LithoGraphica - User contributions [en]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q3300

2026-06-17T23:01:26Z

Reversedragon: If human individuals have free will then non-arborescent social structures are impossible

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=anarchism|User=RD|E=Q3300|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/A|Q=3300|Q2=3300|h4 = [[Ontology:Q3300|anarchism]] }} (top-level category) -> it took me toward the end of making this list to add anarchism or its color swatch. this is partly because I don't know much about any particular named Anarchism, and partly because I have my doubts a lot of concepts in anarchisms are actually unique to them rather than being borrowed from Liberalism or Existentialism. I am not against the sheer concept of anarchisms; particularly when they have specific civilizational shapes they form if they form successfully, they fit into meta-Marxist analysis as well as anything else does. there are just a few things I have problems with like the vagueness of anarchist philosophy and the failure to distinguish between utopian imagery and realistic models of constructing post-capitalist societies. "scientific" anarchisms with the specificity of a named Marxism are at least as legitimate to describe here as Trotskyism.

</li></ol>

== Significant works ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/A|Q=618|Q2=618|h4 = World's first anarchist manifesto }} (Anselme Bellegarrigue 1850) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto|9k]])

</li></ol>

== Anarchism and "conceptual tribes" ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/DG/A|tradition=DG|Q=33,74|Q2=3374|h4 = united nonviolence of special oppressions }} -> the motif that a country is composed of "[[E:White supremacy movements|superior people]]" (social construct, bad) and a ton of endless categories of people who fail to function as perfectly as society's most elite people for some highly specific reason, that if you have any trouble getting into society there must be some highly specific reason you are specially oppressed which requires you to find other people who are specially oppressed exactly the same way and for all the highly specific groups to convince each other at length not to hurt {{em|each other}} and oppress each other. I am so tired of this, specifically because of that last thing. it's clear that over time our basic assumptions about capitalism and Liberal-republicanism have simply ceased to be true, and the way the whole thing operates is a bit different from the way people think. it seems less that people inherently want to accept each other because they're different and more like there are many separate subpopulations of people shoving each other around all trying to fit onto an island too small to fit all of them.

{{li|I=S1/DG/A|tradition=DG|Q=30,73|Q2=3073|h4 = united states of states of states }} / China full of Chinas full of Chinas / USSR of SSRs of SSRs / tribe of tribes of tribes -> the motif that a country is always just a voluntary link between demographics. that the United States is composed of Black women and White women spontaneously opting to be the same country, or Black women and White women opting to be women that then together with Black men opt to be the United States. etc. 
this motif is neutral. I am not trying to say it's bad or impossible to use well, although I would say it confuses and baffles me how intuitive this concept always is to everyone else for reasons I do not understand. or more specifically, how intuitive it is precisely to everyone who is oppressed while being completely unintuitive to a single individual with the power of oppression and as far as I can tell mostly ineffective on them. the sheer ineffectiveness of it on everyone I have ever known personally makes it greatly unintuitive to me, yet to everyone else there's almost no other way to think, and this always leaves me confused. 
I do have some days where I can almost understand it, specifically in cases like the USSR being made up of 14 republics, or a cluster of Iroquois tribes binding together into one big tribe. to me this motif makes lots of sense as a way to understand societies and history when you strain it through Communism or some very crimson-tinted general-sense historical materialism, but it doesn't make a lot of sense as anarchism, exactly the way everyone actually looks at it. so then I end up sitting around confused going, I'm supposed to understand the USSR as being effective specifically because it was made up of 14 nationalities that came together, but how is that even possible when it needed the Material System of Bolshevism to unite them? does this mean that when Trotsky attacked the Soviet Union he went against anarchism and the charcoal-tinted workers' state process? funny enough, that would actually make sense. but it's totally not the way anybody ever sees it in the United States. you don't see United States people going around saying "Trotsky brought down the USSR and that's why you have to vote Democrat, you don't want to become East Germany and let the Great Wall of Biden fall down only to let West Germany start hating and oppressing all people named Kevin". it'd certainly make internally-coherent sense [[:Category:Deng Xiaoping Thought ontology|in its own way]], and yet nobody ever says it because everybody is committed to anarchism being the enemy of Communism but not the enemy of the United States government. doesn't that make anarchism literally "Western", full of prejudice in favor of "The West", and unable to do what "[[E:read Settlers|Settlers]]" claims? anarchism always completely twists my brain in knots because I always end up actually thinking about it and it never makes sense.

{{li|I=S1/DG/MX|tradition=DG|Q=618|Q2=618|h4 = small-scale internationalism }} / molecular internationalism; molecular scale internationalism (meta-Marxism) -> the motif of a country which has been sharded into a ridiculous number of "nationalities" that all function like tiny countries of 1,000 or fewer people, but where that huge number of tiny nationalities has actually started functioning together again.

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618|Q2=618|h4 = "Hierarchy" is class society }} -> Anarchists use the concept of "hierarchy" as an attempt to model class society; "domination" is a slightly different way to refer to the same overall concept of Hierarchy or class society, but is almost the same thing -> 
if you collect enough anarchist statements and texts together, you find this: anarchists are using "hierarchy" or "domination" as a definition of class society. they're fundamentally talking about class society, and they don't care about 'hierarchies' in other contexts. but they specifically think class society exists because people give orders to other people. 
it's really frustrating because in a way, it's sort of referring to something that's true. in feudal orders, and in capitalism, you have these chunks of people that do a task (manor, factory, etc) and then there's this one person or tiny group that is conflated with the whole group and gets to take credit for what it does. Anarchists think that exists just because humanity socially constructed the concept of owning individuals giving people orders, and thereby constructed governments. they think that a person giving orders is the nucleus of a government, and people giving orders and creating governments is what divides societies into warring states periods, hostile kingdoms, pointless Liberal-republican party fights, and capitalism. 
this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies {{nickel|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> {{em|no.}} it's pretty {{censor|damn}} often caused by Communities.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A, Zv|Q=618|Q2=618}}Giving orders is having illegitimate authority {{nickel|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers -> god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Being an authority is good, having authority is bad {{nickel|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A, ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}dividing society into order givers and order takers {{nickel|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx) -> this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.

{{li|I=F2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.

{{li|I=F2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Every hierarchy contains government / Hierarchy contains government (broad statement) / Every spatial hierarchy contains some kind of stable or anomalous form of government, and there is no form of spatial hierarchy which does not contain government -> a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure, such as in a kingdom or a republic containing republican institutions. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|spatial slot hierarchy]] can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that. some hierarchies blatantly contain no government, and effectively contain both hierarchy and anhierarchy at the same time, because they exhibit both things on different axes, flipping one form of order to hierarchy and one form of order to anhierarchy.

</li></ol>

== Attacking division itself ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=F2/A|Q=50,54|Q2=5054}}Anarchy is not anhierarchy / Anarchy is the absence of a warring states period, a civil war that occurs when a country breaks into pieces, a locus of conjoined patriots or retainers forming a government to protect themselves, or in general, of a collection of free-floating populations in an unregulated and ungoverned division of people into multiple hostile competing or warring populations that may be termed "anhierarchy"; because anarchy has gotten rid of anhierarchy, when anarchy exists it will never in and of itself produce anhierarchy; this is to imply that if international war exists or a Cold War exists anarchy does not exist; this is to imply that if Trotskyism existed in the form of approximately 100-150 countries linked together it would be inherently closer to anarchy ... just because it would not have hard borders; this is to imply that freedom and anarchy are inherently opposed to each other, because if any country such as North Korea or Cuba tries to claim freedom for an entire nationality against the onslaughts of other nationalities, thereby dividing country populations from each other, then it cannot contribute to creating anarchy; this is to imply that Trotsky creating a Trotskyist party in a particular country or small cluster of approximately 10 countries is an incorrect path to anarchy but simultaneously that achieving Trotskyism in 150 countries at once {{em|without}} first creating a Trotskyist party over any smaller area with particular spatial borders or extent would be an acceptable step toward anarchy, or would be much closer to acceptable / ({{9k|RD/Q50,54}})

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Authoritarianism is when identities are sketched out and then othered; when there is authoritarianism gay people must be sketched out and quantified into a bordered group distinct from or perhaps competing with other groups; this is to imply but not require that this is actually part of the essence of authoritarianism {{YouTube|blmpOM_EDIo}} -> from the start of this year I'm not going to let a single explanation of "fascism" go if I detect anarchism in it. this statement did not pass the [[EC:9k/RD/Q50,54|Bellegarrigue]] test.

</li></ol>

== Don't trust business territories ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Amazon is creating anticommunist anarchists {{YouTube|f0OLyvX8Xf4|rem=comment|lc=}}

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}"State capitalism" is an anarchist complaint, and does not properly belong to Trotskyism 
Amazon is creating anticommunist anarchists + ?? = this.

</li></ol>

== Freedom from governments ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/A|Q=30,76|Q2=3076}}[[Ontology:Q3076|Capitalism ends through many rounds of "Absolutely Not"]] / Capitalism ends through many rounds of "NO" / United States capitalism ends when we realize every protest is about "{{TTS|tts=No!|NO}}" / proposition No (hypothetical transition to anarchism) -> derived anarchist proposition. the claim that in the United States, specific-sense historical materialism revolves solely around protests that say "no" to something, while movements about actually creating anything in particular won't form any enduring connections. protests about gender identity or abortion or specific forms of racism or even pollution aren't actually protests for anything, they're solely protests {{em|against somebody prohibiting or destroying something}}. there are an alarming number of examples for this. A) "Black Lives Matter": no police shootings. B) during COVID, there were more people than there should have been banding together across charcoal and rust factions to simply side with "no requirements". C) blanket resistance against "AI" without thinking about the origins of the problem in disorganization, conflation of products with individual Subjects, and the nonsense that is copyright disputes. "no AI". D) widespread negative sentiment against "social media", "phones", and The Big Guy that "greedily" devised them. these idle critiques are all "no" statements to merely take the thing away. E) "No Kings": it's in the phrase. arguments it could be true: this is the only kind-of convincing claim I've heard for how rival demographics could directly join together {{em|because of}} their identities despite the pressures of Liberalism. it's consistent with the notion that nations begin as population-societies which must begin with links and outer boundaries, by suggesting the boundary directly forms the population. argument it could be false: this could lead to horizontal conflict of two or more factions mutually protesting each other, as already happens on things like abortion clinics. argument 2 for false: this feels like it clashes really badly with the history of Afrikaners I briefly outlined in another entry. feels like an Afrikaner model could be as useful for challenging some of these claims as the Trotsky model

</li></ol>

=== Bellegarrigist / Proudhonist anticommunism ===
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is a revisionist degeneration of anarchism / Marxist states coopted anarchist movements

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A onto ML|Q=618}}Communism has failed 95% of the time out of 196 times {{YouTube|ZRJgYCi1vvY}}

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=ML, A onto ML, ?? / Hoxhaism|Q=17,40|Q2=1740}}stay with the program (Marxism) / Marxists not updating theories through evidence or reason because 'anarchists aren't correct enough to judge them' ({{TTS|tts=anarchism onto Marxism|A onto MX}}) / dogmatism ({{TTS|tts=anarchism onto Marxism|A onto MX}}) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q17,40|9k]]) -> one of the only anarchist criticisms of Marxism that is actually fair. ...

