field_ML" value="284" data-dimension="S2">Seek truth from facts [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Term:實事求是] / Practice is the only criterion for testing the truth / Theory cannot decide what is accurate to reality (what is true; objectively true) -> I feel like this proposition is already recorded either in the numbering or <cite>MDem</cite> drafts. I don't think it's a unique proposition.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="285">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="286">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="287">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="288" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q288|misinformation or disinformation]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="289">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="290" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q290|'pataphysics]] / ([[Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q290|9k]])
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="291" data-dimension="S">deontology / ethical theory where truth values of whether something is good or bad are derived based on the prior existence of particular things which are determined to be "inherently good" — divine decree, natural law, good intentions, etc. / threshold deontology (application) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology] -> I thought deontology sounded bad the first time I heard about it but on closer examination I think I've been using it to create joke thought experiments involving tossing workers' states into traditional ethical problems. looking at that, I think I've always thought it was a little hokey but it takes a long time to actually explain why. I think it's that problem of ethical epicycles where on various things people will go through a chain of reasoning and then suddenly derail it because it didn't fit some external principle that doesn't match the rest of their theory at all. I wish people would be honest and just say the thing they interrupted the first theory with is their real theory. even if it's a theory that's really dumb on the surface like 'things that are prejudiced are inherently bad' (deontology {{i|a la}} Habermas), like, we get further if you admit that that's your primary theory and then we can get into exactly where it came from.

</li><li value="292" class="number_empty" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q292|relativistic gap]] -> gap between physical objects made of something bigger than quarks. when there are no fundamental interactions such as photons crossing the gap between objects, there is no serious causality going on between objects. great separation between objects in terms of how easy it is for them to interact is relativistic separation: two planets several light-years apart have a difficulty in interacting with each other measured by the fact interactions through physical signals take years. in this, there is a certain inherent connection between relativity and quantum physics. relativity talks about gaps that photons travel across. quantum mechanics talks about gaps photons travel across. this means something for gravity, but nobody knows what that statement actually will be.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="293">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="294">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="295">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="296">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="297">??
</li><li value="298" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q298|transfer of packet between objects]] / transfer of free-floating packet from one free-floating object to another
</li><li value="299" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q299|physical interaction]] -> critical concept for relativity, and Heidegger's book, because it is arguably the sheer definition of physics existing
</li><li value="300" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">particle physics
</li><li value="301" class="field_geo">fundamental particle / fundamental force quantum / fundamental force packet
</li><li value="302" class="field_geo">fundamental particle interaction / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram Feynman diagram reaction]
</li><li value="303" class="field_geo">hadron / composite subatomic particle -> nucleons, mesons
</li><li value="304" class="field_geo">interaction that assembles composite particles / force that holds composite particle together -> strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism; may be totally synonymous with "fundamental force" except that we don't know what interactions gravity is composed of
</li><li value="305" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">fundamental force -> strong interaction, weak, electromagnetism, gravity
</li><li value="306" class="field_geo">quantum (amount) / quanta
</li><li value="307" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="308" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">quantized gravity (hypothetical theory) / quantum gravity model / theory of quantum gravity
</li><li value="309" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">paraparticle -> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KdYYEMclYk]

</li><li value="310" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">boson physics
</li><li value="311" class="field_geo">boson
</li><li value="312" class="field_geo">boson field
</li><li value="313" class="field_geo">double-slit experiment
</li><li value="314" class="field_geo">gauge boson
</li><li value="315" class="field_geo">scalar boson
</li><li value="316" class="field_geo">higgs boson

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="317" data-dimension="S">dialectical reversal / quantity into quality process (process of many small changes adding up to a big change; dialectical materialism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism) -> the motif of the physical composition of a particular historical-period object changing over time and at a particular point going through a stark breaking process similar to a chemical reaction resulting in some kind of notable social change, particularly a change in the position of what Marxism would already identify as a class. this is not the same thing as "revolution", which would be the biggest possible dialectical reversal. this motif can refer to smaller events which obey a pattern of particular Bauplan elements that connect particular repeated ways all changing in similar ways at the same time that have clearly added up to a substantial, important event based on the internal "chemistry" of the movement firing off again and again yet which overall have added up to a relatively small event. 
dialectical reversals are a genuinely tricky concept, and yet they're still core to what Marxism is. although we've seen them happen many times in history they only happen rarely. it's easy to call them wrong and say something isn't a dialectical reversal that is, and turn against a beneficial movement. it's easy to call them wrong and say something is a dialectical reversal that isn't, and start spinning a backward-facing change as progress or at least as higher priority to defend the country than other forward-facing changes. sometimes people will correctly call a given dialectical process as high priority while it stands in contradiction to the rights of a minority demographic, such as the Soviet Union downplaying gay or trans movements over national unity, and people will get very mad. when I see people getting mad like this I know they've failed to understand some of the actual methods of Marxism and current-day problems for fixing Marxism. I hate to say that, but there really are Western-Marxists and psychoanalysts that misunderstand Marxism just badly enough they take the wrong side on real historical questions that have happened. you can't do that. Third-World countries can't afford to act like morality substitutes for a theory of history or they "understand" questions just because they have the answer at the back of the book. 
I think the crux of all this is that dialectical materialism has not been clarified and explained to people adequately and it's just too muddy and imprecise to describe a lot of real-world situations, while if it included concepts such as separating and joining unique country identities and trade between unique countries factoring into dialectical processes and the relationships between individuals and laws and populations and diplomacy where everything is a bunch of unique rippable tearable objects and the object borders and physical biological organisms matter, the same dialectical materialism would become useful again. like, if you could describe the dialectical reversal that would allow Trotskyism to tear out of the Soviet Union and transition into a workers' state without striving to hurt its "older brother", it wouldn't be hard to get to the level where you could describe LGBT movements and the transition out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and everything else. the hang-up is just things like individual living peasants and living Trotskyist theorists and populational borders and self-determination, and the confused arguments people get into about "democracy!!" when they're actually talking about material borders and arrangements and identity distinctions and countable Cultures and they don't know they are. 
meta-Marxism explicitly recognizes the possibility of dialectical reversals. it doesn't try to dance around Marxism "being about culture and ideology now" or anything of the sort. equally, it looks down on people trying to say that every single crisis is about to lead to a dialectical reversal. if you have no actual predictive power of whether it will or not you aren't doing meta-Marxism, and you also arguably aren't succeeding at Marxism.

</li><li value="318" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="319" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">graviton (hypothetical particle)

</li><li value="320" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">fermion physics
</li><li value="321" class="field_geo">fermion
</li><li value="322" class="field_geo">fermion field
</li><li value="323" class="field_geo">exclusion principle
</li><li value="324" class="field_geo">quark -> color charge
</li><li value="325" class="field_geo">lepton -> no color charge
</li><li value="326" class="field_geo">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="EC" value="327" data-dimension="S">Epicurean materialism -> recorded partly so "EC" can be the ideology code for all Materialist philosophy that approaches [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)|Hyper-Materialism]] and doesn't try to treat ideas as actually being some kind of fundamental physical immaterial object or something

</li><li value="328" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="329" class="field_geo">??

</li><li value="330" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">dark matter problem
</li><li value="331" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">supersymmetry / SuSy -> unsubstantiated; doesn't have a lot of evidence as of yet
</li><li value="332" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">neutralino -> unsubstantiated; a supersymmetry solution
</li><li value="333" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) / WIMP (hypothetical particle) -> looks unsubstantiated, but not totally falsified
</li><li value="334" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">axion (hypothetical particle) -> currently being researched
</li><li value="335" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Matter-antimatter annihilation converts dark matter to matter
</li><li value="336" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Dark matter particles interact with visible matter through Higgs bosons / Higgs portal hypothesis
</li><li value="337" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">technicolor Higgs model
</li><li value="338" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Gravity interactions are just one big coincidence / postquantum gravity -> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfzosycRoe4]
</li><li value="339" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">dark matter / unknown solution to dark matter problem -> [https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/s119]

</li><li value="340" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">quantum field
</li><li value="341" class="field_geo">photon field
</li><li value="342" class="field_geo">gluon field / strong field / quantum chromodynamics field
</li><li value="343" class="field_geo">W & Z boson field / weak field / flavor swap field / stellar fusion field
</li><li value="344" class="field_geo">Higgs field -> scalar field not transformed by relativity
</li><li value="345" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="346" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="347" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="348" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="349" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">theta field / axion field

</li><li value="350" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">physical field
</li><li value="351" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">scalar field
</li><li value="352" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">vector field
</li><li value="353" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">spinor field
</li><li value="354" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">tensor field
</li><li value="355" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">classical field
</li><li value="356" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">electric field -> vector field
</li><li value="357" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">magnetic field -> vector field
</li><li value="358" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">gravitational field (classical physics) / gravity field (classical physics)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="359" data-dimension="S0">radian (unit)
</li><li value="360" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">degree (unit)
</li><li value="361" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q361|No individual object moves faster than a photon]] / No object moves faster than [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson gauge bosons] / Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum
</li><li value="362" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li value="363" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="364" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="365" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="366" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="367" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="368" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="369" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="370" data-dimension="S0">linear algebra
</li><li class="field_geo" value="371" data-dimension="S0">matrix
</li><li class="field_geo" value="372" data-dimension="S">linear combination
</li><li class="field_geo" value="373" data-dimension="S">determinant
</li><li class="field_geo" value="374" data-dimension="S2">An identity matrix has a determinant of 1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="375" data-dimension="S2">A matrix with identical columns has a determinant of 0 / When a matrix has identical columns the determinant is 0 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant] -> I think this provides some kind of clue as to what "[[Ontology:Q5,38|star]]" is. I don't entirely know what a determinant is or why it has to make columns cancel each other out but I do know it's important.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="376" data-dimension="S2">A determinant of a linear combination is a linear combination [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant]
</li><li value="377" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li value="378" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li value="379" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li value="380" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="381" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="382" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="383" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="384" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="385" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="386" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="387" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="388" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="389" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="390" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="391" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="392" data-dimension="S2">Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism -> sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics may not actually understand real-world science, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="392" data-dimension="S2">The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature ... all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm]

</li><li value="393" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="394" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="395" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="396" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="397" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="398" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="399" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="400" data-dimension="S">reductionism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="401" data-dimension="S">{{TTS|tts=up-reductionism|upreductionism}} or ana-reductionism / retermination ([[Term:reterminism|relativistic determination or determinism]]; framed as a new kind of reductionism) / emergence (the subset of emergence which is relatively predictable and involves one scale of things producing a larger scale of things) -> science communicators and anti-science people need to understand the distinction between splitting atoms to find the quarks and attempting to predict atoms from quarks, and realize that the latter is still sometimes possible even if it's a lot harder. let's think about weather models: a lot of big objects like cold fronts and warm fronts interact to produce a weather outcome. when the weather report is correct you've managed to do up-reductionism. 
it's taking all of me to not flip the swatch color to <code>STM</code> from <code>MX</code> and say this is already science. no, I need a science article. a credible science hypothesis in an article will do as far as marking this a motif; you'd need more to mark it Z0 but that would prove it's being discussed in science and not just in philosophy.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="402" data-dimension="S">constructor theory -> a weird and interesting scientific hypothesis that, the more I think about it, the more I doubt could possibly be true. I think humanity has more chance of cracking a model of up-reductionism / [[Term:reterminism|retermination]] than this being a theory that makes sense.