</li></ol>

== Practical definitions of anarchism ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/ES|Q=618|h4 = Anarchism swaps states for ethics }} / Anarchism replaces states with ethics / Anarchism is partly defined as a society where ethical codes replace The State -> this is what I think the categorical imperative teaches us about blue anarchisms and maybe {{em|all}} anarchisms.

{{li|I=S2/MX/ES/A|Q=618}}Anarchists won't listen to any proposition which isn't phrased in terms of ethics / Anarchists won't listen to any proposition about reality which isn't phrased in terms of individual ethics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q618-AntiJakeTheory|9k/...]]) -> this requirement is really steep, but... as a challenge, is it really unworkable? ... maybe the true power of [[EC:9k/RD/Q92|violet Marxism]] is yet to be seen

{{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 -> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. <s>as it ought to be!</s> 
I have never liked this concept. it sounds great if the only thing you ever talk about in the entire world is Palestine. but it doesn't sound great as soon as you actually have to accommodate multiple countries and all the different political factions in those countries, which all have their own strictly conflicting moralities that then all have to be acknowledged as fundamentally important and fundamentally okay. whether you call it "ethics" or try to make it objective doesn't matter, because somebody can do objective ethics in China and somebody can do objective ethics in the United States and their conclusions could strictly conflict such that there's absolutely no intuitive way to be "considerately and sensitively inclusive" of both ethics theorists or both countable cultures at once — there's no answer! it's not only the case that "is models can't directly generate ought models". whenever you even have to comprehend another person or group of people at all you always have to start at an "is" model, unavoidably, always creating that gap of being at an "is" model and unable to create an "ought" model no matter how hard you try to start at "ought" models. people outright use the word "phenomenology" to promote studying people descriptively, and then they don't realize that that in itself is already destroying the ability to have any ought models. one of the only ways out is to realize that ought models don't truly exist and {{em|only is models have ever existed}}. a whole lot of ought models are actually just wrong is models. 
perhaps there is always just a tiny wedge way off in the corner of that first decision that arbitrarily selects what is models are the ones worth using and acting on. I don't think that's a big deal, as long as we can get the corner wedge as small as possible. a human being is a limited instrument when it comes to the problem of movement building, so we work within its limits. we don't have the choice to be ends instead of means at the moment the larger populational scale exists. a population doesn't have a brain. it doesn't have empathy. it can't even make decisions as much as mindlessly physically {{em|behave}}, radially outward, under relativistic determinism. Liberal-republicanism has shown that everyone becomes a means of a major Liberal-republican party as a material object and isn't an end any more. the big problem is that everyone continues to believe that populations can treat individuals as ends and not means, when population-objects aren't capable of that. this leads to a system where the very worst people are automatically and necessarily treated as having valid codes of morality and being ends in themselves, and everyone else is just told to tolerate everything about them and operate together with them like a happy family like nothing happened. that's blue anarchism: making everybody who is a consciousness with a code of morality all Rhizome together even if they're Hitler, and asking Hitler to explain his code of morality so it can be Considerately and Sensitively Respected. that works on Stalin. that works on Trotsky. that works especially well on Mao. that doesn't work on Hitler, and it doesn't work on Trump.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Anarchism means abolishing domination / Anarchism is partly defined by the concept of abolishing domination {{nickel|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> so, there are some people who already believe critical theory is a form of anarchism. noted.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Anarchism is partly defined by the machiavellian use of existing systems to effect ethics

{{li|I=S2/Zv|Q=48,31|Q2=4831|h4 = Orange anarchism withdraws }} / Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Brown anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population

{{li|I=S2/MX|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT|Q=22,87|Q2=2287|h4 = Anarchism defines itself as Evil }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,87|9k]]) -> this definition of anarchism applies to fields like non-normative queer theory.

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618|h4 = Anarchism actually seeks molecularization }} / Anarchism secretly aims for a molecularized model of all social interactions / Despite all the Idealist nonsense coming out of a lot of anarchist writers, the ultimate goal of anarchism is to become aware of all the small-scale interactions that occur between individuals or small groups of people and over time through some kind of gradual transition process put societies in control of all of those interactions through proportional levels of force or intervention / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98|9k]]) -> 
this is one of the most good-faith interpretations I can pull out of anarchism, out of all the {{censor|crap}} they say. anarchists really want to believe that history doesn't exist, that all historical periods are arbitrary, and that nothing in particular makes historical periods transition into other historical periods. ok.... but what if that {{em|wasn't}} a terrible theory and it {{em|did}} make sense? one of the possible outcomes if you take anarchism seriously is that anarchists have described a process of how individuals assemble from very fine-grained scales into larger historical periods, and how each collection of individual behaviors creates a historical period of a different "color". with one minimum change to anarchism, the recognition that different historical periods containing different repeated behaviors-of-individuals summing up to a particular color can actually transition into periods of other particular colors only from certain colors, you end up with a theory that actually isn't so bad. you've basically replaced the concept of [[E:sublation|sublation]] with a more "timeless" theory that looks more like applied chemistry and recording or memorizing particular kinds of reactions that bridge particular kinds of molecules. but, again, that genuinely might be enough to carry an individual nation-wide movement in a particular country if somebody could only figure out the right transition from what to what. I genuinely believe you could teach anarchists [[E:meta-Marxism (applied)|meta-Marxism]] if they were smart enough and they weren't so stubborn. like there is only so much of a difference between [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|what Stalin said right before he died]] and the CPSU per-se was defeated, and what anarchists want to do. Stalin wanted to create a systematic study of how the small-scale elements of society transitioned into other small-scale elements; anarchists want to be in control of society's small-scale interactions. that's like, almost the same thing. if we could all just pry anarchists away from the concepts of Idealism and utterly mystifying the word "community" to create a strictly Materialist anarchism we'd be set

</li></ol>

== Objections to anarchism ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A |Q=33,89|Q2=3389|h4 = Anarchism can oppress people }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=51,91|Q2=5191|h4 = Post-structuralists effectively hate China }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Most anarchists are egocentric / ... anarchism cannot claim to have separated itself from an egocentric view of reality and in fact almost all anarchisms revolve around the power of any particular individual mind or ego to spontaneously dictate and declare without limit what all other people will do and be / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why do anarchists have to get their goods from China (China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc) if they naturally generate enthusiastic communities full of volunteers? -> I'm not calling out anarchists morally for pulling a Robin Hood, but I am going to judge them for relying on Third World countries to make the scheme work. 
case of: logical contradiction in anarchism

{{li|I=S2/DG/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If human individuals have free will then non-arborescent social structures are impossible / ({{9k|RD/Q86}}) -> this one is specifically aimed at schizoanalysis, which to be fair is not representative of every anarchism.

</li></ol>

== Meta-anarchism ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX/A|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618|Q2=618|h4 = meta-anarchism }} -> meta-anarchism is the Materialist study of countable anarchisms as physical objects, and of the interaction of countable anarchisms and countable Marxisms in a materialist Hegelian dialectic.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618|Q2=618|h4 = anhierarchy }} (meta-Marxism) -> anhierarchy is a new technical term for the sheer absence of a particular kind of hierarchy without specifying the presence of anything else. when a kingdom breaks into warring states, there is anhierarchy, but that does not mean there is anarchy, depending on your definition of "anarchy".

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|h4 = Anhierarchies incidentally birth anarchies }} / Anhierarchies incidentally contain anarchies / Anhierarchies are in actuality [[E:named anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchic]], not {{em|because}} they lack a particular kind of [[E:hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|hierarchy]] but specifically because they happen to contain new methods of connecting and building things that are [[E:molecularized models of society (meta-Marxism)|molecularized]] relative to the perhaps-hierarchical [[E:amorphous models of society (meta-Marxism)|amorphous]] formations that existed before; molecular-scale physical processes of society can give rise to things that [[E:Q92|meta-Marxism]] considers [[E:named anarchy (meta-Marxism)|named anarchies]] -> 
this is going to sound like absolute word salad to somebody who has never heard of the discussions that led to it. which is not a thing I enjoy. but you really do have to get this absolutely down into the weeds to successfully argue with anarchists. you have to make the most precise terms imaginable which are not the least bit confusing, you have to show up with a list of definitions for them, and you have to prove your point practically in another language just to get around all their incorrect models of real things and misleading word definitions.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The function of spatial hierarchies is to create anarchies -> anhierarchy (warring states period); disorganized heterogeneous elements > hierarchy (kingdom); unstable combination of heterogeneous elements > anarchy (republic, combination of provinces); stationary combination of heterogeneous elements

</li></ol>

== Miscellaneous ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/A|Q=53,19|Q2=53,19}}secular animism / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}horizontal revolutionary methods {{YouTube|ZRJgYCi1vvY}}

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=32,99|Q2=3299|h4 = [[E:Q3299|assertion something is an anarchism]] }} / ({{9k|RD/Q3299}})

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=618}}logical contradiction in anarchism -> you can get out of this accusation by actually proposing a historical transition process that separates one prong of the contradiction from the other in time.

</li></ol>

== Ideology codes ==
* A / anarchism

== Subpages ==
* <s>[[Special:PermanentLink/41628|hierarchy]]</s> - attempt to explain the significance of "hierarchy" in anarchism [integrated]
* [[Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q3300/atheism429|atheism]] - on how Idealism persecutes atheism

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q86

2026-06-17T22:59:11Z

Reversedragon: If human individuals have free will then non-arborescent social structures are impossible

{{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 -> one of the core methods of meta-Marxism. 
the first and simplest summary I would give of exmat is "creating a Materialism which strictly begins at small scales rather than large scales, especially and particularly when talking about societies". another way to say that would be "model society through [[E:upreductionism|upreductionism]]". 
that by itself doesn't guarantee a dialectical materialism, and suggests you may end up with something that represents slices of a larger process that apply during specific stretches of time. in my opinion that is still valid, for the same reasons that Newtonian physics can approximate the large-scale results of quantum physics. to have a complete model of physics you'd have to include how processes in reality at least as small as quarks interact with or produce time itself in order to stack up to larger-scale physics. but people often get by with models of physics that effectively tell you what happens {{em|the moment after}} quantum interactions happen and produce such things as atoms. so, I think there is a place for using seemingly 'static' models of social processes to teach what they each are before fully introducing antagonisms. 
a second summary I might give is "creating a Materialism which respects the fact that individual objects or people can interact together to produce history without being directly connected to each other or directly influencing each other until they suddenly collide". this is the same as saying "apply [[E:relativistic determinism (meta-Marxism)|relativistic determinism]] to all objects". concepts like the golden rule are erroneous in that they attribute more horizontal causality to interactions between objects than there really is, but in another sense, the basic concept of metallic rules is fine if you allow for the behaviors of individuals to be truly independent events most of the time and only influence each other sometimes. 
existential materialism is a study of people that treats people somewhat like quarks or electrons, and states that individual people form material objects or processes as they interact socially, consisting of {{em|people arranged into}} larger objects or processes, and not consisting of "ideas" or "culture" or "narratives" — these are not material objects. said another way it is the study of sociophilosophies, or [[EC:9k/RD/Q21,04|the "socio-politico-economy" process]]. so exmat is one of the most central frameworks of violet Marxism, which basically starts out by focusing much harder on small-scale human interactions than on a broader timeline of historical periods, but still ends up with a conception of what a historical period is anyway because they're always made out of people arranged into specific kinds of repeatable patterns. 
you could presumably twist this framework toward bourgeois ends, but the staunch commitment to {{em|Materialism}} within existential materialism and judging the nature of everything by the actual consequences of people's actions rather than by their intentions makes that somewhat hard.

</li></ol>

== Existentialism and existential materialism ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/ES|Q=42|Q2=42|h4= [[E:Q42|existentialism]] }} / early existentialism -> the "existential" or "ex" in "existential materialism" refers to the human individual, also known as "[[E:The Subject (Lacanianism)|the subject]]". picking the specific word "existential" for this is basically in reference to existentialism, a cluster of philosophies which became popular and got their name at a particular time in Europe, which center around the concept that human agency and choices are the primary thing that construct the shape of human lives or existences. depending on what writer you're talking about and what other philosophies you group this with, it can become a horribly egocentric philosophy at times; the concept of "human purpose and meaning being decided by humans" can vulgarize very quickly into "my life revolves entirely around me because I am the center of the universe; this is why I decide what's correct and incorrect, and you can't tell me otherwise". 
a thing that bothered me about existentialism is that people often advance it because they think it promotes "freedom", but in the grander scheme of things, freedom is a very morally-charged topic that to most people is considered almost unequivocally Good and the antithesis of things that are unequivocally Evil. morality, in general, is a very difficult topic where people argue a whole lot about whether things are actually Good or Evil, and whether certain ways of assigning the labels of Good or Evil are themselves Good or Evil. so, to even say a philosophy is about freedom is going to make it hugely polarizing and set up a situation where people are ferociously arguing about whether something really is or isn't Good or Evil, or is or isn't "freedom". so, you can begin to see exactly how when human beings are allowed to decide their own meaning, many people will quickly pick meanings other people think are Evil and call those forms of purpose and meaning "freedom", and then claim their actions other people find Evil cannot be questioned because you aren't supposed to question freedom. worse, some people will pick actions people think are Evil that actually harm nobody, and everyone will debate those actions every bit as heatedly as the things that do harm people. this will always happen because existentialism divides people into the purposes they pick for themselves, but offers no actual way to decide what meanings are good or bad besides different islands of purpose deciding they hate each other. people hating other groups of people becomes the way that particular forms of purpose and meaning are deemed {{em|Good}}, not just the way they are deemed Bad, and every single person must become blind to some forms of utter hatred in order to be aligned with Good; hatred becomes universally Good to people of all moral codes, and cannot be criticized without breaking open all of morality. so.... [[E:You must choose between what is right and what is easy (Harry Potter)|I decided to take the hard path]], and actually break open all of morality so nobody has to hate each other.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=34,99|Q2=3499|h4= Life revolves around you }} / All events that occur while a particular person exists occur {{em|within}} that person, as part of "life" / in life... (motif) / in our lives... (motif) / You {{em|are}} the main character of reality / methodological individualism (generic) / ({{9k|RD/Q34,99}}) -> this is the place existentialism generally starts, that at a certain point I simply could not agree with. I don't think reality has a main character. I don't think the planet has a main character like Goku is in {{book|Dragon Ball}}, or that any country has a main character, or that any city has a main character. the concept that we live in a thing called "Life" is just wrong. we live in reality. we live in cities and towns. we live in ecosystems or biomes. and all of them are made of a bunch of objects all running into each other at once. your biography is not the story of the world, so the story of the world is not "Life". it can't be. if you live in Canada or Australia there are a bunch of people just existing in South Korea who have no idea you exist. those people are not covered by the concept of "Life". but they're still real. 
some people have tried to plug this gap by coming up with [[EC:9k/RD/Q53,19|secular animism]] and insisting that everyone is connected by one long hotel hallway of interacting subjective perceptions and that we live in "Lives". but that's also wrong, because there are always genuinely clusters of living things that have never interacted with you and have never heard of you. to that group of toads on the other side of the world you might as well be a rock. there is a particular transition where when two living things are far enough apart from each other that they could not possibly have any direct influence they more or less become inanimate from each other's vantage point. not because they hate each other, but because they can only leave inanimate trails for each other to find. this inherently disrupts "golden rule"-like constructions because they all require a chain of people continuing in the middle and at that old dusty trail the chain is broken.

{{li|I=Z1/MX|Q=42|Q2=42}}existentialism -> so, existential materialism begins with the statement that [[E:A Subject is a living organism that eats and occupies space|"an existence" or "a life" is the same thing as an Animal]]; an individual human is conceptually similar to an individual cat. from there, you just begin to take any statement about individual humans that doesn't apply to individual cats or individual dogs and {{em|hard doubt it}}. of course, species are not identical to each other, so it's not as if every one of these statements will apply in exactly the same way. but it's a very good rule of thumb. does your cat do what is considerate just because "it should"? or does it only do the things you want under specific conditions? assume that this general observation is the same for humans.

</li></ol>

== Kantianism and existential materialism ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}There is no correct verdict on anarchism / When a charcoal anarchist believes that attacking a retail store is morally Right and all the non-anarchists in the area believe that there is a universal thing called "stealing" and persecuting anyone who attacks a property [[E:Laws don't apply to Lev Sedov|and is not named Leon Trotsky]] is morally Right, there is no "reasonable" answer to what is morally correct, and the Kantian conception of moral truth values has failed

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=29,39|Q2=2939}}Ethics is morality again / Ethics is merely morality all over again, this time seen from an [[E:Morality is the dichotomy between Smart and Not Smart|eclectic-materialist]] perspective where it is believed that morality itself can become objective, as opposed to always being a fundamentally subjective topic of argument where [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)|a much deeper break from the inside of a system to the outside]] is required to actually comprehend ethics in a way that is [[E:existential materialism|truly descriptive and truly compatible with Materialism]]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}One man's crime is another man's law / Actions described by a particular legal system as "crimes" are often in fact the law enforcement actions of another population's legal system or the informal equivalent of one -> often not accurately understood by Stalin's Marxism, Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism, or anarchism. one of those things you truly need [[E:Q92|meta-Marxism]] to accurately characterize.

</li></ol>

== Schizoanalysis and existential materialism ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|I=S2/DG/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If human individuals have free will then non-arborescent social structures are impossible -> this gets a little technical. "individuals" is a key word in this sentence. the assertion being made here fundamentally revolves around the concept of one individual making a choice totally in a vacuum not being influenced by other people, and then showing that choice to another person who responds as if in a vacuum. if this is true, free will is almost a turn-based game. and that's not at all how reality works. the way almost all real decisions go is two people act at once, and if they're both in the same room talking directly to each other they influence each other. even when you buy a product, two entities are weakly interacting against each other. so if anybody has free will, it's only the combination of two people at once, and absolutely not isolated individuals, because all the consequences of their choices come out of other people's choices and that inherently restricts what they can even think of as a choice. 
the second concept in here is that if reality did work like a turn-based game, it would be impossible for anyone to make a choice that affects someone else and not make it "first". this means that trying to defeat an arborescent structure where somebody recruits someone else first and a central command potentially forms is impossible. this puts Deleuze & Guattari in a bind because they're really obsessed with freedom but they're also really obsessed with "defeating hierarchy". you can't do both if you believe that free will exists in individuals rather than specifically in two people that are entangled and where neither person truly makes the choice alone. you can fix it with a dialectical model of choice, removing freedom, or you can fix it by disregarding the requirement against hierarchy, but even doing both of those is contradictory, so you have to eliminate exactly one. and that breaks the whole framework agorists are working with where they supposedly aren't contradictory, requiring a whole new framework.

</li></ol>

== Societal building blocks ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Relationships are not ideas }} / A relationship is not an idea / A relationship between two individuals is not an idea, it is a material process composed of two objects in motion that we call "individual people" -> think about it. if either of two people in a social connection try to reduce a relationship to an idea in their mind, they negate the other person's ideas about the relationship. so as long as "idea" and "Ideal" refer to the same thing, {{em|an idea simply cannot summarize a relationship within the real world at all}}. if "idea" instead refers to [[E:Most science is not done in reality|a hypothetical model of a physical thing]], the results may be different.