</li><li value="403" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z0">cube dimensionality -> the kind of "dimensions" that most people usually think of as dimensions: the real number line extended into a plane, and into a cube, or into a tesseract, with all the infinitesimals in between each corner of the solid. 
cube dimensionality exists on three known axes in real life, so... Z0. there are three of them, you at least know what a fourth one would look like in fiction even if it is not confirmed to physically exist.

</li><li value="404" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">non-spatial dimension -> easy to comprehend with treed dimensionality where a dimension isn't a whole plane of real numbers. more confusing as the dimension-on-paper gets continuous. I mean, just try imagining a non-spatial dimension that's not time. it took me years and years to ever think of one.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="405" data-dimension="S2">There is a probability dimension below time / We live in {{TTS|tts=three-plus-one-plus-one-dimensional|3+1+1D}} space with a dimension of probability and a dimension of history / We live in 5D space with a dimension of probability below time -> somebody has to have discovered this hypothesis before me. I cannot be the first one. it's too simple, it's too obvious. it's almost too obvious to be correct?? attacking this thing is where the real fun begins, I suppose. 
thought 1: did I rediscover hilbert spaces? I don't think so but I do not even know.

</li><li value="406" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="407" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="408" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Spacetime can be broken down into a probabilistic process / To find quantum gravity, create a probabilistic version of general relativity [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v-d7CDvcok] -> a tall claim, but one I think is plausible. quantum mechanics is inherently similar to relativity thanks to things like wave functions and fundamental interactions. this all begins at a contradiction of whether and when we can assume that things happen or measure each other independent of our observations (hidden variable theories)
</li><li value="409" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q409|Quantum mechanics is secretly a science of ordinary stochastic processes]] / Quantum systems can be modeled as non-Markovian stochastic processes -> Jacob Barandes; I don't understand the mathematics but it already makes so much sense. technically a hidden-variable theory, but claimed to be much simpler and bring in a smaller area of non-classical behavior [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWip00iXbo] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshJyD0aWXg]

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="410" data-dimension="S">time travel
</li><li class="field_geo" value="411" data-dimension="S">world line / correlation shown on Penrose diagram
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="412" data-dimension="S">predetermined future -> this concept is so general it could apply to real-life historical theology debates, but I'm coding it as a fictional trope for science fiction reasons.
</li><li value="413" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">time paradox
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="414" data-dimension="S">original timeline
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="415" data-dimension="S">desirable future
</li><li class="field_horror" value="416" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q416|undesirable future]]
</li><li value="417" class="field_horror element_empty" data-remark="W.D. Gaster and the three save file superposition" data-dimension="S0">future as mathematical superposition

</li><li class="field_geo" value="418" data-dimension="S">treed dimensionality -> the mathematical definition of "dimensions" as how many levels deep you are in a choice tree, or how many columns deep you are in a table. this is not the only definition of "dimensions" nor the most common one. it's generally preferred to define "dimensions" as things that can create whole fields of numbers like a whole real number line that can be expanded out into a plane and a cube of coordinates. I have no issue with that, of course. but, this is the kind of dimensionality that "Item dimension" or "Item dimensionality" refers to in the context of all these numbered Items. the simple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(abstract_data_type)#Terminology depth] of a rooted tree that we are referring to as dimensionality. 
the first place I saw treed dimensionality was either in statistics — "n-dimensional analysis" — or in reference to quantum numbers, where once again you have multiple degrees of freedom where things can slide along axes, and it seems possible though not certain that some people are literally confusing them with cube dimensionality and turning them into spatial dimensions.

</li><li value="419" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">The Hat Man
</li><li value="420" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">Was this made on drugs?? / How could anybody have made this sober / I want what they were smoking
</li><li value="421" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">Actual drug trip artwork / Ambien post
</li><li class="field_horror" data-remark="equally horror or STM" value="422" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Flatland</cite> (1884) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland] -> I watched the animated movie recently. I have to say, when the commenters labeled it cosmic horror, that's perfectly fair. my first thought is that it was a "look how advanced the aliens are" plot, especially when the Spacelanders want to wipe out the Flatlanders. I think this is exactly the right number range for it.

</li><li value="423" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="424" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="425" data-dimension="S">theory of spacetime with more than 3+1 dimensions
</li><li class="field_geo" value="426" data-dimension="S">Kaluza-Klein theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory] -> a model that proposes a 5th spatial dimension to explain gravity. the 5th dimension is a tiny cylinder with a radius only 23 times the Planck length. a proton is on the order of 1×1019 Planck lengths. 
some people try to use this to argue many-worlds, when, do you really need many-worlds if you have more dimensions? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ2vlFNarjU]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="427" data-dimension="S0">reference frame (relativity) -> mostly mentioned in special relativity. but I did have a weird thought of, what if there were reference frames in general relativity, and you basically just squash them really small? they may or may not be infinitely small. the assumption they actually are infinitely small might be leading us to singularities while they are actually a little bigger than "infinitely".
</li><li class="field_geo" value="428" data-dimension="S2">Entanglement is four-dimensional [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvqXshyuvOg] -> okay, but the entanglement of what? 
let's take quarks. quarks actually exchange something between them, distributing a particular quantity or directionality around so it sums to zero. that's fairly easy to understand in three dimensions, if you take an oversimplified analogy of a ring of three things bending one direction and bending the other direction to not tip over. this object would be conserving downward forces. quarks, for some reason, are always sending strong interactions to each other, and "giving them back" somewhere else because it's far easier to do that than break a color-confined object apart. it's a little like part of water moving and pulling the rest of the water along with it. that is already a whole object. we can already see the whole object, at least in the form of a proton. where are you putting the color charge? 
this is the kind of thing that made me weirdly suspect string theory was confusing treed dimensionality in the form of quantum numbers adding variables with real spatial dimensions that exist near the Planck length

</li><li value="429" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="430" class="field_trotsky" data-remark="Unzicker" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q430|fringe science]] / pseudoscience
</li><li value="431" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q431|fringe history]] / pseudohistory -> I don't even know what swatch to use for this.
</li><li value="432" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="433" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="434" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">[[E:TimeCube|time cube theory]]
</li><li value="435" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="436" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="437" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="438" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="439" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q439|galactic bible]] -> the motif of a pseudohistory detailing large events between multiple civilizations, where it may be that not a single one of the civilizations or events is verifiable. Atlanteans vs snake people, Mormon bible almost equally fall under this motif.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="440" data-dimension="S">zero game [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_game] -> a game which essentially is over. neither player has a legal move, and the board may as well be empty.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="441" data-dimension="Z">player score point -> a player-specific score tracker in a board game or similar.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="442" data-dimension="Z">team score point
</li><li class="field_geo" value="443" data-dimension="S">move in N direction / move in negative direction (game theory) -> these are the more technical definitions of scoreboard points. you can choose to define scoreboards or game spaces in terms of positive and negative numbers, although it results in the strange artifact of star numbers that act oddly like a new version of zero you can multiply. all of this rests on the assumption of a zero-sum game, akin to tic tac toe or checkers.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="444" data-dimension="S">move in P direction / move in positive direction (game theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="445" data-dimension="S">space in neutral direction / playable game space in direction which is neither player N nor player P -> while moves in a zero-sum game must go a particular direction, game spaces don't have to. this is part of the definition of "star", although I still don't understand what the full definition is.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="446">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="447">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="448">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="449" dimension="Z0">game rules manual / card game rules sheet / board game rules sheet / ([[User:RD/9k/Q450|9k]]) -> to be used for reference statements, or entries preserving official rules sheet links
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=450|Q2=450}}board game piece / ([[User:RD/9k/Q450|9k]])
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="451">playing card / unspecified game card
</li><li value="452" class="field_fantasy">playing card deck -> has three uses. explaining card game mechanics; references; explaining Deltarune / Homestuck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="453">trump deck / poker deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="454">pinochle deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="455">tarot deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="456">mahjong set / mahjong deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="457">creature deck / medieval kingdom deck / Arcmage-style deck / Magic-style deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="458">named trading-card-game deck / named deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="459">trading-card-game set
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="460">chess piece
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="461">pawn (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="462">knight (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="463">bishop (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="464">rook (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="465">queen (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="466">king (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="467">promoted pawn (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="468">checker (board game piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="469">8 by 8 checkerboard / checker board / chess board -> they are not strictly the same, as apparently one is smaller, but they sure are awfully similar

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="470">draw deck -> board field, either central or player-specific
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="471">card suit -> the concept of something that goes in a card suit
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="472">object-based card suit / playing card suit / season-based card suit / plant or animal card suit
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="473">elemental card suit / card color
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="474">numbered card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="475">face card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="476">resource card / Resident card (Aurora) / mana card / land card / energy card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="477">character card which may act as figurehead / character card / creature card / monster card / Theorist card (Aurora)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="478">event card / Action card (Aurora) / instant event card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="479">continuing event card / Condition card (Aurora) / enchantment card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="480">card area / board field -> in general
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="481">main draw deck / deck / central draw deck / market deck (Tea Dragon Society) -> board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="482">player draw deck / deck / library / character deck -> board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="483">hand / player hand / hand cards / hold (Tea Dragon Society) -> board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="484">character area / creature area / Army (Arcmage) / Member Zone (Aurora) -> implied to be player-specific but not stated to be
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="485">condition area / permanents area / Condition Zone (Aurora) / terrain area / supporter area -> could be plural
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="486">figurehead area / commander area / Guide Space (Aurora) / main character area
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="487" data-dimension="Z">removed from the game / exile zone -> board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="488" data-dimension="Z">prize card area -> central or player, either can exist
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="489" data-dimension="Z">discard pile / graveyard / GY / Devastation Zone (Aurora) -> implied to be player-specific
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="490">in-play card area -> superset of: character area, etc
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="491" data-dimension="Z0">stack of connected cards -> solitaire, Member Zone masses/groups (Aurora)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="492" data-dimension="Z0">modifiable card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="493" data-dimension="Z0">modifier card / equipment card / enchantment card / power-up card / card eaten by character card -> refers to visually representing cards more than to effects
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="494" data-dimension="Z0">face-up card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="495" data-dimension="Z0">face-down card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="496" data-dimension="Z0">generated card / token card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="497">modifying token / modifying counter / damage counter / power-up counter / status effect counter
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="498" data-dimension="Z0">free-floating token / board game token -> miscellaneous token placed on some space on table for status purposes
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="499" data-dimension="Z0">transient card / effect card which does not enter play

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="500">card field / card stat / card metric / card attribute -> superset of: object suit, suit color, number
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="501">card category / card kind -> Condition, Action, etc. should usually be represented through "instance of" property, this is just to define what a category technically is
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="502">card suit / card element / card color
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="503">card name / card title
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="504">card cost
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="505">card worth / point value / victory points
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="506">card power / offensive power
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="507">card endurance / defensive power / stamina / hit points if same as defensive strength
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="508">card resource value / energy value / mana value / growth value (Tea Dragon Society)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="509">card rules / card basic effects
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="510">card flavor text -> the concept of flavor text. put especially memorable flavor text in "relevant quote"
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="511">card with in-play effect / effect permanent / enchantment creature -> could also be a "modifier card", but in some games may take effect in hand / graveyard / etc. a card which has an effect when in something a particular game considers an in-play area
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="512">card with draw effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="513">card with discard effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="514">card with in-hand effect -> Tea Dragon Society is the only game I can think of that does this, off the top of my head
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="515">card with in-discard-pile effect / card with in-graveyard effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="516">card with in-draw-deck effect -> never heard of this one but maybe it exists, who knows
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="517">card with in-deck effect / card with different rules in particular decks / card affected by figurehead card / card affected by main-character card / card affected by commander card / inherently tutorable card / fusion mechanic card / synchro card / pendulum card / card that complements other cards inherently
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="518">single-use game piece / single-use card / card which is discarded after effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="519">card with unique rules -> superset of: card with draw effect, etc.; card which is not neatly described by set theory statements