</li></ol>

== Studying ethics ethologically ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=618|h4= reverse ethics }} / converse ethics / reverse deontology -> the motif of doing materialist inversion on ethical statements so that instead of them going 1) [[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]] 2) people do things, the process goes 1) people do things 2) we judge them as good or bad. or some distinctly ethics-sounding content on step 2 anyway 
the phrase "reverse deontology" came up in a context where I was trying to imagine a version of my username 'reverseDragon' in a world where the characters were 'already' dragons, so the "D" had to be something else. R.D., reverseDeontology. 
<s>sounds a little like a homestuck username to be honest</s>

{{li|I=S0/MX|Q=618|h4 = existential-materialist metallic rule }} / new metallic rule (existential materialism) / atomic table of behavioral rules / ({{9k|RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules|9k}})

</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/Q1983

2026-06-17T21:55:52Z

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q618-LogicAndWhatIsReal

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Animal Farm|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct field_horror">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= {{book|Animal Farm}} }}

</li></ol>

== Motifs (2026) ==


== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct field_horror">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|Fy|Fiction}} / anticommunist fables

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|Ag}} / agorism

</li></ol>

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

Ontology talk:9k/Q618-LawyersVersusAceAttorney

2026-06-17T08:37:10Z

Reversedragon: Attorneys don't decide the outcome of the case / created yesterday

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=lawyers react to Ace Attorney|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}lawyers react to Ace Attorney / real lawyer reacts to Ace Attorney -> a motif to contain various specific criticisms lawyers have made about the games.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}lawyers react to Ace Attorney / "it was funny how inaccurate it was" [https://web.archive.org/web/20150426105736/https://tay.kotaku.com/a-lawyer-revisits-phoenix-wright-ace-attorney-1694116058/+andrasneltz]

</li></ol>

== AA1 ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=17,55|Q2=1755|h4 = 5th Amendment }} [https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment] / The prosecution can't call the defendant (United States) {{YouTube|xu6ZRWp9rA4}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=17,55|Q2=1755}}Requiring a trial verdict within three days of arrest is so bad the Magna Carta should have been able to prohibit it [https://web.archive.org/web/20150426105736/https://tay.kotaku.com/a-lawyer-revisits-phoenix-wright-ace-attorney-1694116058/+andrasneltz]

</li></ol>

== AA2 ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Don't ask a lawyer to find all the small details that don't add up; they will find all the structural problems in the mystery or crime story as well as the stated details [https://web.archive.org/web/20201108091537/https://tay.kinja.com/a-lawyer-revisits-phoenix-wright-ace-attorney-justic-1695273699] -> so you're telling me lawyers make good fiction writers if they felt like it. interesting thought.

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{game|Justice for All}} did not really explore the problem of what it means to be a defense attorney; the concept of Phoenix only having to defend the innocent was not necessarily challenged because the second layer of consequences simplified things rather than complicated them [https://web.archive.org/web/20201108091537/https://tay.kinja.com/a-lawyer-revisits-phoenix-wright-ace-attorney-justic-1695273699] -> huh. I didn't think too deeply until now about the fact that this was a classic ethics thought experiment of changing the outcome of a fitting action and seeing what happens. very nice observation.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Attorneys don't decide the outcome of the case, so their ethical opinion on the "Guilty / Not Guilty" axis in particular doesn't matter

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}In the real world Phoenix would not be allowed to represent someone in a crime he was already a witness to; this happens to partially shield him from, and likely prevent, the dramatic situation of the criminal blackmailing witnesses [https://web.archive.org/web/20201108091537/https://tay.kinja.com/a-lawyer-revisits-phoenix-wright-ace-attorney-justic-1695273699]

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==

* LR / Liberal-republicanism

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,9,92

2026-06-17T08:28:10Z

Reversedragon: set up some markup for testing upgraded list templates / stylesheets

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=color swatch system|User=RD|E=Q12,9,92|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,90|Q2=12990}}{{int:sitename}} philosophy classification systems / philosophy tag / philosophy code / ideology code / ideology tag / philosophy tag or ideology code for "non-partisan" field of academic study

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}{{int:sitename}} color swatch system -> an entry which will formally lay out the rules for what puts things in each color swatch one by one. this entry really is focused only on the swatches, not the 2-3 letter philosophy tags which are used in contexts that resemble black-and-white publications.

</li></ol>

== Basic rules ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-1 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the "mandatory" set of swatch assignment rules that likely will not change.

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=12,9,84|Q2=12984|h4= Stalin's Marxism must be crimson }} / The crimson swatch color must be used for Stalin's Marxism ({{TTS|ML}}) to reflect that this is the most common meaning of "Communism" and "Reds" in most Liberal-republican countries regardless of the ideological faction people are on when they use the term; this includes Stalin's party and Hoxhaism but does not explicitly include Maoism -> note that "crimson" is a [[E:Roses are cardinal, violets are sunbird, colors are groupings that have been numbered|signifier that groups things]], and what real actual color it will be rendered in on the screen is an entirely separate thing. colorblind or monochrome stylesheets are completely respected on this project.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=12,9,75|Q2=12975|h4= Anarchism is charcoal }} / Anarchism must be charcoal / The black swatch color must be used for anarchism (the totality of philosophies claiming to be both "against capitalism" in a Marxist sense and "anarchism"; philosophy tag {{TTS|A|'A'}}), to reflect that this has been the traditional symbol used within anarchist movements for over a century; although this swatch color is black in concept, it may be rendered in a charcoal-gray color in contexts such as stylesheets if that looks more visually appealing

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,88|Q2=12988|h4= European fascism is brown }} / European fascism must be brown / The khaki brown swatch color must be used for classical European fascisms, including: Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Imperial Japan

</li></ol>

== Level-2 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-2 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the second set of basic rules that is relatively well-decided-on but is not as "strictly mandatory". these rules have slightly less firm justification but are also fairly unlikely to change.

{{li|I=S2/MX/MX|Q=12,92,0|Q2=12920|h4= meta-Marxism is violet }} / The violet swatch color will be used for [[EC:9k/RD/Q92|meta-Marxism]] — a body of methods internally given a boundary by particular rules, in which whole Marxist movements taking place in a particular country or region are analyzed as developing material objects which might be in conflict with each other and get into heated material contradictions despite both attempting to be versions of Marxism and both claiming to be able to create a new historical period which will involve workers' government and socialist transition; this violet swatch color is an intermediate violet which is not specified to be either red-violet or blue-violet, and these colors are left open as options for specialized swatch colors that may be assigned to specific philosophy tags later

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,89|Q2=12989|h4= Duginism is brown }} / Alexander Dugin's so-called "fourth" political ideology ({{TTS|P4}}) and The European New Right are similar enough to classical European fascism to be brown

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,87|Q2=12987|h4= Toryism is brown }} / Tory parties ({{TTS|PT}}) such as the US Republican Party and UK Conservative Party are similar enough to Duginism (not Nazi Germany, not World War II) to be brown -> one question that might come up in the minds of any experienced Marxists who find this project is, why distinguish Toryism as its own ideology separate from Liberal-republicanism (= capitalist government, capitalist ideology) as a whole? and the answer is, the United States is so politically bankrupt that absolutely every progressive movement that has ever existed from unions to the civil rights movement to anarchism and schizoanalysis to just {{em|everything}} has defined itself in opposition or in relation to Toryism (the Free Software movement has referenced Toryism in two different directions, either saying 'I'm [[E:Nina Paley|anti-trans]] just like the Tories' or 'the Tories are being [[E:Mike Masnick|too stingy]] with their business territories'). so, without knowing in detail what Toryism is and simply letting people label bad things they want to oppose "Toryism" it's somewhat literally impossible to create even a single organization anywhere in the United States. everyone who lives in the US knows that if you simply let people classify and name ideologies however they want, they'll try to tell you that all conservative parties are indistinguishable from European fascism, and then Tories will argue in different words that they're Tories and not fascists, and the progressives will lose the argument that fascism already exists or is forming and it'll get really ugly. 
I choose to use this knowledge to claim that Liberal-republicans are very very slowly learning meta-Marxist color swatch analysis, and it {{em|might}} be possible to use people's back and forth contradiction against Toryism to actually teach them what ideologies are, how many total ideologies exist besides just center-Liberalism and Toryism, and how all of them relate to historical materialism, historical periods, and historical transitions. I don't think there are any guarantees on that. but it does make it easier to talk about US, UK, and Australian politics without dismissing all of it and throwing it all in the trash.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=12,9,76|Q2=12976|h4= Liberal-republicanism is usually blue }} / The sky-blue swatch color will be used for Liberal-republican philosophies ({{TTS|LR}}) which are not clearly identifiable as Toryism; this includes the US Democratic Party and the British Labor Party, as well as traditional Enlightenment-era authors now associated with Liberal-republicanism such as Kant / The sky-blue swatch color ({{TTS|html=code|.field_exstruct|field ex-struct}}) will be used for center-Liberalism and most of Liberal-republicanism

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The humanities are blue }} / The sky blue swatch will be used for topics in the humanities, arts, or social sciences (philosophy tag {{TTS|HAS|Hass}}) whenever they are too general to fit into other swatches

{{li|I=S2/MX/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Fictional works are green }} / Fiction is green / The bright green swatch will be used for fictional works, arbitrarily constructed board games, and topics within the arts which strongly resemble these topics / Fandoms are green

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The sciences are earth }} / The earth green or chlorophyll green swatch will be used for subjects within science, technology, engineering or math -> in early drafts of the color swatch system the science and mathematics swatch was cyan because I thought that was a fairly "computerized" color, but then when the optional humanities swatch color was created I had to change it because I realized that putting the humanities neatly in between language and literature per-se was a lot more logical. wanting the sciences to still have an appealing and recognizable color, I changed it to a foliage or chlorophyll color

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974|h4= Trotskyism is orange }} / The flame-orange swatch color will be used for Trotskyism (the totality of attempts to form a Fourth International; philosophy tag {{TTS|IV|'Fourth'}}) to reflect its deep and ongoing material conflict with Stalin's Marxism ({{TTS|ML}}) from circa 1904 through 2026; their neatly symmetric, back-and-forth "civil war" with each other in which they have [[E:unity of opposites (Marxism)|defined and changed each other]] through [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|sustained resistance to each other]] arguably makes them entirely separate movements that at some unclear point in history (or fuzzy range of time) divided off and put a gap between each other instead of remaining two wings of one movement

{{li|I=S2/MX/DX|Q=12,9,85|Q2=12985|h4= Eclectic Marxism is strawberry }} / Eclectic versions of Marxism that contain some amount of Marxism yet improperly mix in Idealism, religion, conflating peasants and employees, or other particular forms of bourgeois ideology that cause problems for understanding Marxism will be marked with the pale-red "strawberry" swatch color -> this is one of the shakiest "basic rules" — I think the distinction between Materialism ({{TTS|ML}}) and eclectic Materialism (philosophy tags {{TTS|W, DX|West, DX}}) is solid, but I am not entirely sure if the strawberry swatch should be divided into more swatches when it comes to identifying social structures which are particularly at fault for generating strawberry ideology.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT|Q=618|h4= Woman is not an ideology }} / Muslim is not a political party / Taoism is not a historical period — though Maoism is / African-American is not a mode of production / Italian is not an international government / There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

</li></ol>

== Level-3 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-3 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> this is where the rules often start devolving into intuitions that I then have to investigate and check several times.