</li><li value="520" class="field_fantasy" data-remark="DXX in decimal; D + 20" data-dimension="Z">[[E:twenty-sided die|twenty-sided die]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="521" data-dimension="Z0">face-up card area / card area with cards face-up
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="522" data-dimension="Z0">face-down card area / card area with cards face-down
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="523" data-dimension="Z0">faced-away card area / card area with cards face-up toward one player / face-up card area specific to one player / hidden face-up card area -> this is for coding player hands.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="524" data-dimension="Z0">card area with cards laid out horizontally / card area with cards separated
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="525" data-dimension="Z0">card area with cards laid out vertically -> superset of/instance of/consists of?: bound stack of cards
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="526" data-dimension="Z0">bound stack of cards / stack of cards which is deck-shaped -> as opposed to informal card stacks in solitaire, equipment-card stacks, etc.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="527">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="528">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="529" data-dimension="Z0">resource card area -> doesn't necessarily exist in game rules but likely to exist on svg images

</li><li value="530" class="field_geo">[[Ontology:Q530|truth value]] (top level category) / non-binary truth value
</li><li value="531" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">spring (card suit) -> technically exists in mahjongg as well as Tea Dragon Society
</li><li value="532" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">summer (card suit)
</li><li value="533" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">autumn (card suit)
</li><li value="534" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">winter (card suit)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="535" data-dimension="S">Hackenbush [https://math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2006/PAPERS/Bartlett.pdf]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="536" data-dimension="S">tic tac toe -> seems like a silly thing to be talking about until you realize how complicated combinatorial game theory makes simple things, and then you absolutely won't want to use a more complex game than this.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="537" data-dimension="S">super tic tac toe / tic tac toe with a tic tac toe board on each square -> this thing reminds me of Communist Internationals. there's definitely something to that. like, the small boards are the countries containing the class populations. the large boards are either the global class populations or the rival Internationals. I wonder what is the simplest board game you'd need to represent mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, making the unrealistic assumption they are both equally powerful.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="538" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q5,38|star]] (unreal number) / star (number-like object in game theory; number that is neither positive nor negative, cancels out itself, and yet can be multiplied) -> this thing is unbelievably interesting to me. it feels strangely like a non-numerical object thrown into the slot of a number. it's like the Missingno of numbers. 
let's see... GIGO / undefined behavior + Pokémon = glitch Pokémon. undefined behavior + numbers = abstract algebra. or something.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="539">[[Ontology:Q549|binary truth value]] -> sub-case of: non-binary truth value.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="540">[[Ontology:Q540|False]] / FALSE / F -> formal logic or boolean value
</li><li class="field_geo" value="541">[[Ontology:Q541|True]] / TRUE / T -> formal logic or boolean value
</li><li class="field_internal" value="542">communication rating level / work rating code
</li><li class="field_geo" value="543">[[Ontology:Q543|U / Unknown]] -> highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it
</li><li class="field_geo" value="544">[[Ontology:Q544|NG / Not Good]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="545">[[Ontology:Q545|G / Good]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="546">(communication rating level)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="547">(communication rating level)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="548">[[Ontology:Q548|N/A / Not Applicable]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="549">[[Ontology:Q549|E / Excepted]]

</li><li class="field_geo" value="550">[[Ontology:Q550|zero or more]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="551">[[Ontology:Q551|one or more]]
</li><li value="552" class="field_fantasy">exactly 52 / deck of 52 -> subset of: order of magnitude

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="553" data-dimension="S">produces value (truth value; consequentialism)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="554" data-dimension="S">promotes global socialist transition (truth value; meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="555" data-dimension="S">promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="556" data-dimension="S">destroys global socialism (truth value; meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_nations" value="557" data-dimension="S">destroys non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)
</li><li class="field_nations" value="558" data-dimension="S">does not produce value (truth value; consequentialism)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="559" data-dimension="S">operator for applying a model to analyze another model / operator for applying a conceptual ontology to analyze a physical-structure-blueprint ontology (philosophy, meta-philosophy) / operator for applying a philosophical framework to analyze a Bauplan (meta-Marxism) / ideology composition operator [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_composition#Composition_monoids] / monoid act for non-binary logic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoid] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semigroup_action] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q559|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="560" data-dimension="S0">ideology applied onto other / ideology applied onto other ideology / ideology-onto-ideology code / ([[User:RD/9k/Q559|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="561" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q561|MX onto A]] / meta-anarchism (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="562" data-dimension="S">MX onto W / meta-Gramscianism (generic) / post-Gramscianism (old, discarded term)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="563" data-dimension="S">MX onto ML / meta-Marxism (generic)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="564" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q564|IV onto LR]] / Trotskyism (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="565" data-dimension="S">MX onto ES / meta-Existentialism (generic) / post-Existentialism (old, discarded term)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="566" data-dimension="S">MX onto ??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="567" data-dimension="S">MX onto Fy / meta-Marxist literary analysis (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="568" data-dimension="S">MX onto PT / meta-Toryism (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="569" data-dimension="S">MX onto DG / meta-schizoanalysis (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="570" data-dimension="S">MX onto ??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="571" data-dimension="S">MX onto LR / meta-Liberalism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="572" data-dimension="S">MX onto MX / meta-Marxism onto meta-Marxism -> for when meta-Marxism does self-criticism and explodes its own models using new meta-Marxist models
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="573" data-dimension="S">MX onto ??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="574" data-dimension="S">MX onto IV / meta-Trotskyism / post-Trotskyism (old, discarded term)

</li><li class="field_nations" value="575" data-dimension="S">does not promote freedom (truth value)
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="576" data-dimension="S">promotes freedom (truth value)
</li><li value="577" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="578" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="579" data-dimension="S">unfitting action (truth value) / vicious individual action
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="580" data-dimension="S">fitting action (truth value) / virtuous individual action

</li><li value="581" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="582" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="583" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="584" data-dimension="S">ML onto ES
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="585" data-dimension="S">ES onto W / anticommunism (Existentialist-Structuralist tradition against Western Marxism; generic) -> there was a bunch of this in Rothenberg's book.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="586" data-dimension="S">non-prejudiced (truth value) / non-prejudiced statement -> center-Liberals' favorite truth value. 
non-prejudiced + ?? = promotes freedom (truth value).
</li><li class="field_nations" value="587" data-dimension="S">prejudiced (truth value) / prejudiced statement

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="588" data-dimension="S">ES onto PT / liberalization (generic)
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="589" data-dimension="S">A onto PT / anarchist anti-fascism (generic)
</li><li value="590" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="591" data-dimension="S">ES onto ML / anticommunism (generic)

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="592" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q592|proletarian (Bolshevism)]] -> case of: atom-like entity, meta-Marxist "shovel" object - ideology color: crimson. this is the Item for individuals within the general body of workers that exists in Bolshevism and which often is required to be accepted at open business territories. when the Refuse layer is abolished to turn people into a general body of workers and nobody is hurting to just find an income and pay for housing and at least a small basket of food (no, workers' states rebuilding from wartime destruction are not [[E:Bolshevism is slavery|"cages"]]) then this "proletariat" exists. this Item does not refer to workers in Liberal-republican capitalism. there may also be named Marxisms where this kind of worker technically doesn't exist yet. people should call out those Marxisms. 
number: "92" is usually used for defining meta-Marxism but it can be for "local" Marxism sometimes, I mean finding the correct Marxisms is what it's for in the first place.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="593" data-dimension="S">method for measuring the ideal size of a workers' state / method for measuring the minimum size of a workers' state / method for measuring the maximum size of a workers' state
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="594" data-dimension="S">total spatial area
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="595" data-dimension="S">total population
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="596" data-dimension="S">population times standard population density / population adjusted by standard population density -> if you use this measurement, you see that New York City is a big population constrained by resources, but Russia is also a big population constrained by logistics.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="597" data-dimension="S">data structure (mathematics) / data structure (programming; sense label)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="598" data-dimension="S">function (mathematics) / one-to-one mapping / one input vector to one output correlation -> so, multivariable functions are still one-to-one mappings. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_of_several_real_variables] the surface they generate still has one point per two unique input values, which makes them still computable and decidable in the same sense.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="599" data-dimension="S">many

</li><li class="number_empty" data-tradition="Fy" value="600" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="601" data-remark="DCI" class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-dimension="S">fictional incident, tragedy, or crime / un-true crime
</li><li class="number_empty" value="602">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="603" data-dimension="S">historically accurate (truth value) / historically accurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations
</li><li class="field_ML" value="604" data-dimension="S">historically inaccurate (truth value) / historically inaccurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q530|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="605">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="606">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="607">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="608" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q608|absence]] -> the lack of something that would otherwise be there, usually physically, sometimes within a logical framework
</li><li class="field_geo" value="609" data-dimension="S0">inanimate object / countable inanimate object
</li><li class="field_geo" value="610" data-dimension="S0">living thing / countable lifeform -> any of a number of kinds of living things, real or fictional, which is not an inanimate object but is countable
</li><li class="number_empty" value="611">??
</li><li value="612" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">dystopian alien nation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="613" data-dimension="S0">Beast (AllDir simulation) / Beast (mathematics) / Beast field atop natural resource field -> vector representation of an individual animal; see scrap [[Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.4r/6952 starclan|MDem 4.4/"starclan"]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="614" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="615" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="616" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="617" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q617|placeholder]] -> the concept of placeholders
</li><li class="field_internal" value="618" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q618|proposed Item]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="619" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="620">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="621">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="622">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="623">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="624">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="625">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="626">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="627">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="628">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="629">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="630">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="631">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="632">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="633">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="634">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="635">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="636">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="637">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="638">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="639">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="640" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q640|Pascal's wager]] / god grid (Christian philosophy)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="641" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q641|ethics problem involving Trotsky]] / ethics thought experiment involving Trotsky / Trotskyite variant of existing thought experiment / Trotsky problem (philosophical dilemma which centers around Trotskyite conspirators or early Trotskyism; meta-Marxism) -> there are bound to be some new ones that come up but the variants of old ones can also go on this entry
</li><li class="number_empty" value="642">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="643" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q643|ethics problem involving workers' states]]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="644" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q644|Trotsky's wager]] / Trotskyist god grid -> Pascal's wager except with early Trotskyism.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="645">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="646">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="647">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="648">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="649">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="650" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q650|trolley problem]] -> I swear the principle of these is violated by anticommunist memoirs. think about it. every anticommunist memoir sends the trolley over thousands of people to save one person.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="651">single victim (philosophy)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="652">trolley (philosophy)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="653">trolley sacrifice (philosophy) / fat person (fat man; philosophy)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="654">[[Ontology:Q654|Trotskyite trolley problem]] -> there are at least two possible "Trotsky problems". one is the [[E:Pascal's wager|god grid]] with Trotsky where he loses everything if Trotskyism is wrong. one is the Trotskyite trolley problem where there are 1,000 Trotskyites on one track and a million Soviet people on the other track. this entry refers to the "train tracks" Trotsky problem.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="655">five victims (philosophy)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="656">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="657">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="658" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q658|Communist trolley problem]] -> this is already a coherent concept but I just don't have a perfect idea of what it means. I think... a Communist trolley problem is simply a trolley problem where all the objects in the diagram are labeled as things that exist in workers' states.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="659">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="660" data-dimension="Z">morality or ethics / morality (method of distinguishing Right from Wrong; <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1-5.2) -> I at first wanted to put morality at number 333 but that was already filled up by quantum physics concepts. this will do
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="661" data-dimension="S">local morality -> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="662">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="663" data-dimension="S">class-based morality
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="664">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="665">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="The Opposer" value="666" data-dimension="S">moral wrong / Wrong (morality and ethics) / morally wrong (truth value)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="667" data-dimension="S">moral right / Right (morality and ethics) / morally right (truth value)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="668">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="669" data-dimension="Z">objective morality / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what are the best ways to construct morality)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="670">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="671">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="672">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="673">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="674">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="675">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="676">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="677">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="678">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="679">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="680">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="681">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="682" data-dimension="S">indestructible entity / entity which is nearly impossible to destroy because its existence is not limited to one physical object / entity which has permanently left an effect on history (applied sense) / You can kill [[E:Leon Trotsky|a man]] but you can't kill his ideas (Alan Woods)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="683">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="684">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="685">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="686">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="687">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="688">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="689">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="690">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="691" data-dimension="S">"I wish comrades existed" / wishing comrades or solidarity existed in real life (motif) / "the love of humanity" is usually not reciprocated (motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q691|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="692" data-dimension="S">comrade (mathematics) / mathematical description of which individuals or localized graphs remain part of a Lattice model / ([[User:RD/9k/Q691|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="693">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="694">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="695">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="696">??