{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943}}Psychoanalysis is blue / The sky blue color swatch will be used for Freudian psychoanalysis (philosophy tag {{TTS|Aa|A-A}}) because it is frequently used to promote anticommunism and people bursting out of Marxist states to become various skilled trades including novelists and playwrights, or psychoanalysts themselves; Jungian psychoanalysis is used to condemn psychological repression and conformity and try to paint as criminal (as violently dangerous and undesirable) any bordered group of people that does not base itself specifically on the perceived freedom, happiness, and lack-of-regulation of each individual; Lacanian psychoanalysis is used to claim that Toryism exists because Tories are psychologically stunted individuals and if they are only forced to develop into Real Humans by ignoring them long enough then the form of government every Real Human naturally desires to come together and create, Liberal-republicanism, will be fine

{{li|I=S2/MX/ES|Q=12,9,42|Q2=12942}}Existence-philosophy is blue / Early existentialism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for the [[E:Q42|existentialist]] period of philosophy ({{TTS|ES|E-S}}) because it uses similar forms of reasoning to psychoanalysis

{{li|I=S2/YR|Q=618|Q2=618}}Yaroshenkoism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for Idealist economics, such as [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|Yaroshenko]] believing that a Marxist party existing meant that government had total control over the economy and there was no need for actual Materialist descriptions of economic transitions happening on their own scale (philosophy tag {{TTS|YR|Yarrow|title=YaRho, ЯР — Yaroshenkoism}}); in the overall substance of its causal theories of society, this is similar enough to ordinary Liberal-republican parties claiming to offer social-democratic programs in order to "care about people" that it is functionally the same thing

{{li|I=S2/MX/Ag|Q=618|Q2=618}}Agorism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for agorism (philosophy tag {{TTS|Ag}}), which is here taken to be the general space of ideologies based on a group of people clustering together to resist existing parties or states while united around "the totality of non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason", whether that locus of non-aggression is explicitly defined as a cluster of non-aggressive {{em|businesses}} or more vaguely defined as a broad cluster of demographic identities and single-issue movements that are not in favor of Third World countries having Bolshevism but are "against domination"

{{li|I=S2/MX/W/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}Gramscianism is red (sense) / The crimson swatch will be used for the process of a population transitioning into Bolshevism (Leninist revolution) according to Antonio Gramsci, if and when he is describing a process that is based specifically on material arrangements of people, that process is largely concerned with employees or potential employees who do not own businesses getting into some kind of arrangement, and that process is not primarily based in "changing people's mentality" or "controlling ideas"; if Gramsci describes workers filling up corporations or institutions, that might qualify, but if he specifically describes intellectuals filling up an institution and it is not considered peripheral to the tasks of the workers then it does not qualify under this proposition -> I genuinely think Gramscianism is at least two different colors depending on who's doing it.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|Q=618|Q2=618}}Gramscianism is strawberry / The strawberry swatch will be used for methods described by Antonio Gramsci which involve non-proletarian classes attempting to occupy parts of society over short or long periods to protect it from "fascism", violent Tories, capitalist resistance to anti-capitalist movements, and so forth; this may range from simple entryism up to larger-scale events that slowly begin to resemble permanent revolution yet involve a strangely large number of non-proletarian activists -> as of June 2026, I am starting to think I maybe actually had agorism confused with Gramscianism, given how on the ground everything is so secret and unlabeled and fractured and disorganized and I feel like most of the people who are actually trying to do 'wars of position' actually have nearly no idea what they're doing. 
my thoughts now are... if a "Marxism" doesn't contain any Communist theorists, is it even an eclectic Marxism? or is it just something entirely different? I'm starting to think that there are a vast number of ideologies that are separable and in conflict and yet all blue. that is a headache to try to keep track of using swatches. I guess I will just have to mark out a ridiculous number of shades of blue under the {{TTS|html=code|.field_exstruct|field ex-struct}} range in the stylesheet so they can be used on the pages where different agorisms are fighting each other. I could have made Toryism blue if I'd done that early; oh well. maybe I will make a specialized swatch only to be used on pages that are really down in the weeds of US politics so the Republicans, Democrats, and Federalist Party are all blue.

</li></ol>

== Level-4 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML field_exstruct field_horror field_GNU field_relativity field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/Ag|Q=618|Q2=618}}All agorisms are blue; any apparent "charcoal anarchisms" that are agorisms are not to be considered charcoal anarchisms, and are to be considered blue anarchisms

</li></ol>

== Level-5 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML field_exstruct field_horror field_GNU field_relativity field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-5 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the final level of rules, whatever number of levels it will be, is the most arbitrary stuff that's subject to change at any time. 
note that below here are a lot of "optional swatches" where you have to switch them on for them to show up instead of the more generic swatches.

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=12,9,84|Q2=12984}}Stalin's Marxism is crimson

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974}}Trotskyism is orange

{{li|I=S2/MX/MD|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Early Bolshevism is vermilion }} / The vermilion swatch color, neatly in-between the crimson and flame-orange swatches, will be used to represent real or hypothetical versions of Marxism that combine both Trotskyist theorists and "Stalinist" theorists; this swatch refers to very few concrete things that have already happened, but may or may not include Lenin himself, and includes the hypothetical situation of crimson parties (not strawberry parties) and orange parties attempting to form a Communist International in order to settle onto one version of Marxism / The vermilion swatch color ({{TTS|html=code|.field_14quarters|field fourteen-quarters}}) will be used to represent alliances between "Stalinists" and Trotskyists, without intending to clearly imply these alliances are stable

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=12,9,76|Q2=12976}}Liberal-republicanism is blue -> for this swatch, I really just wanted it to be "sky blue, a second time".

{{li|I=S2/DG|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Schizoanalysis is shadow }} / The blue-black swatch color will be used for schizoanalysis, in reference to its position between Liberal-republicanism or agorism (blue) and anarchism (charcoal); this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943|h4= Psychoanalysis is abyssal }} (sense) / The ocean-abyss-blue swatch color will be used for psychoanalysis, in reference to Jung comparing the mind to the depths of an ocean; this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Linguistics is blue

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The humanities are blue-green }} / The blue-green swatch color will be used for the humanities to reflect their position in between linguistics (blue) and fiction (bright green)

{{li|I=S2/MX/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Fictional works are green

{{li|I=S2/MX/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Dark stories are forest }} / The dark green or forest green swatch color will be used for concepts within the scope of the bright green swatch color which involve "dark" events, which at different times may include horror works, tragedy works, dark-fantasy works, conceptual swaths of things identified as elemental antagonisms within fiction (for instance, the consistent dichotomy of Good versus Prosecutors in the {{game|Ace Attorney}} games), villains, or evil empires; the dark green swatch color is a direct variation on the bright green swatch color -> this swatch mostly exists to break up really long lines of green, so that discussing fiction doesn't make the swatch system pointless.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}The sciences are earth -> I had to make this a vaguely "yucky" green so it would be distinguishable from the fiction swatches at least when they were side by side. at this time, the "horror" swatch is lumped into the bright green swatch unless you specifically activate it, so that makes it easier for pages with both fiction and science on them to not become confusing.

{{li|I=S2/MX/GR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Relativity is aurora }} / The space-void green or aurora green swatch color will be used for claims closely related to Einsteinian relativity, either special or general (philosophy tag {{TTS|GR|G.R.}}; note that it's common for tags to be abbreviations from "different fields"); this is a specialized variant within the earth swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=12,9,75|Q2=12975}}Anarchism is charcoal

{{li|I=S2/FS|Q=618|Q2=618}}The Free Software and Free Culture movements will receive a penguin-colored swatch patterned after Emperor Penguins and icebergs; this is a specialized variant of either the sky blue or charcoal swatch color which is a direct variation of the charcoal swatch color

{{li|I=S2/ES/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Queer studies are rainbow }} / The LGBT+ tradition in either the arts or social philosophy will have its own swatch which is either lavender or rainbow; this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is {{em|not}} a direct variation on it
{{li|I=S2/IV/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Queer studies are rainbow / The LGBT+ swatch will combine with other swatch colors to show a range of different background colors -> this works best when you enable the gadget to actually show a gradient on the Item swatch, but even without that it still {{em|happens}}
{{li|I=S2/Fy/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Queer studies are rainbow -> (example third color)

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974}}Trotskyism is orange / Trotskyism is fire-red -> I'd say you shouldn't phrase it like that but the Pokémon on the cover of FireRed is Charizard, and Charizard is orange. there is a very weird joke trying to pop out of this statement involving the Trotskyist swatch and Charizard

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields (test) ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=92|Q2=92}}{{abbr|MX|tts=meta-|title=meta-Marxism}} / meta-Marxism
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=41,03|Q2=4103}}{{abbr|ML|tts=M-L|title=mainstream Marxism-Leninism}} / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{abbr|IV|tts=Fourth|title=Trotskyism}} / Trotskyism

</li></ol>

== Wavebuilder combinations (test) ==
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/LR|Liberal-republicanism}} | {{E:Q618/LR|Liberal-republicanism}} | {{E:Q618/MX|conclusion}} }}
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/STM|physics}} | {{E:Q618/MX|plurality}} | {{E:Q618/GR|relativity}} }}
</dl>


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

MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-entity-HAS

2026-06-17T08:24:06Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Template:IXN/HAS/E to MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-entity-HAS without leaving a redirect: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final

Q618

MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-entity-STM

2026-06-17T08:23:17Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Template:IXN/STM/E to MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-entity-STM without leaving a redirect: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final

Q618

Template:IS1/ES

2026-06-17T08:21:41Z

Reversedragon: use MediaWiki interface strings

<includeonly><onlyinclude>{{IS1|tag={{{tag|}}}|class={{{class|field_exstruct}}}| tradition2 = Existentialist-Structuralist tradition | tradition = ES | tts = E.S. |tradition-message={{{tradition-message|es}}}|Q={{{Q|}}}|QTTS={{{tts|}}}}}</onlyinclude></includeonly>
{{HueSwatchPreview|I=S1/ES|dl = {{int:hue-item-placeholder-name-s1/en}} |lang=en}}

== Description ==

[[Template:IS1|This template]] may be used for adding descriptive swatches to [[:Category:S1 Signifier Items|S Items]] that give them text-based icons in print view.

This is a variant for the <code>ES</code> philosophy tag ([[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist-Structuralist tradition]]).