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=697|Q2=697}}sublation / "The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence" (Marx) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q697]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="698">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="699">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="700" data-dimension="S">mathematical approximation / using simpler equation to model overall result of complex process / coarse-graining (physics) / Copenhagen interpretation (model that quantum mathematics is just an approximation of reality and it is not literally real but it accurately predicts whatever the underlying real processes are; quantum physics) [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/#CorrRule]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="701" data-dimension="S">assume a spherical cow -> the motif of mathematics problems, or perhaps general thought experiments, presenting a test case which makes perfect sense yet to any reasonable person looks unlike reality
</li><li class="field_geo" value="702" data-dimension="S">approximating with sine waves / using Fourier series to approximate functions with sine waves
</li><li class="field_geo" value="703" data-dimension="S">three-body problem (physics)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="704">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="705" data-dimension="S">approximating quintic functions with Fourier series -> this vaguely reminds me of approximating quantum processes. you look at the black hole image, and it's fuzzy, you look at an atom image and it's fuzzy, but the black hole accretion disk is actually just moving around faster than relativity can successfully transmit information about it. quantum field theory suggests something vaguely similar happens with fundamental particles, at the very least in maddening little antimatter interactions "teleporting" particles around, possibly at smaller scales where quantum fields jump up the threshold into particles. with a quintic function, it's just an everyday math problem, it's not a fancy real-world physical process. but at the same time it's simply becoming so complex it's hard to catch up with. a little like a pseudorandom number generator. and pseudorandom number generators are used to simulate the separation between real-world objects that have trouble predicting each other, like players rolling dice. fuzziness is an artifact of math problems getting too complicated to be worth calculating.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="706">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="707">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="708">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="709">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="710">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="711">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="712">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="713">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="714">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="715">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="716">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="717">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="718">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="719">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="720">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="721">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="722">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="723">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="724">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="725">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="726">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="727">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="728" data-dimension="S2">Some infinite series can be expressed as polynomials -> this is used to calculate the golden ratio as a sort of "infinite series unit"
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="729" data-dimension="S2">Decimal numbers are infinite sums / Decimal numbers are the middle area of precision between integers (the sum of one fully reducible fraction plus zero) and irrational numbers (an infinite sum of various smaller and smaller fractions adding up to an infinitely-precise number)

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="730" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Irrational numbers create non-Euclidean geometries / If gravity was shaped like a circle then pi would be the bridge from 3D space to gravity
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="731" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Curvature makes integers into infinities / Curvature is the transformation of integers into infinities -> sometimes I just stand around and think about pi. ever done that? pi is irrational. pi is the multiplier between rational and irrational quantities. technically any number of irrational numbers have that same purpose of being multipliers or conversion factors as well as numbers. why? why is pi actually in formulas instead of just some crazy number mathematicians made up while putting together Dedekind cuts and comparing sets of numbers? today I think I kind of figured it out, maybe. characteristics of pi: pi can be expressed as an infinite sum. because it's possible to express as a decimal, it can be taken as this quantity or multiplier that as you zoom in gets more and more precise and so it adds on another tiny measurement again and again. a circle is like a polygon with infinite sides. you can use an integral to approximate and calculate the perimeter of a circle. (although to be quite honest I don't know what the integral is off the top of my head. I have this wonderful intuition for math objects but I am terrible at actual equations unless they transcribe what I was already imagining.) okay. so when you set up some kind of integral to calculate the perimeter of the circle and spit out pi, "dx" is an infinitesimal-object or operator {{em|thing}} that is acting like an infinitely divisible number. dx is an infinitesimal maker. it's clear the moment you create that integral that there is something a little odd about circles. you can't calculate around a circle normally using Euclidean geometry, and it somewhat takes infinite sums or "dx" to get you all the way around the circle by adding all those teeny tiny infinitely precise measurements. 
now here's the crazy thing that blew my mind today. Cantor illustrated the difference between infinities by drawing a straight number line, and then drawing a curve against it that contained more numbers. and that blew me away. it sounds silly that something like that would be a mathematics breakthrough ({{TTS|html=abbr|tts=circa|c.}} 1872) but no, it is. it shows that curvature itself is a departure from integer mathematics. a simple Cartesian plane with integer axes doesn't contain the numbers that make a circle; all circles are non-Euclidean. 
so... is it really so weird to say that a black hole contains infinities? what if the black hole really does contain infinities, but only because we were trying to make infinities cooler and more mysterious than they actually were? I mean, you look at the thing, and the outside of it aside from the burning disk of stuff is one big 3d circle — despite that being true of stars and planets, but those do also have gravity. what if gravity is just lines turning into circles, and it creates infinities in equations because circles and ellipses are infinities? maybe spacetime curvature really is an infinity, but it's always an infinity, because every time you bow a straight line into a curve it contains something small but infinite, an infinitesimal. in principle there's an irrational number or a repeating infinitesimal between every line and every curved path, including the curved path that bows an apple and the earth together. if gravity was a perfect circle pi would be the bridge to gravity. it is already infinitely long.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="733" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Surreal numbers are for counting countable infinities -> yeah. that's what they are. they're the same thing as Cantor laying out the countable infinities and showing you get different size infinities the more you curve the number line, only they use omega instead of infinity. a surreal number can count the number of decimal places in an irrational number. that's the one thing they're good for. the main reason we don't use them commonly is we just tend to avoid infinities rather than use them like numbers, so when we really have to use an infinity we grudgingly say "infinity". but if we did math just a little different, and used both curved number lines and straight ones at once, using surreal numbers (or maybe just irrational numbers?) to quantify the curvature of various arc coordinate systems from Euclidean geometry, then infinity would go away in favor of countable but unimaginably big or small surreal numbers. think of it like complex numbers or three-dimensional grids, but instead of just adding one dimensional axis through numbers, you're adding a curvature as a dimensional coordinate which warps the passage of points through the other two axes. I don't know if that's better as an axis or a number adjustment. I guess you could do it either way depending on what kind of problem you need curvature to solve. 
I mean, think about solving a simple geometry problem on the surface of the earth, but trying to calculate the real distance, so you get the total material to build a bridge or the total volume of a very big lake or something. that would benefit from a curvature coordinate system, where polar spherical coordinates over the whole earth could be overkill. the curvature grid would be confusing at first and yet better zoomed in on the relevant information. it also might be really nice for rendering virtual game worlds, because given at least a 2000s level computer it might optimize well - maybe. 
the kicker is when you get used to curvature coordinates, you could have some fun times with Newtonian gravity. set the individual curvature coordinates with appropriate curvature for each planet. look at the curvature coordinates. see if they form their own shape in some other coordinate system, or generally what they're doing. (probably re-expressing the gravity equation, but maybe it will make more sense this way.) slowly start solving small-scale gravity and figuring out how small it is. can the fine structure constant help you?

</li><li class="number_empty" value="734">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="735">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="736">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="737">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="738">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="739" data-dimension="S2">Integers are basically apples / Integers are basically bread loaves -> note that bread loaves have an especially strong connotation of being able to divide a number into fractions or infinitesimals. apples can do that too, technically, but it's not usually the first thing people think of.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="740" data-dimension="M3">What are numbers? / What are integers? / What are real numbers? -> has several different technical definitions within mathematics.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="741" data-dimension="S2">Integers are multiples of True / using True to construct numbers -> common in programming languages. was not used in the lambda calculus video I watched, which was closer to using sets.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="742" data-dimension="S2">Integers are actually functions / using function to construct numbers / using succession function to construct numbers (iterator function; lambda calculus) / Church numbers -> a method used in [[E:lambda calculus|lambda calculus]].
</li><li class="field_geo" value="743" data-dimension="S2">Integers are actually graphs / Integers are actually undirected graphs -> I haven't found a solid application of this aside from the most preliminary descriptions of graph economics and the Lattice model; right now I don't have a single small, obvious demo, so this is currently more of just a "weird thought". this is the concept that depending on what kind of objects you're counting, any particular collection of people or snowflakes or water molecules is better modeled as an undirected graph than a Peano-style set. in the real world, quantities of things are largely important because they either are grouped together or are not grouped together, thus creating separate physical objects that can interact.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="744" data-dimension="S2">Integers are actually sets / using sets to construct numbers -> Peano arithmetic. in a way, using sets to construct numbers is not very different from using an iterator function. it's pretty easy to argue that putting a set around a number is its own kind of function, in the computer programming sense or maybe in a lambda calculus sense.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="745" data-remark="angle" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Circles, squares, and triangles are all secretly number lines / All angle measurements are actually the relationship between straight lines that are Euclidean number lines and non-straight lines that are effectively non-Euclidean number lines -> having this is like the secret key to all of math. squares are when you fold up the axes of Euclidean geometry at neat right angles. triangles and convex polygons are normal Euclidean axes folded along the lines of modular arithmetic. circles are something very special. circles are when you take a number line and start folding it in absurd infinitely precise ways that require infinitesimals and their most famous subset, the irrational numbers, to explain. 
if you thought that {{book|Winning Ways}} making up a bunch of new numbers had no purpose, no. by one definition, numbers themselves are the root of all geometry and all coordinate systems which in turn affect all mathematical functions and how easy it is to express them. 
like. oh god. there exists a minimal shovel dream equation. it's the equation which makes a circle drawn onto a cone space or an arc drawn onto a globe look like a straight line. that's the simplest way to say it. the shape you stand on causes you to lose sight of exactly what your models of the world model 
Curvature makes integers into infinities + ?? = Circles, squares, and triangles are all secretly number lines.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="746" data-dimension="S2">Numbers are whatever is between two sets / Numbers are whatever is in the middle of a Dedekind cut / Game theory can make a number system / Game theory can be used to create a number system / surreal numbers proposition / Hackenbush numbers proposition -> very interesting. looks like some version of complex numbers with more axes?? or maybe some form of superpositional numbers. I'm surprised I haven't heard of that before. I mean, how can it be that there are all these quantum physics equations and no superpositional numbers regarded as their own objects instead of just error bars? the wikipedia article says it's a weird new form of infinitesimals. 
[edit:] wow, that was not correct. I think the explanations I watched just had a lot of trouble explaining it in a way that made sense. surreal numbers mostly get complicated because the sets get infinite and they're having to number countable infinities.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="747" data-remark="jet plane" data-dimension="S1">straight-line distance / distance as the crow flies / jet plane distance

</li><li class="field_geo" value="748" data-dimension="S2">Numbers are secretly error bars -> I had to go over the definition of surreal numbers several times to properly understand that this wasn't what those were.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="749" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="750">fuzzy logic / logic using real numbers from 0 to 1 / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q530|9k]])
</li><li class="field_geo" value="751">fuzzy set / set with membership defined by fuzzy logic values / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q530|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="752">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="753">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="754">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="755">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="756">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="757">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="758">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="759">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="760">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="761">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="762">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="763">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="764">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="765">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="766">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="767">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="768">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="769">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="770" data-remark="slot machine miss" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q770|people-gambling]] -> the usually non-fictional motif of sorting through a lot of people to hit the jackpot and find the right people. this motif is inherent in most "job interview advice", as well as some "relationship advice", "product marketing advice", and rants against "social media". however, it also comes up in other unexpected places, like looking through a lot of books on a particular topic to find a book which is considered good or useful for some purpose. most people consider people-gambling perfectly normal. (as much as that totally baffles me.) this is often missed in critiques of "social media" as uniquely bad — if everything in life involves gambling on groups of people like some kind of poker deck, why wouldn't it be obvious for videos or microblog posts to work that way? people-gambling + ?? = Carl Sagan's professors. people-gambling + kaiju = Pokémon. people-gambling + Difference makes you useful = Wackytown fallacy.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="771" data-dimension="S">Dedekind cut / <code>{...|...}</code> -> an operator used for defining numbers, whether the real numbers or the surreal numbers. a number or set can be put on each side, and the result of the operation goes in the middle of the cut.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="772" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="773" data-dimension="Z">surreal numbers -> a grouping of numbers defined in a different way than the real numbers are typically defined. reading books about these things you'll quickly come to the realization that fractions and decimals are a social construct and there are actually any number of different ways to define what number comes before or after a different number or how to divide a range of numbers.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="774" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Surreal Numbers</cite> (Knuth 1974) -> in dialogue format.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="775" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Winning ways for your mathematical plays</cite> (Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy 1982)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="776" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q776|social event horizon]] / Vegeta effect / Entei effect -> the non-fictional motif of people having a horizon around themselves which other people cannot pierce through to control, with only a few exceptions for such things as people forming a social structure that makes a decision of how to use all its people. this motif doesn't directly include those exceptions. this motif combines with other propositions to form particular historical or contemporary conceptions of "free will", but it doesn't really have to be used that way if you instead wish to study people through existential materialism.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="777" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q777|Free Will]] -> a motif I have never liked because of the fact nobody can actually define it. whenever you try to discuss Free Will the discussion becomes confusing, because what process are we even debating the existence of? worse yet, people who think they can disprove it typically try to counter it with concepts that are difficult to substantiate or falsify. even Sabine Hossenfelder, who is convinced she knows exactly what hypotheses are so up-in-the-air they aren't science, tossed out an unfalsifiable hypothesis to counter Free Will. this entry.... will be a messy one. there will be about 10+ different models associated with what is supposedly the same thing.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="778" data-dimension="S">freedom (top-level category) -> one of the only terms worse than free will in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this except to list the category on category pages

</li><li class="number_empty" value="779">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="780">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="781">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="782" data-dimension="Z">formal logic
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="783" data-dimension="S">non-binary logic / ([[9k/RD/Q530|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="784">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="785">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="786">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="787">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="788">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="789" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="790" data-dimension="S0">formal logic operator / logical operator / logic gate
</li><li class="field_geo" value="791" data-dimension="S">NOT (logical operator) / NOT (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="792" data-dimension="S">IMPLY (logical operator) / material conditional / → / P → Q -> silly question: do these arrows go the text direction in RTL and vertical scripts? I'd think they would but I have no idea
</li><li class="field_geo" value="793" data-dimension="S">converse (logical operator) / ← / P ← Q -> not always equal to IMPLY operation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="794" data-dimension="S">NAND (logical operator) / NAND (logic gate) -> absolutely everything except an overlap
</li><li class="field_geo" value="795" data-dimension="S">XNOR (logical operator) / XNOR (logic gate) -> there was some reason I needed this in the past. I think it was for tearing apart Rothenberg's set theory chapter.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="796" data-dimension="S">OR (logical operator) / OR (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="797" data-dimension="S">AND (logical operator) / AND (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="798" data-dimension="S">XOR (logical operator) / XOR (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="799" data-dimension="S">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_NOR NOR] (logical operator) / NOR (logic gate)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="800" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q800|set theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="801" data-dimension="S0">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) set] (set theory) -> collection of elements modeled by mathematical structures; mathematical structure
</li><li class="field_geo" value="802" data-dimension="S">empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {<nowiki/>} / void set / size-zero set -> my nemesis ever since Rothenberg bizarrely abused it to explain The Subject
</li><li class="field_geo" value="803" data-dimension="S0">non-empty set (set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="804" data-dimension="S0">multiset (set theory) -> set that behaves like a programming language array, with non-unique members allowed
</li><li class="field_geo" value="805" data-dimension="S0">subset -> set contained in another set; empty set is a subset of most non-empty sets
</li><li class="field_geo" value="806" data-dimension="S">union (set operation) / OR (set operation) -> combination of two sets; empty set causes no change
</li><li class="field_geo" value="807" data-dimension="S">intersection (set operation) / AND (set operation) -> overlap of two sets only; use the empty set, get the empty set
</li><li class="field_geo" value="808" data-dimension="S">symmetric difference (set operation) / ∆ / A ∆ B / XOR (set operation)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="809" data-dimension="S">absolute complement (set operation) / NOR (set operation)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="810" data-dimension="S0">set theory axiom
</li><li class="field_geo" value="811" data-dimension="S0">set property / set characteristic / set indicator function result
</li><li class="field_geo" value="812" data-dimension="S2">Sets are equal if they contain the same members / axiom of extensionality (ZFC set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="813" data-dimension="S2">No set can be a member of itself -> true in ZFC set theory, but not all set theories
</li><li class="field_geo" value="814" data-dimension="S2">Defining sets based on properties that cannot be true creates a set that cannot exist / There is no set of all sets that do not contain themselves / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox Russel's paradox] / Sets must be defined following the rules of sets in order to be sets (ZFC set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="815" data-dimension="S2">A set definition will never outrun the biggest possible set / Sets cannot be defined based on the biggest possible sets / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_paradox Cantor's paradox] -> this one is easy to escape if you want to number countable infinities, because mathematicians simply use other structures than sets
</li><li class="field_geo" value="816" data-dimension="S">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisimulation bisimulation] / bisimilarity -> when two mathematical ontologies have equivalent behavior; when two mathematical objects are functionally indistinguishable regardless of whether they are the same spacetime-unique object; suitable mathematical equality test for Particle Theories / Bauplans
</li><li class="field_geo" value="817" data-dimension="S">hyperset -> a set which definitionally contains itself in a bisimilarity relation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="818" data-dimension="S0">hyperset theory
</li><li class="field_geo" value="819" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q819|ZFC set theory]] / Zermelo-Fraenkel Choice-axiom set theory (ZFC) -> set theory where sets are "computational" and pointers into the set cause a kind of infinite loop bug in the logic
</li><li class="field_geo" value="820" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q820|non-well-formed set theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="821" data-dimension="S0">anti-foundation axiom (set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="822" data-dimension="S2">Sets are actually just [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessible_pointed_graph directed graphs] containing the same arrows (AFA) / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom Aczel's anti-foundation axiom] (AFA)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="823" data-dimension="S2">Sets are actually just tree graphs that cannot be rearranged (SAFA) / Sets are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory) trees] connecting Quine atoms with no interesting automorphisms (SAFA) / Scott's anti-foundation axiom (SAFA)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="824" data-dimension="S2">Sets are actually just directed graphs with no exact symmetries / [https://users.math.cas.cz/~jerabek/papers/dghj.pdf Finsler's anti-foundation axiom] (FAFA) -> this one sounds pretty similar to the popular AFA if you don't look closely, but it's based on rotating the graph around and renumbering it
</li><li class="field_geo" value="825" data-dimension="S2">Sets are nothing more than baskets of tiny sets / Sets are a proper class based on collections of Quine atoms / Boffa's anti-foundation axiom (BAFA) -> some mathematicians really don't like this one but I don't know enough to say why it would be objectively bad. I'm not even sure I've found a good/correct definition of BAFA yet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="826" data-dimension="S2">atom (set theory) / set element that cannot have set-structured members / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement urelement]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="827" data-dimension="S0">set-based atom (set theory) / Quine atom (set theory) / singleton / graph node serving as one-element set / graph node mapped to ur-element in binary relation -> Quine atom is one of the most arcane terms I've ever seen and I refuse to use it just yet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="828" data-dimension="S">univocality -> [https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/philosophy/logic/free-logic-generalization mapping] from one unique name or object to another unique name or object. signifier equations sometimes do this, in cases such as technical jargon
</li><li class="field_geo" value="829" data-dimension="S">biunivocality -> a really fancy word for counting. no, I'm serious. a biunivocal mapping exists when one set of unique names maps onto a set of unique elements, as if counting things with natural numbers. [https://thedewdrop.org/2020/05/08/deleuze-and-guattari-rhizome/ Deleuze and Guattari] once abused this concept to try to forbid counting and grouping individuals and try to turn them into a non-local beam of photon-people