== Templates called ==
* [[Template:IS1]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-ixn-classname-ES]] — <code>{{MediaWiki:hue-ixn-classname-ES}}</code>
* [[MediaWiki:hue-ixn-entity-ES]] — [[E:{{MediaWiki:hue-ixn-entity-ES}}]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-item-placeholder-name-s1]] / [[MediaWiki:hue-item-placeholder-name-s1/en|en]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-es]] / [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-es/en|en]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-tts-es]] / [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-tts-es/en|en]]

[[Category:I-Templates for philosophy tag ES]] [[Category:I-Templates for dimension S]] {{ArticleTitle|NoContents=y}}

MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-entity-ES

2026-06-17T08:20:47Z

Reversedragon: use MediaWiki string for entity field

Q73

MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-classname-ES

2026-06-17T08:19:17Z

Reversedragon: classname

field_exstruct

Template:IS1/Aa

2026-06-17T08:17:15Z

Reversedragon: use MediaWiki interface strings

<includeonly><onlyinclude>{{IS1|class={{{class|field_exstruct field_freud}}}| tradition2 = {{int:hue-tooltip-tradition-Aa/{{{lang|en}}}}} | tradition = {{{trad|Aa}}} | tts = {{{tradTTS|A.A.}}} | trad-E = {{{trad-E|}}} |lang={{{lang|en}}}|Q={{{Q|}}}|QTTS={{{tts|}}}|sense={{{sense|}}}|tag={{{tag|}}}}}</onlyinclude></includeonly>
{{HueSwatchPreview|I=S1/Aa|dl = {{int:hue-item-placeholder-name-s1/{{{lang|en}}}}} }}

== Description ==

[[Template:IS1|This template]] may be used for adding descriptive swatches to [[:Category:S1 Signifier Items|S Items]] that give them text-based icons in print view.

This is a variant for the <code>Aa</code> philosophy tag ([[:Category:Lacanianism ontology|psychoanalysis]]).

== Templates called ==
* [[Template:IS1]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-ixn-classname-Aa]] — <code>{{MediaWiki:hue-ixn-classname-Aa}}</code>
* [[MediaWiki:hue-ixn-entity-Aa]] — [[E:{{MediaWiki:hue-ixn-entity-Aa}}]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-item-placeholder-name-s1]] / [[MediaWiki:hue-item-placeholder-name-s1/en|en]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-Aa]] / [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-Aa/en|en]]
* [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-tts-Aa]] / [[MediaWiki:hue-tooltip-tradition-tts-Aa/en|en]]

[[Category:I-Templates for philosophy tag Aa]] [[Category:I-Templates for dimension S]]  {{ArticleTitle|NoContents=y}}

Template:IS2/UTDR/DFy/class

2026-06-17T08:15:58Z

Reversedragon: horror swatch

#redirect[[Template:IS2/DFy/class]]
[[Category:I-Template classnames displaying swatch Fy-DFy]]

Template:IS2/DFy/class

2026-06-17T08:15:05Z

Reversedragon: horror swatch

<onlyinclude>class="field_fantasy field_horror manual {{{1|}}}" data-dimension="S2"</onlyinclude>
[[Category:I-Template classnames displaying swatch Fy-DFy]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q6621

2026-06-17T08:13:20Z

Reversedragon: The cage represents suicidal depression

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Kris|User=RD|E=Q66,21|NoContents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_horror">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/UTDR/DFy|Q=66,21|Q2=6621}}[[E:Q6621|Kris Dreemurr]]

</li></ol>

== Themes and motifs ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/UTDR/DFy|Q=64,16|Q2=6416}}Kris resisting player (Deltarune)

{{li|I=S1/UTDR/DFy|Q=64,17|Q2=6417}}secrets (Deltarune) / memories concealed from other people

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/UTDR/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}The cage represents suicidal depression / Kris being tasked with the Red Soul and becoming "the cage" thematically represents Kris losing the will to live and coasting through life barely "reanimated" by reasons they hardly even know

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==


* Fy / urban fantasy
* (D)Fy / psychological horror
* UTDR / [[EC:9k/RD/Q76,17|Deltarune]]

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

Template:IXN/field-tag

2026-06-17T05:40:19Z

Reversedragon: use MediaWiki string for entity field

<onlyinclude>{{TTS|html=abbr|class={{{class|}}}|title={{#if:{{{tradition2|}}}| {{{tradition2|}}} | {{int:hue-tooltip-tradition-{{{tradition-message|}}}/{{{lang|}}}}} }} |E={{#if:{{{tradition-E|}}}| {{{tradition-E|}}} | {{MediaWiki:hue-ixn-entity-{{{tradition|}}}}} }} |{{#if:{{{Bracket|}}}|(}}{{#switch:{{{ParameterThatShouldBeEmpty|}}} | {{{trad|}}}{{{tradition-message|}}} = {{{tradition|}}} | {{{trad|}}}{{{tradition|}}} = {{int:hue-philosophy-{{{tradition-message|}}}/{{{lang|}}}}} | #default = {{{trad|}}} }}{{#if:{{{Bracket|}}}|)}}| }}
</onlyinclude>

MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-classname-Aa

2026-06-17T05:34:51Z

Reversedragon: classname

field_exstruct field_freud

MediaWiki:Hue-ixn-entity-Aa

2026-06-17T05:32:17Z

Reversedragon: identifier

Q75

Ontology:Q618/GR

2026-06-17T05:25:40Z

Reversedragon: copy from Q618/STM

{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound field_relativity"><li><onlyinclude>{{Ontology:Q618|Q={{{Q|618}}}|dimension={{{dimension|S}}}
|I={{#if:{{{dimension|}}}|{{{dimension|}}}/GR|{{{I|S1}}}/GR}}
|class=field_geo field_relativity|{{{1|aurora Item}}}
|GR}} [[Category:Text pages containing proposed Items]]</onlyinclude></li></ol>
<dl class="wikitable hue field_relativity">{{HueRoster|P=definition list| {{Ontology:Q618/GR}} }}</dl>

[[Category:B-Templates for semantically categorizing Items]] [[Category:Hue-format fake Entity labels]]  {{ArticleTitle|NoContents=y}}

Template:IS1/GR

2026-06-17T05:24:25Z

Reversedragon: copy or update template from IS1/STM

<includeonly><onlyinclude>{{IS1|class={{{class|field_geo field_relativity}}}| tradition2 = Einsteinian relativity; general or special relativity | tradition = GR | tts = relativity |Q={{{Q|}}}|QTTS={{{Q|}}}|tag={{{tag|}}}}}</onlyinclude></includeonly>
{{HueSwatchPreview|class=field_relativity|I=S1/GR|dl = motif or theme coded as S Item}}

== Description ==

[[Template:IS1|This template]] may be used for adding descriptive swatches to [[:Category:S1 Signifier Items|S Items]] that give them text-based icons in print view.

This is a variant for the <code>GR</code> philosophy tag (general or special relativity).

[[Category:I-Templates for philosophy tag STM]] [[Category:I-Templates for dimension S]] {{ArticleTitle|NoContents=y}}

MediaWiki:Gadget-swatch-gradients.user.css

2026-06-17T05:23:24Z

Reversedragon: add GR-aurora

/* ==UserStyle==
@name gradient - all swatch gradients
@description .field_GNU (FS), .field_LGBT (LGBT), .field_relativity (GR)
@version 1.0.9
@author reverseDragon
@namespace github.com/openstyles/stylus
==/UserStyle== */

/* To turn this on all the time, go to Preferences and select gadget-swatch-gradients - [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets]
To easily toggle this style on and off, install a user styles add-on, and then open this URL:
https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?action=raw&title=MediaWiki:Gadget-swatch-gradients.user.css */

@media screen {

/* tag LGBT - LGBT tradition ; rainbow gradient */
.hue li.field_LGBT:before, ol.hue li.field_LGBT:before, ol.hue li[value].field_LGBT:before {
background: #a399f2 linear-gradient(90deg,rgba(194, 87, 87, 0.7), rgba(170, 154, 75, 0.7), rgba(147, 219, 64, 0.7), rgba(123, 224, 140, 0.7), rgba(96, 210, 188, 0.7), rgba(70, 196, 235, 0.7), rgba(96, 116, 230, 0.7), rgba(119, 47, 173, 0.7));
border-left-color: #680f06; border-right-color: #650668;
}
dl.hue .field_LGBT:before, dl.hue .field_LGBT .figure { background: #a399f2 linear-gradient(135deg,rgba(194,87,87,0.7),rgba(170,154,75,0.7),rgba(178,219,64,0.7),rgba(123,224,167,0.7),rgba(15, 177, 240, 0.7),rgba(90, 85, 244, 0.7)); }

/* tag FS - Free Software movement ; emperor penguin gradient */
.hue .field_GNU { background: #78b5c8; border-color: #ec8500; }
.hue.field_GNU li.field_GNU:before, ol.hue.field_GNU li.field_GNU:before, ol.hue.field_GNU li[value].field_GNU:before, ol.hue.field_GNU li dfn.field_GNU:before, ol.hue.field_GNU .field_GNU .mix-match, .hue-term .mix-match.field_GNU {
background: #292960; border-color: #ec8500;
}
dl.hue .field_GNU:before, dl.hue .field_GNU .figure { background: #78b5c8 linear-gradient(35deg,#08080b,#06062b,#ec4d00,#e8c50a,#f0e4b6,#d7f1f9,#b6dae6,#14a3ce); }

/* tag GR - general/special relativity ; aurora gradient */
dl.hue.field_relativity .field_relativity .figure, dl.hue.field_relativity .field_relativity:before { background: #374a2b linear-gradient(155deg,#374a2b,#597746,#a1ca58,#3e5132,#374a2b); } /* definition list */
.hue.field_relativity .hue-term .field_relativity { background: #374a2b linear-gradient(150deg,#374a2b,#374a2b,#a1ca58,#374a2b,#374a2b); }

}

/* [[Category:Hue configuration Gadgets]]
based on styles: [[MediaWiki:Gadget-LGBT-rainbow.user.css]] [[MediaWiki:Gadget-FS-penguin.user.css]] */

MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition

2026-06-17T05:21:52Z

Reversedragon: GR aurora

MediaWiki:Gadget-GR-aurora.user.css

2026-06-17T05:21:13Z

Reversedragon: style tested today

/* ==UserStyle==
@name gradient - GR, aurora
@description displays "field_relativity" swatch including green beam
@version 1.0.1
@author reverseDragon
@namespace github.com/openstyles/stylus
==/UserStyle== */

/* Gadget "gradient-GR-aurora" - displays both colors on all versions of GR swatch