</li><li class="field_geo" value="830">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="831" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="832" data-dimension="S">two [https://academic.oup.com/philmat/article/32/1/115/7603508 indistinguishable iron spheres] called Castor and Pollux -> I love when mathematicians actually think of entertaining thought experiments
</li><li class="field_geo" value="833" data-dimension="S0">proper class (set theory) / class (set theory) -> the repeated pattern of having a given characteristic or returning a given indicator function result, which is not a set. similar to "class" or "interface" in object oriented programming
</li><li class="field_geo" value="834" data-dimension="S0">graph-to-set mapping / exact picture of set -> a concept that comes up quite a bit in defining non-well-founded set theories
</li><li class="field_geo" value="835" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="836" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="837" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="838" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="839" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="840">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="841">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="842">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="843">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="844">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="845">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="846">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="847">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="848">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="849">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="850">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="851">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="852">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="853">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="854">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="855">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="856">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="857">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="858">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="859">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="860">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="861">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="862">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="863">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="864">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="865">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="866">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="867">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="868">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="869">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="870" data-dimension="S0">graph node
</li><li class="field_geo" value="871" data-dimension="S0">disjoint union -> logical combination of internally unconnected graphs/sets. seems like I might have to use it to describe populations some day
</li><li class="field_geo" value="872" data-dimension="S0">hypergraph -> a mathematical graph that could theoretically store a 3D model composed of a bunch of triangles, or the collection of all subpopulations in a population including overlapping subpopulations
</li><li class="field_geo" value="873" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="874" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="875" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="876" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="877" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="878" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="879" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="880" data-dimension="S0">graph (graph theory) -> a collection of nodes and node pairs, typically visualized as a path
</li><li class="field_geo" value="881" data-dimension="S0">undirected graph (graph theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="882" data-dimension="S0">directed graph (graph theory) / 𝒢 (variable)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="883" data-dimension="S0">cyclic graph (graph theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="884" data-dimension="S0">acyclic graph (graph theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="885" data-dimension="S0">tree (graph theory) / tree graph -> acyclic graph, one path between any two nodes, every vertex a particular point in space on a map essentially
</li><li class="field_geo" value="886" data-dimension="S0">rooted graph (graph theory) / pointed graph / arborescence / anti-arborescence -> an arborescent graph points away from the root. also: according to Deleuze and Guattari it's [https://thedewdrop.org/2020/05/08/deleuze-and-guattari-rhizome/ basically the devil]. you didn't know there was a Good and Evil to graph theory did you, but now you know
</li><li class="field_geo" value="887" data-dimension="S0">star graph (graph theory) -> graph with everything connected to a central node. how I often visualize what non-well-founded sets are supposed to be, you just put the empty set in the center
</li><li class="field_geo" value="888" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="889" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="890" data-dimension="S2">Gödel's incompleteness theorem / Gödel gap (barrier beyond which an individual entity cannot reason without interacting with another object) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q890|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="891">??
</li><li value="892" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">metamathematics -> this is it. Marxism : meta-Marxism :: ontology : meta-ontology :: mathematics : metamathematics
</li><li class="number_empty" value="893">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="894">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="895">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="896">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="897">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="898">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="899" data-dimension="S">casual steganography for fun -> how Spore creatures are stored in an image [https://www.reddit.com/r/Spore/comments/wcr9eh/has_anyone_cracked_how_the_creation_imagesave/]
</li></ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Template:IZ1/HAS/A/class

2026-05-01T05:09:56Z

Reversedragon: reuse charcoal swatch

#redirect[[Template:IZ1/A/class]]

Template:IS1/HAS/A/class

2026-05-01T05:09:17Z

Reversedragon: reuse charcoal swatch

#redirect[[Template:IS1/A/class]]

User:RD/9k/Q87

2026-05-01T05:06:29Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q87 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q87: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

#REDIRECT [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q87]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q87

2026-05-01T05:06:29Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q87 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q87: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Idealism|User=RD|E=Q87|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">


</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="87" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Idealism|Idealism]]

</li></ol>

== Related ==
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q87

2026-05-01T05:06:10Z

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q87

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q86

2026-05-01T05:03:32Z

Reversedragon: class is a single substrate

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=existential materialism|User=RD|E=Q86|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=86|Q2=86|h4 = existential materialism }} / exmat

</li></ol>

== Class monism ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=14,81|Q2=1481|h4= Class is a single substrate }} / The [[E:substance pluralism|substance dualism]] advanced by early Marxism is not fully accurate because its dual substances, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, operate under substance monism internally / Social darwinism and class society are a monistic process / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q14,80|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Liberal-republicanism starts as a non-hierarchical one-class society and separates over time / Existentialism begins as a non-hierarchical society with one class and separates into two classes over time -> I am so close to logically proving that, on account of [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements|stationary combinations of heterogeneous elements]] and [[E:molecularization (meta-Marxism)|molecularization]], capitalism is anarchic regardless of how anarchists want to define "anarchy", and there is no meaningful distinction that makes [[E:anhierarchy (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|anhierarchy]] part of a strictly different category of things than anarchy

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/ML|tradition=ML|Q=83|Q2=83|h4 = dialectical materialism }} / diamat

{{li|I=Z1/ML|tradition=ML|Q=84|Q2=84|h4 = [[E:historical materialism|historical materialism]] }} (specific-sense) / histmat
{{li|I=S0/MX|tradition=ML, MX|Q=93|Q2=93|h4 = argument for general-sense historical materialism }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])

</li></ol></dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q86

2026-05-01T04:54:09Z

Reversedragon: Liberal-republicanism starts as a non-hierarchical one-class society and separates over time

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=existential materialism|User=RD|E=Q86|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=86|Q2=86|h4 = existential materialism }} / exmat

</li></ol>

== Class monism ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Liberal-republicanism starts as a non-hierarchical one-class society and separates over time / Existentialism begins as a non-hierarchical society with one class and separates into two classes over time -> I am so close to logically proving that, on account of [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements|stationary combinations of heterogeneous elements]] and [[E:molecularization (meta-Marxism)|molecularization]], capitalism is anarchic regardless of how anarchists want to define "anarchy", and there is no meaningful distinction that makes [[E:anhierarchy (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|anhierarchy]] part of a strictly different category of things than anarchy

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/ML|tradition=ML|Q=83|Q2=83|h4 = dialectical materialism }} / diamat

{{li|I=Z1/ML|tradition=ML|Q=84|Q2=84|h4 = [[E:historical materialism|historical materialism]] }} (specific-sense) / histmat
{{li|I=S0/MX|tradition=ML, MX|Q=93|Q2=93|h4 = argument for general-sense historical materialism }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q81|9k]])

</li></ol></dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

User:RD/9k/Q50,99

2026-05-01T04:24:32Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q50,99 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,99: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

#REDIRECT [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,99]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,99

2026-05-01T04:24:32Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q50,99 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,99: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Kantianism|User=RD|E=Q50,99|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/IK|Q=50,99|Q2=5099}}Kantianism -> so Kant set out to explore various kinds of reason. this seems like some of it is a precursor to philosophy of science, although there's also a lot of it that's ethics. Kant himself was part of the Enlightenment; people describe this as a project of secular morality. either blue swatch for ethics or cyan swatch for noumena and phenomena. 
edit: apparently the noumenon comes in because of free will and freedom. that makes a lot of sense. people are still talking about it that way, whether they're referencing back to Kant or not.

</li></ol>

== Major ideas ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/IK|Q=50,98|Q2=5098}}categorical imperative (statement about ethics versus goals) / Treat people as ends / Act to treat people as ends in themselves, and not as means / Act to treat other people as a parallel to yourself, with their own inner lives, needs, and goals / ([[Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q50,98|9k]]) -> isn't this basically the same thing as the golden rule? ...oh wow the summary video said it. hmm, the other golden rule Items don't specifically invoke ends or means, this idea of specifically trying to achieve a goal and Kant telling you to not do it the worst ways. maybe this is a separate proposition. 
categorical imperative + ?? = The Subject

</li></ol>

== Ideology codes ==

* IK / Kantianism

== Subpages ==
* [[User:RD/9k/Q50,99/WhyNotICE501|WhyNotICE 5-01]]

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,99

2026-05-01T04:23:34Z

Reversedragon: subpage: why not ICE

User:RD/9k/Q50,99/WhyNotICE501

2026-05-01T04:22:04Z

Reversedragon: archive scrap; created today

> Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? 
I think to some extent you're forgetting what the purpose of political parties in the United States is: to slowly split the U.S. into multiple countries. So, it shouldn't be surprising that Democrat voters are effectively trying to claim veterans as Americans because they might vote Democrat, while they treat ICE as foreigners because they're Republican allies. 
There's a huge and bizarre contradiction that everything about recent U.S. politics is about embracing immigrants, but fundamentally the system isn't really set up for that and there will always be a point where when people aren't part of the Democratic Party they become an invading force that everyone accepts isn't truly subject to the laws of the United States and Republicans must be treated as foreign militants the more they contribute to creating their own armies like ICE. We like to pretend there is a point where the United States stops being an empire but really, each of the internal bourgeois parties are separate empires that are busy conquering each other and treating each other as foreigners.

I blame Immanuel Kant. Kant — as far as I know — laid out this vision of Liberal-republicanism where it really begins with ethics and interpersonal interactions and building laws over the top of tiny arbitrary groups of people as opposed to entire discrete national populations becoming republics. When you think like Kant does it's really easy to start thinking that only the group of people who vote for the 'correct' party and thus are controllable and accountable to you are actually part of the country, while until everyone submits to the Democratic Party specifically, they aren't even part of the system of U.S. laws and U.S. courts and "U.S. ethics", until "the real United States" brutally conquers them as happened in the US Civil War. very nasty loophole in Kantian ethics

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q86

2026-05-01T03:57:49Z

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q86

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-01T03:06:19Z

Reversedragon: move swatch demo to Help:Philosophy tags

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}}
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why does the United States want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}}

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}Pokémon trainers are a manifestation of bourgeois ideology -> it sounds like I'm shitposting but I do mean it literally if not {{em|in a serious tone}}. Pokémon live out in nature. trainers recruit Pokémon and promise them the opportunity to level up and evolve. it's all about teamwork, teamwork, teamwork. though in the real world, teamwork is one big excuse to exterminate other groups of people, whether it's the 13 United States colonies or the United States teaming up with Israel or First World countries teaming up to crush the Second World it's always justified as good {{em|because there was teamwork}}. teamwork is not inherently inclusive. there's so much lip service especially in works about ""democracy"" to saying that it's easy to include everyone just because there were a few groups of people that came together, but it never guarantees society will become fully inclusive versus a matter of teamwork attacking somebody else. never trust teamwork.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S1/PT|class=field_nations field_LGBT|Q=618}}I came to Tel Aviv to be who I was, but it became clear I was welcome as a lesbian, not a Palestinian {{YouTube|iPyxgHe7WE8}} -> case of: joining a "community" for a specific identity not leading to acceptance of other identities; violation of Rhizome model.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ideology is Idealism unexamined / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm] -> it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different, but I have no problems with their concept of ideology. to me, an ideology is {{em|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach|lack of limitation on capabilities]]; Feuerbach)
{{li|I=F1/ML/DX|Q=618}}freedom (lack of necessity; [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|Avakian]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf]
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-AgainstAvakianismAjith|absorption of all necessity applying inside society into theories of society]]) [https://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RCP/CriticismOfRCP/Ajith-AgainstAvakianism-Utrecht-FLP-2017-3rdPrinting.pdf] / The realm of freedom can blossom forth only with necessity as its basis (Marx)

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of special relativity. 
this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Help:Philosophy tags

2026-05-01T03:01:16Z

Reversedragon: philosophy tags demo

== Demo ==

<ol class="hue clean compound">
<li><dfn class="field_exstruct field_freud manual flag" data-qid="618">{{IXN/S1-430|Q=618}}psychoanalysis</dfn></li>
</ol>

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueRoster|P=asdf| <dfn class{{=}}"field_exstruct field_freud manual flag" data-qid{{=}}"618">{{IXN/S1-430|Q=618}}[[E:Q75|psychoanalysis]]</dfn> }}
</dl>

<ol class="hue clean compound">{{HueDomain|Q92}}</ol>

<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">
{{li|I=S2/ES|class=field_exstruct|Q=618}}Existentialism (test)
{{li|I=S2/LR|class=field_exstruct field_rdemocracy|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism (test)
{{li|I=S2/Aa|class=field_exstruct field_freud|Q=618}}psychoanalysis (test)
{{li|I=S2/DG|class=field_exstruct field_rhizome|Q=618}}schizoanalysis (test)
{{li|I=S2/HAS|class=field_exstruct field_humanities|Q=618}}humanities (test)
{{li|I=S2/Fy|class=field_fantasy|Q=618}}arts (test)
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}sciences (test)
</ol>

== Demo 2 ==

{{HueCSS}}
<div class="hue"><div class="tag-figure field_geo"><abbr>STM</abbr></div></div>
akjsdfksjlfjsdkjfl

akjsdfksjlfjsdkjfl

== List of philosophy tags in alphabetical order ==

* {{TTS|html=code|A}}: anarchism
* {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: psychoanalysis
** {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: Freudian psychoanalysis
** {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: Jungian psychoanalysis
** {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: Lacanian psychoanalysis
* {{TTS|html=code|HAS}}: humanities, arts, and social sciences
* {{TTS|html=code|IV}}: Trotskyism
* {{TTS|html=code|ES}}: capitalist ideologies / blue anarchisms / "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition"
* {{TTS|html=code|LR}}: Liberal-republicanism
* {{TTS|html=code|ML}}: mainstream Marxism-Leninism
** {{TTS|html=code|ML}}: early Marxism
* {{TTS|html=code|MZ}}: Maoism
** {{TTS|html=code|MZ}}: North American Maoism
** {{TTS|html=code|NMZ}}: North American Maoism
* {{TTS|html=code|STM}}: science, technology, engineering, and math

[[Category:Hue-format fake Entity labels]] [[Category:Wiki editing manual]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/hue2.css

2026-05-01T02:55:29Z

Reversedragon: change STM swatch to look less like humanities swatch - from cyan to chlorophyll

/* stylesheet for showing item identifiers with particular color codings */

@media screen {
/* general categories */
.hue .field_internal { border-color: #909090; background: #d3d3d3; /* silver; LightGray */ }
.hue .field_geo { border-color: #3d4831; background: #749363; /* chlorophyll */ }
.hue .field_nations { border-color: #ae8847; background: #ddb887; /* khaki; Burlywood */ }
.hue .field_exstruct { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky blue */ }
.hue .field_trotsky { border-color: #b71a0a; background: #fd9920; /* flame; DarkOrange */ }
.hue .field_gramsci { border-color: #7e2b42; background: #f589a7; /* strawberry */ }
.hue .field_ML { border-color: #820212; background: #c24252; /* crimson */ }
.hue .field_mdem { border-color: #5330ab; background: #9370db; /* violet; MediumPurple */ }
.hue .field_BPP { border-color: #714b51; background: #4a174a; /* nsafu */ }
.hue .field_anarchy { border-color: #3f3b3b; background: #7f7f8e; /* charcoal */ }
.hue .field_fantasy { border-color: #40ae50; background: #90ee90; /* bright green; LightGreen */ }
.hue .field_horror { border-color: #305e00; background: #509e40; /* dark green */ }

/* experimental */
.hue .field_antiberry { border-color: #0a7658; background: #81d4bd; /* anti-strawberry */ }

/* rare fields - these override the common fields if one of those is specified */
.hue.field_LGBT .field_LGBT { border-color: #1b3671; background: #a399f2; /* lavender */ }
.hue.field_GNU .field_GNU { border-color: #ec8500; background: #78b5c8; /* penguin */ }

/* hyper-specific Existentialisms or Leninisms */
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rdemocracy { border-color: #273d99; background: #59a8ee; /* vivid sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_humanities { border-color: #515a8c; background: #9de1d7; /* tide blue, cyan */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_freud { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rhizome { border-color: #11236a; background: #5b7993; /* blue black */ }
.hue.field_ML .field_mao { border-color: #750a32; background: #bf3a73; /* hyacinth; berry red */ }

/* series-specific tweaks */
.hue.data_mage .bloc_earth { border-color: #4e6400; background: #afc641; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sun { border-color: #821408; background: #d07450; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sea { border-color: #093e73; background: #1e99bd; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_steel { border-color: #645a5a; background: #ececec; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_death { border-color: #937a1b; background: #4d293e; }

.hue.data_teadragon .suit_spring { border-color: hsl(354, 40%, 65%); background: hsl(102, 77%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_summer { border-color: hsl(138, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(56, 82%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_autumn { border-color: hsl(3, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(14, 91%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_winter { border-color: hsl(141, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(240, 40%, 80%); }
/* these were in HSL to be easier to balance against each other */

.hue.series_pkmn .element_ice, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_ice { border-color: #3dcef3; background: #81dff7; }
.hue.data_urbanfantasy .element_candy, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_candy { border-color: #9d2abc; background: #fd5dcc; }

.hue.series_pkmn .element_normal { border-color: #9fa19f; background: #c1c2c1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fighting { border-color: #ff8000; background: #ffac59; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_flying { border-color: #81b9ef; background: #add2f5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_poison { border-color: #9141cb; background: #b884dd; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ground { border-color: #915121; background: #b88e6f; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_rock { border-color: #afa981; background: #cbc7ad; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_bug { border-color: #91a119; background: #b8c26a; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ghost { border-color: #704170; background: #a284a2; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_steel { border-color: #60a1b8; background: #98c2d1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fire { border-color: #e62829; background: #ef7374; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_water { border-color: #2980ef; background: #74acf5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_grass { border-color: #3FA129; background: #82c274; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_electric { border-color: #fac000; background: #fcd659; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_psychic { border-color: #ef4179; background: #f584a8; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dragon { border-color: #5060e1; background: #8d98ec; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dark { border-color: #624d4e; background: #998b8c; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fairy { border-color: #ef70ef; background: #f5a2f5; }

/* basic placeholder entry and field-specific placeholders */
.hue .number_empty, .hue .element_empty { border-color: transparent; background: #404040; }
.hue .number_empty a { color: inherit; }

/* swatch text colors */
.mw-body .hue .field_ML:before, .mw-body .hue .field_ML .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy:before, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy .figure,
.mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death:before, .mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death .figure,
.mw-body ol.hue .number_empty, ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty:before, ol.hue .field_geo.element_empty:before, .mw-body ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP:before, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP .figure
{ color: #fafafa; }
.mw-body .hue .field_mdem:before, .mw-body .hue .field_mdem .figure
{ color: #eeffe8; }
}

/* hide clarifications within series */
/* this is being redone from scratch. it was progressive enhancement anyway, so not much is lost
classnames which were used: .series_teadragon .series_wingsfire .series_deltarune .series_adventuretime-2010 .series_dragonball .series_DBsuper */
.hue dfn ins.series_pokemon
{ display: none; } /* these will only be shown inside their respective series */
.hue.series_pokemon dfn ins.series_pokemon { display: inline-block; }
.series_pkmn dfn.field_pkmn .field { display: none; } /* these will _not_ be shown inside their respective series */

/* [[Category:Fake Item lists]] [[Category:Item colors ontology]] */

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/hue2.css

2026-05-01T02:40:49Z

Reversedragon: humanities swatch - between blue and bright green

/* stylesheet for showing item identifiers with particular color codings */

@media screen {
/* general categories */
.hue .field_internal { border-color: #909090; background: #d3d3d3; /* silver; LightGray */ }
.hue .field_geo { border-color: #60a096; background: #b0e0e6; /* cyan; PowderBlue */ }
.hue .field_nations { border-color: #ae8847; background: #ddb887; /* khaki; Burlywood */ }
.hue .field_exstruct { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky blue */ }
.hue .field_trotsky { border-color: #b71a0a; background: #fd9920; /* flame; DarkOrange */ }
.hue .field_gramsci { border-color: #7e2b42; background: #f589a7; /* strawberry */ }
.hue .field_ML { border-color: #820212; background: #c24252; /* crimson */ }
.hue .field_mdem { border-color: #5330ab; background: #9370db; /* violet; MediumPurple */ }
.hue .field_BPP { border-color: #714b51; background: #4a174a; /* nsafu */ }
.hue .field_anarchy { border-color: #3f3b3b; background: #7f7f8e; /* charcoal */ }
.hue .field_fantasy { border-color: #40ae50; background: #90ee90; /* bright green; LightGreen */ }
.hue .field_horror { border-color: #305e00; background: #509e40; /* dark green */ }

/* experimental */
.hue .field_antiberry { border-color: #0a7658; background: #81d4bd; /* anti-strawberry */ }

/* rare fields - these override the common fields if one of those is specified */
.hue.field_LGBT .field_LGBT { border-color: #1b3671; background: #a399f2; /* lavender */ }
.hue.field_GNU .field_GNU { border-color: #ec8500; background: #78b5c8; /* penguin */ }

/* hyper-specific Existentialisms or Leninisms */
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rdemocracy { border-color: #273d99; background: #59a8ee; /* vivid sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_humanities { border-color: #515a8c; background: #9de1d7; /* tide blue, cyan */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_freud { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rhizome { border-color: #11236a; background: #5b7993; /* blue black */ }
.hue.field_ML .field_mao { border-color: #750a32; background: #bf3a73; /* hyacinth; berry red */ }

/* series-specific tweaks */
.hue.data_mage .bloc_earth { border-color: #4e6400; background: #afc641; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sun { border-color: #821408; background: #d07450; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sea { border-color: #093e73; background: #1e99bd; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_steel { border-color: #645a5a; background: #ececec; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_death { border-color: #937a1b; background: #4d293e; }

.hue.data_teadragon .suit_spring { border-color: hsl(354, 40%, 65%); background: hsl(102, 77%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_summer { border-color: hsl(138, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(56, 82%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_autumn { border-color: hsl(3, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(14, 91%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_winter { border-color: hsl(141, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(240, 40%, 80%); }
/* these were in HSL to be easier to balance against each other */

.hue.series_pkmn .element_ice, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_ice { border-color: #3dcef3; background: #81dff7; }
.hue.data_urbanfantasy .element_candy, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_candy { border-color: #9d2abc; background: #fd5dcc; }

.hue.series_pkmn .element_normal { border-color: #9fa19f; background: #c1c2c1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fighting { border-color: #ff8000; background: #ffac59; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_flying { border-color: #81b9ef; background: #add2f5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_poison { border-color: #9141cb; background: #b884dd; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ground { border-color: #915121; background: #b88e6f; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_rock { border-color: #afa981; background: #cbc7ad; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_bug { border-color: #91a119; background: #b8c26a; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ghost { border-color: #704170; background: #a284a2; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_steel { border-color: #60a1b8; background: #98c2d1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fire { border-color: #e62829; background: #ef7374; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_water { border-color: #2980ef; background: #74acf5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_grass { border-color: #3FA129; background: #82c274; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_electric { border-color: #fac000; background: #fcd659; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_psychic { border-color: #ef4179; background: #f584a8; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dragon { border-color: #5060e1; background: #8d98ec; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dark { border-color: #624d4e; background: #998b8c; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fairy { border-color: #ef70ef; background: #f5a2f5; }