To turn this on all the time, go to Preferences and select gradient-GR-aurora - [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets]
To easily toggle this style on and off, install a user styles add-on, and then open this URL:
https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?action=raw&title=MediaWiki:Gadget-GR-aurora.user.css */

@media screen {
/*.hue li.field_relativity:before, ol.hue li.field_relativity:before, ol.hue li[value].field_relativity:before { /* number list * /
background: ;
}*/

dl.hue.field_relativity .field_relativity .figure, dl.hue.field_relativity .field_relativity:before { background: #374a2b linear-gradient(155deg,#374a2b,#597746,#a1ca58,#3e5132,#374a2b); } /* definition list */
.hue.field_relativity .hue-term .field_relativity { background: #374a2b linear-gradient(150deg,#374a2b,#374a2b,#a1ca58,#374a2b,#374a2b); }
}

/* [[Category:Hue configuration Gadgets]] */

Template:HueSwatchPreview

2026-06-17T04:57:32Z

Reversedragon: brackets typo

<includeonly><onlyinclude>{{HueCSS}}
<ol class="hue clean compound {{{class|}}}"><li><dfn {{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}/class|flag}} data-qid="617">{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|en}}}|Q=617|dimension={{{dimension|S}}}}}[[E:Q617|{{{dl}}}]]</dfn></li></ol>
<dl class="wikitable hue {{{class|}}}">
{{HueRoster|EP=PPPA/L|lang=en| <dfn {{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}/class|flag}} data-qid{{=}}"617">{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|en}}}|Q=617|dimension={{{dimension|S}}}}}[[Ontology:Q617|{{{dl}}}]]</dfn> }}
</dl>
<div class="hue {{{class|}}}">
Paragraph containing term ... <dfn {{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}/class|flag hue-term}} data-dimension="S" data-qid="617">{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|en}}}|Q=617}}[[E:Q617|{{{dl}}}]]{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|zxx}}}|tag=y}}{{WaveScore|sum=1|quilt=1|ply=1}}</dfn> ... within text</div></onlyinclude></includeonly>

{{HueSwatchPreview|I=S1|dl=object or motif}}

[[Category:Hue-format fake Items]]

Template:HueSwatchPreview

2026-06-17T04:55:42Z

Reversedragon: bring class parameter back

<includeonly><onlyinclude>{{HueCSS}}
<ol class="hue clean compound {{{class|}}}}}"><li><dfn {{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}/class|flag}} data-qid="617">{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|en}}}|Q=617|dimension={{{dimension|S}}}}}[[E:Q617|{{{dl}}}]]</dfn></li></ol>
<dl class="wikitable hue {{{class|}}}}}">
{{HueRoster|EP=PPPA/L|lang=en| <dfn {{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}/class|flag}} data-qid{{=}}"617">{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|en}}}|Q=617|dimension={{{dimension|S}}}}}[[Ontology:Q617|{{{dl}}}]]</dfn> }}
</dl>
<div class="hue {{{class|}}}}}">
Paragraph containing term ... <dfn {{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}/class|flag hue-term}} data-dimension="S" data-qid="617">{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|en}}}|Q=617}}[[E:Q617|{{{dl}}}]]{{Template:I{{{I|S1}}}|lang={{{lang|zxx}}}|tag=y}}{{WaveScore|sum=1|quilt=1|ply=1}}</dfn> ... within text</div></onlyinclude></includeonly>

{{HueSwatchPreview|I=S1|dl=object or motif}}

[[Category:Hue-format fake Items]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-ManifestDestinyArgument

2026-06-17T04:27:40Z

Reversedragon: Fukuyama made a manifest destiny argument

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=manifest destiny argument|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}manifest destiny argument (general) -> the motif of any argument that a large empire conquering smaller kingdoms or nations is so inevitable you should have supported it at the time, to limit the amount of suffering involved, or for any other stated reason. 
it seems that a huge wedge of United States culture and discourse revolves around these, either supporting them or attempting to oppose them. usually {{em|badly}} attempting to oppose them because nobody actually understands what history, Materialism, or determinism really are. you'll see why below.

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Fukuyama made a manifest destiny argument -> let's lay out the facts from a Materialist point of view. in the period of westward expansion, a manifest destiny argument was that the U.S. empire would surely reach the other side no matter what other civilizations were in the middle; the topic of the original manifest destiny argument was the emerging United States empire as a whole. starting in the 1960s, the United States began to assume that it could crush Cuba and expand United States Liberal-republicanism over it starting by filling it back up with foreign businesses. the argument is rather transparent. by the United States' own arguments, the distinctive things about the United States lie inside free-floating businesses, and Cuba will surely fill up with freedom not due to a constitution or anything but because all the United States' freedom comes from a sea of businesess washing over both the United States and Cuba. the statement that the United States will overcome Cuba is a statement about the overall United States empire, defined in terms of the United States' small-scale elements that extend over several countries. but it's a statement about a named empire; the United States never says "it would be great if France overcame Cuba and then destroyed the United States". so in practice, saying the United States will collapse Dengism in Cuba is a statement that the United States empire in particular will surely expand over Cuba, and it doesn't actually matter if anybody puts that statement euphemistically and starts talking about abstract Ideals or a few specific businesses, because the euphemisms are just to make the concrete struggle for the United States to conquer Cuba more palatable. when Fukuyama describes "the end of history", he condones this entire thing, and doesn't separate himself from it. this is the new Manifest Destiny. there's also Palestine, but that's just a less sophisticated version where Israel-United-States says Palestinians are 'criminals' just like the founders of Cuba supposedly are and there goes the manifest destiny argument for Israel.

</li></ol>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/LR|manifest destiny argument}} | {{E:Q618/LR|The end of history and the last man}} | {{E:Q618/MX|Fukuyama made a manifest destiny argument}} }}
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|LR|L-R}} / Liberal-republicanism

</li></ol>

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-ManifestDestinyArgument

2026-06-17T04:03:37Z

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q618-LogicAndWhatIsReal

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=manifest destiny argument|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}manifest destiny argument

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|HAS|Hass}} / unknown

</li></ol>

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-BuyResidentsForProsperity

2026-06-17T04:00:00Z

Reversedragon: description

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=social Georgism|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= social Georgism }} / geoism {{YouTube|FGXWGTMj7AY}} -> as laid out in the video I found it in, social Georgism works like this: residents on a plot of land are assumed to have economic value. everyone is given a plot of land or place to live. people are presumably allowed to trade land if they can make it more productive but simply not to keep it from anyone else. the people who control the largest plots of land pay a land tax. this supposedly gets rid of homelessness and coercion by landlords. 
I feel like this is undermined by how ahistorical it is. it doesn't take into account the concept of political factions, and that they will always form if people have diverging countable cultures containing different forms of morality. the moment that you create Georgism in either the United States or Russia, you're going to get White people filling up land as fast as they can to make sure Black people don't have it, or Russians filling up land as fast as they can to make sure Ukrainians don't get it. each of those blocs of White Protestants or Russians is going to try to do their best to outlaw the minority and put them in prison just for being 'annoying' before they're allowed to have their own place on the land. in principle this kind of just leads back to Duginism-Zionism. like, if Israel wanted to create a welfare state? base it on the concept that every Israeli is equally entitled to a house but every Palestinian is not. as long as political factions have not fully separated out into entirely different countries to the point a multi-party Liberal-republicanism would be redundant I don't think Georgism is going to end well. 
it all comes down to countable groups of people all each having a body of laws they wish would apply to everyone in the world, and each wanting to overwrite each other's morals and laws with their own. that is one of the major drivers of history, as strange as it sounds. if someone is telling you that populations smashing into each other causes wars, no, resources are definitely not the main cause of war, humans are much more preemptive than that. so the best summary if you want to teach people history fast is that wars are caused by laws. United States: it should be legal to take all the oil in Iran. Iran: that shouldn't be legal. war. the war doesn't start because the United States is already there taking the oil, it starts when the United States says "this is the way things {{em|should}} be". and I genuinely don't know how a society based on people having land and having land together in parallel can possibly fix that versus maybe make it worse. 

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S1/PT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Georgism is unacceptable because taxes violate human rights -> yep, you could see this one coming a mile away.

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|HAS|Hass}} / philosophy of freedom

</li></ol>

== Subpages ==
* [[Special:PermanentLink/44068|SPS6-17]]

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-BuyResidentsForProsperity/SPS6-17

2026-06-17T03:40:21Z

Reversedragon: archive scrap created today

Geoism won't die based on large groups of people all going to war with large groups of people. It will die based on individual White people handing a plot of land to their children as fast as possible before a Black person can get it, and when the Black person claims the system is unfair the White people accusing him of harrassment and stalking for getting too close to their plots while putting White individuals on as many plots as possible to the point they recreate homeless people and then they can shoot or imprison the Black man.
Swap out "Black" for almost any ethnic group or political faction that has sufficient animosity toward another one; Russians and Ukrainians, pro-transgender atheists and anti-transgender Christians (the United States is a mess), Sunni and Shia inside an unstable country, etc.

It isn't scarcity or competition that actually turns tensions into wars; a better way to characterize it is that wars happen when two groups of people have incompatible conceptions of what should be legal or illegal for everybody on earth and both try to exclusively push those laws onto each other. That problem exists the moment socially-linked groups of people {{em|have a form of morality}}. Even if you divided two groups of arguing people into separate countries you're not safe from that, because entire countries can just claim that other countries are "violating international law" and then try to take away their sovereignty (especially with the help of multiple other countries that agree with them) and conquer them to force them to have a particular set of laws.

A geoist system would have to start from a particular countable group of people, and the current amount of land, money, and political power they all have right now is going to determine how successful they are at actually getting that system established over any larger area and protected by law as opposed to getting conquered by some other countable group of people believing in a particular set of laws who believe their laws are universal and based on human nature and should apply to everybody.