/* basic placeholder entry and field-specific placeholders */
.hue .number_empty, .hue .element_empty { border-color: transparent; background: #404040; }
.hue .number_empty a { color: inherit; }

/* swatch text colors */
.mw-body .hue .field_ML:before, .mw-body .hue .field_ML .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy:before, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy .figure,
.mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death:before, .mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death .figure,
.mw-body ol.hue .number_empty, ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty:before, ol.hue .field_geo.element_empty:before, .mw-body ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP:before, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP .figure
{ color: #fafafa; }
.mw-body .hue .field_mdem:before, .mw-body .hue .field_mdem .figure
{ color: #eeffe8; }
}

/* hide clarifications within series */
/* this is being redone from scratch. it was progressive enhancement anyway, so not much is lost
classnames which were used: .series_teadragon .series_wingsfire .series_deltarune .series_adventuretime-2010 .series_dragonball .series_DBsuper */
.hue dfn ins.series_pokemon
{ display: none; } /* these will only be shown inside their respective series */
.hue.series_pokemon dfn ins.series_pokemon { display: inline-block; }
.series_pkmn dfn.field_pkmn .field { display: none; } /* these will _not_ be shown inside their respective series */

/* [[Category:Fake Item lists]] [[Category:Item colors ontology]] */

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/hue2.css

2026-05-01T02:22:05Z

Reversedragon: schizoanalysis colors

/* stylesheet for showing item identifiers with particular color codings */

@media screen {
/* general categories */
.hue .field_internal { border-color: #909090; background: #d3d3d3; /* silver; LightGray */ }
.hue .field_geo { border-color: #60a096; background: #b0e0e6; /* cyan; PowderBlue */ }
.hue .field_nations { border-color: #ae8847; background: #ddb887; /* khaki; Burlywood */ }
.hue .field_exstruct { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky blue */ }
.hue .field_trotsky { border-color: #b71a0a; background: #fd9920; /* flame; DarkOrange */ }
.hue .field_gramsci { border-color: #7e2b42; background: #f589a7; /* strawberry */ }
.hue .field_ML { border-color: #820212; background: #c24252; /* crimson */ }
.hue .field_mdem { border-color: #5330ab; background: #9370db; /* violet; MediumPurple */ }
.hue .field_BPP { border-color: #714b51; background: #4a174a; /* nsafu */ }
.hue .field_anarchy { border-color: #3f3b3b; background: #7f7f8e; /* charcoal */ }
.hue .field_fantasy { border-color: #40ae50; background: #90ee90; /* bright green; LightGreen */ }
.hue .field_horror { border-color: #305e00; background: #509e40; /* dark green */ }

/* experimental */
.hue .field_antiberry { border-color: #0a7658; background: #81d4bd; /* anti-strawberry */ }

/* rare fields - these override the common fields if one of those is specified */
.hue.field_LGBT .field_LGBT { border-color: #1b3671; background: #a399f2; /* lavender */ }
.hue.field_GNU .field_GNU { border-color: #ec8500; background: #78b5c8; /* penguin */ }

/* hyper-specific Existentialisms or Leninisms */
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rdemocracy { border-color: #273d99; background: #59a8ee; /* vivid sky */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_rhizome { border-color: #11236a; background: #5b7993; /* blue black */ }
.hue.field_exstruct .field_freud { border-color: #4969e9; background: #afcce6; /* sky */ }
.hue.field_ML .field_mao { border-color: #750a32; background: #bf3a73; /* hyacinth; berry red */ }

/* series-specific tweaks */
.hue.data_mage .bloc_earth { border-color: #4e6400; background: #afc641; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sun { border-color: #821408; background: #d07450; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_sea { border-color: #093e73; background: #1e99bd; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_steel { border-color: #645a5a; background: #ececec; }
.hue.data_mage .bloc_death { border-color: #937a1b; background: #4d293e; }

.hue.data_teadragon .suit_spring { border-color: hsl(354, 40%, 65%); background: hsl(102, 77%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_summer { border-color: hsl(138, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(56, 82%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_autumn { border-color: hsl(3, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(14, 91%, 72%); }
.hue.data_teadragon .suit_winter { border-color: hsl(141, 70%, 25%); background: hsl(240, 40%, 80%); }
/* these were in HSL to be easier to balance against each other */

.hue.series_pkmn .element_ice, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_ice { border-color: #3dcef3; background: #81dff7; }
.hue.data_urbanfantasy .element_candy, .hue.data_adventuretime-2010 .element_candy { border-color: #9d2abc; background: #fd5dcc; }

.hue.series_pkmn .element_normal { border-color: #9fa19f; background: #c1c2c1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fighting { border-color: #ff8000; background: #ffac59; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_flying { border-color: #81b9ef; background: #add2f5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_poison { border-color: #9141cb; background: #b884dd; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ground { border-color: #915121; background: #b88e6f; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_rock { border-color: #afa981; background: #cbc7ad; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_bug { border-color: #91a119; background: #b8c26a; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_ghost { border-color: #704170; background: #a284a2; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_steel { border-color: #60a1b8; background: #98c2d1; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fire { border-color: #e62829; background: #ef7374; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_water { border-color: #2980ef; background: #74acf5; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_grass { border-color: #3FA129; background: #82c274; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_electric { border-color: #fac000; background: #fcd659; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_psychic { border-color: #ef4179; background: #f584a8; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dragon { border-color: #5060e1; background: #8d98ec; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_dark { border-color: #624d4e; background: #998b8c; }
.hue.series_pkmn .element_fairy { border-color: #ef70ef; background: #f5a2f5; }

/* basic placeholder entry and field-specific placeholders */
.hue .number_empty, .hue .element_empty { border-color: transparent; background: #404040; }
.hue .number_empty a { color: inherit; }

/* swatch text colors */
.mw-body .hue .field_ML:before, .mw-body .hue .field_ML .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy:before, .mw-body .hue .field_anarchy .figure,
.mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death:before, .mw-body .hue.data_mage .bloc_death .figure,
.mw-body ol.hue .number_empty, ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty:before, ol.hue .field_geo.element_empty:before, .mw-body ol.hue .field_horror.element_empty .figure, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP:before, .mw-body .hue .field_BPP .figure
{ color: #fafafa; }
.mw-body .hue .field_mdem:before, .mw-body .hue .field_mdem .figure
{ color: #eeffe8; }
}

/* hide clarifications within series */
/* this is being redone from scratch. it was progressive enhancement anyway, so not much is lost
classnames which were used: .series_teadragon .series_wingsfire .series_deltarune .series_adventuretime-2010 .series_dragonball .series_DBsuper */
.hue dfn ins.series_pokemon
{ display: none; } /* these will only be shown inside their respective series */
.hue.series_pokemon dfn ins.series_pokemon { display: inline-block; }
.series_pkmn dfn.field_pkmn .field { display: none; } /* these will _not_ be shown inside their respective series */

/* [[Category:Fake Item lists]] [[Category:Item colors ontology]] */

User:RD/9k/Q81

2026-04-30T21:37:52Z

Reversedragon: existential materialism

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Materialism|User=RD|E=Q81|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/STM|tradition=STM|Q=81|Q2=81|h4= Materialism }}

</li></ol>

== Subcategories ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, STM|Q=82|Q2=82|h4= mechanical materialism }} / mechanical philosophy

{{li|I=Z1/ML|tradition=ML|Q=83|Q2=83|h4= dialectical materialism }} / diamat

{{li|I=Z1/ML|tradition=ML|Q=84|Q2=84|h4= [[E:historical materialism|historical materialism]] }} (specific-sense) / histmat

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX|Q=86|Q2=86|h4= existential materialism }} / exmat / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q86|9k]])

</li></ol>

== Materialism as Marxism ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/ML|tradition=ML|Q=85|Q2=85|h4 = Marxism believing itself to be uncountable }} / generic Marxism

</li></ol>

== Materialist claims ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S0/ML|tradition=ML|Q=93|Q2=93|h4 = argument for general-sense historical materialism }} -> argument for the presence of semi-predictable cause and effect in history, for time itself as a physical process made of repeated physical patterns, and for basic kinds of predictable patterns within populations and societies. basic kinds of arguments which do not bring up class subpopulations but can serve as a foundation for these kinds of analyses

</li></ol>

== Claims against ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=F2/Aqr|Q=22,27|Q2=22,27|h4= Materialism can't explain self-awareness }} / Materialism can't explain how matter can be aware of itself / Science and linear time can't explain how the universe can be aware of itself {{YouTube|1IOo2_JwtJg}} -> laughably wrong. as soon as a human being describes a chemical reaction you see how the universe being aware of itself is possible. if it weren't possible chemistry would be a total mystery. 
step two: realize that social processes are only a little more complicated than chemistry.

{{li|I=F2/HAS|Q=22,93|Q2=22,93|h4= We're all made of matter and energy, therefore soul }} -> the claim that because energy is a substance, human individuals must have souls and humanity must be connected to God. this one is marked false becuase energy in particular does not prove a soul.

</li></ol></dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Help:Philosophy tags

2026-04-30T09:51:25Z

Reversedragon: experiment to rewrite icon code, using template IXN/S1-430

== Demo ==

<ol class="hue clean compound">
<li><dfn class="field_exstruct field_freud manual flag" data-qid="618">{{IXN/S1-430|Q=618}}psychoanalysis</dfn></li>
</ol>

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueRoster|P=asdf| <dfn class{{=}}"field_exstruct field_freud manual flag" data-qid{{=}}"618">{{IXN/S1-430|Q=618}}[[E:Q75|psychoanalysis]]</dfn> }}
</dl>

<ol class="hue clean compound">{{HueDomain|Q92}}</ol>

<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|I=S2/ES|class=field_exstruct|Q=618}}Existentialism (test)
{{li|I=S2/LR|class=field_exstruct field_rdemocracy|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism (test)
{{li|I=S2/Aa|class=field_exstruct field_freud|Q=618}}psychoanalysis (test)
{{li|I=S2/DG|class=field_exstruct field_rhizome|Q=618}}schizoanalysis (test)
</ol>

== Demo 2 ==

{{HueCSS}}
<div class="hue"><div class="tag-figure field_geo"><abbr>STM</abbr></div></div>
akjsdfksjlfjsdkjfl

akjsdfksjlfjsdkjfl

== List of philosophy tags in alphabetical order ==

* {{TTS|html=code|A}}: anarchism
* {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: psychoanalysis
** {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: Freudian psychoanalysis
** {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: Jungian psychoanalysis
** {{TTS|html=code|Aa}}: Lacanian psychoanalysis
* {{TTS|html=code|HAS}}: humanities, arts, and social sciences
* {{TTS|html=code|IV}}: Trotskyism
* {{TTS|html=code|ES}}: capitalist ideologies / blue anarchisms / "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition"
* {{TTS|html=code|LR}}: Liberal-republicanism
* {{TTS|html=code|ML}}: mainstream Marxism-Leninism
** {{TTS|html=code|ML}}: early Marxism
* {{TTS|html=code|MZ}}: Maoism
** {{TTS|html=code|MZ}}: North American Maoism
** {{TTS|html=code|NMZ}}: North American Maoism
* {{TTS|html=code|STM}}: science, technology, engineering, and math

[[Category:Hue-format fake Entity labels]] [[Category:Wiki editing manual]]