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-BuyResidentsForProsperity

2026-06-17T02:57:23Z

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q618-LogicAndWhatIsReal

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=social Georgism|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= social Georgism }} / geoism {{YouTube|FGXWGTMj7AY}}

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|HAS|Hass}} / philosophy of freedom

</li></ol>


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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-06-17T02:51:54Z

Reversedragon: Trotskyism is more compatible with moral vanguard theory than Stalin's Marxism

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

{{li|I=F2/HM/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Trotskyism is more compatible with moral vanguard theory than Stalin's Marxism / Trotskyism is more compatible with moral vanguard theory than Stalin's Marxism because it presents a picture of the entire industrial world unifying onto a shared body of laws (a Trotskyist socioeconomy and corresponding party structure; a Trotskyist "constitution" enshrining socialist transition), which is conceptually similar to the entire industrial world unifying onto the same shared body of moral values -> I love this statement because logically it should be true. logically speaking there should be no errors here. but historically it absolutely has not been true. nobody who believes in the moral vanguard model has been on board with realizing Trotskyism in their own country, they're always anticommunists, so historically they've been the most likely to tolerate Deng Xiaoping states. there was approximately a decade where you could get them to tolerate Stalin's Marxism specifically because it had a border around it and they would never have to accept it for the rest of time. 
it's quite a contradiction that Habermasians hate Communism, but like, you can get them to be pro- Soviet Union and pro-Stalin on a segregationist line of argument. they don't want to be changed. it's less important for them to expand their own morals and laws over other countries than it is that fundamentally you can't force {{em|them}} to change. so they claim to be about social change but fundamentally what they want is for things to stay the same as long as they subjectively like those things. it's hilariously accurate in unintended ways when agorist types try to frame Freedom as "subjectivity" — oh, really, so you're free when the evaluation of what is good or bad for society is completely subjective? it seems like when they speak of moral truth values they're just using formal logic to launder their preconceptions. how do we know that a purported crime "is" anything? you can say that "colonialism" is bad and that "anti-capitalists are against colonialism" but if you can't define what colonialism is and where it comes from (trust me, there is not a single answer, various different "The Lefts" are still arguing about that) then what does that statement even mean, and how does it have the power to stop anyone from doing anything? what does defining a moral truth value and affixing it to an event that happened actually get you in that context?

{{li|I=F2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}Plagiarism is stating the population of England without context / Plagiarism is making a non-obvious statement of fact without providing sources; this is to imply that plagiarism is defined as having a belief which is materially accurate (true) but not justified / Remembering a fact is plagiarism -> this statement sounds okay when you are teaching elementary school but becomes laughably incoherent when you try to apply it to actual adult life for even a second. like, how many everyday spoken conversations do you think contain plagiarism just because you don't have time to look up exactly what book you read or what video you watched? if plagiarism is a matter of morality then people do immoral things every day just by speaking; everyone's daily interactions are hurting authors and academics every second of every day. at a certain point you have to ask if morality is nothing more than people {{i|believing that not having control over other people's lives harms them}}. there's a terrible similarity between this concept of plagiarism and people getting upset they are being harmed because they don't have control over trans people. I don't like ethics. I'm done with it.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}Because plagiarism is making a statement of fact without providing sources (sic), any instance of reading a reference book and forgetting what exactly what the title is and where the book came from causes plagiarism; only people with a record of every book they have read within the time they are likely to remember it or who have every book they read accessible in their house can be moral -> now, to be fair, if we weren't talking about the concept of "plagiarism" and were talking about a unified notion of rules of evidence that applies across law and the sciences, I think this would be a reasonable thing to say — a chain of custody makes for better evidence. but it has always been really strange to me that people have seen the need to conflate rules of evidence with "stealing". isn't it enough to identify information as good-quality or bad-quality information? what's the big deal with trying to put so much control on every student that probably isn't even brought down on some publishing corporations? 
I feel like "stating an unverifiable fact" and "copying sentences out of a book" should be completely separate things. this is, unfortunately, one of the only good things large language models have done: they've been slowly forcing people to get better models of what plagiarism is because when they aren't human and can't be held accountable for anything and thus [[E:Reality is tyrannical|inherently have more rights than humans will ever have]], people are forced to fall back to guides on "how to identify AI" and actually explain materially why plagiarism creates less useful text rather than giving a moral argument about how a machine they cannot control "should have" done things differently. it would be wonderful to have something other than "AI" doing that instead but so far nothing has really succeeded at it.

{{li|I=S2/FS|tradition=|Q=618}}It isn't about gun control, it's about product and business-territory control -> you know. there's a certain section of people that are like, "FOSS basement dwellers" — who attribute great power to change society to individual ability to produce things with technology — but the funny thing is that sometimes those people are correct. usually during the times they're getting upset about the seemingly unstoppable power of corporations. let me tell you, Mike Masnick getting upset about corporations continuing to abuse the 'proprietary economy' was vastly more influential in the overall journey of getting me to Communism than everything anybody says about civil rights or even about unions or workers a lot of the time. I think in some ways Free Software types and this swath of "generic libertarians" is really wired into the concept of business territories and owners and trying to break down the business territories of the "big" or "corporatist" owners. it's comical how although the reasons for it are wrong the conclusions are very close to correct and I would unironically support using a surprisingly large slice of the generic-libertarian content that exists to teach Marxism. it's funny how nothing but the antagonism between all business territories eventually begins to undo capitalism if you give it long enough, while no amount of anarchist ideology ever seems to make much of a difference.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}At what point is the proletariat created? -> this is not a trivial question because workers can function very differently inside different sociophilosophies. is the proletariat created when people are displaced from business territories? is the proletariat only created when Bolshevism is created? (I forget where I was going with this comment but I suspect I will remember later)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}real people fiction / {{abbr|RPF|title=real people fiction}} (fan fiction)

{{li|I=M3/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}What is the difference between real people fiction and historical fiction? -> a cop-out answer is that historical fiction can be made out of only made-up people but contains real countries or historical periods. but that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, if there is at least one real person inside a historical fiction scenario, at what point after that does it become real people fiction? immediately? are there other things required? does it have to consist of more real-people characters among the main cast than fake-people characters? if I write a scenario not as a novel but literally as one of those books used to train lawyers or librarians on example cases, and my scenario contains real people, have I written real people fiction?

{{li|I=S2/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}Toontown runs on Menshevism / As evidenced by the layout of the interactable game world and the daily use of jellybeans as currency, the Toons that live in Toontown live in a [[E:agorism|market-based society]] built on small businesses which willingly provides houses -> note: come back and add Toontown to 'related' on 9k page for Growing Around, along with childism

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Ted Kaczynski was not an anarchist [https://www.thetedkarchive.com/special/about-this-project] -> I have never heard of this man but okay. there are a lot of anarchist-sounding philosophies that aren't very good so even without much information I believe it's possible.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Teamsters obstructed worker organization (2018) / The Teamsters are a group of bureaucrats that negotiate with workers to achieve corporations' demands; this is to imply that workers should consider forming their own internal organizations across bigger sectors of industry instead of trusting them (California, 2018) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/20/upam-a20.html]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Kropotkinism leads to populations of people who produce about $5 an hour and end up getting classified as contractors who have to put all their other revenue into expenses -> anarchists like to complain about how Communism and Liberal capitalism 'overwork people for nothing' while anarchism is about finishing work and doing something enjoyable. but.... I have to wonder. what would happen if Kropotkinism actually kicked off? wouldn't you just have a population of people that earns tiny amounts, has huge expenses, and basically lives just like gig workers? what if the reason anarchism hasn't been more successful is Amazon beat anarchists to creating 'easy work' of the kind anarchists want but just not in the conditions they want? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/19/jxer-f19.html] it seems to me like anarchism moves really slow and capitalism moves fast, owning entire market-boxes and communities while anarchists are only talking about those things and before they can meaningfully create them.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Community is a hyperstructure -> the claim that "community", mostly as a materialist version of the anarchist model of what "communities" are, is a system that encourages itself to expand further through parts of the system contributing to the overall system. 
I think the description is really apt because you see this perfect 'blockchain quality' where community looks like a shiny wonderful thing you could only want more and more of, but when you get any particular instance of community, such as a newsfeed platform like YouTube or Twitter, the more people add to it the worse it seems to get and the more it turns into this vector for individual capitalists to own an entire "agora" and exploit the whole concept of an economy existing and make money off that, and the more it feels like community itself was a scam from the start. 
Community is a hyperstructure + Hyperstructures are usually harmful = Community is a cancer.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Hyperstructures are usually harmful -> this is an anarchist or agorist claim more than it is my claim but I wouldn't totally oppose it.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|tradition=|Q=618}}hyperstructure (snowballing system) [https://medium.com/@onjas_buidl/hyperstructures-in-human-history-5a27f31c28df] -> blockchain fanatics' attempt to describe a generalized kind of system which rewards people for contributing to a cumulative pie in a constructive way. 
honestly? if getting people to comprehend "hyperstructures" could get rid of blockchains themselves then I'd be all for it 
I feel like this concept is almost more of a cautionary tale than a desirable thing to have though. one of their examples is the general concept of money because of course they have to explain how bitcoin is similar to money. but like, the expansion of money through creating more products and the central government giving loans to corporations to speed up the process isn't necessarily a good thing, it often leads to the destruction of the environment as it's consumed to create materials and factories, or the destruction of culture as products obsolete other products just to chase money and get more money added. this is so bad that when they present language as the second example I'm like.... okay, is language secretly a bad thing that is destroying the world and I just didn't know it was? I have to say though, the advent of large language models really vindicates the concept of hyperstructures, if in a bad way. the more AI that people create the more different AIs can train on each other to the extent they can generate any meaningful inferences or conversation data that human testers approve, and then there will be more AI. so, yeah. the concept of hyperstructures was very successful. it was successful at describing something, but it seems like basically everything it describes is an existential threat to humanity, including The Economy, capitalism, blockchain, AI, and possibly language (??). 
this might be one of the clearest pieces of evidence that anarchism is inherently dangerous because it doesn't actually build into itself the capability to model societies spending a while building something and then leveling off in a neat S-curve because they moved on to entirely different things without redoing the same things over and over again such as repeatedly reinventing game consoles or phones. (a thing Marxism could do with some effort because it inherently understands the concept of historical periods and shifts from one period to another.) despite all the surface rhetoric about "infinite growth" recently it only really understands infinite growth because of its core values of always making everything about "community" and "inclusivity" and never saying no to anybody. so naturally a system of modeling growth itself is one of the first things to pop out of it, which claims to have a limit but in practice when it hits the limit just divides in two and continues to make more and more.

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}storing properties of chemical reactions in power sets composed out of smaller sets [https://chemrxiv.org/doi/pdf/10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-368pz] -> um. I don't understand any of this but it's very cool.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Stalin's government putting up positive posters in schools is "a lie", then how do you know that solarpunk is true? -> I won't fault you for making the former claim, but the reason the CPSU would be wrong there is that it's letting people be Idealist instead of understanding the terrifying truth that they might not succeed. so.... if the CPSU posters are wrong, and putting up hopeful slogans is bad because it allows the people spreading the potentially incorrect slogans to gain power over you, then how exactly is solarpunk correct?

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Idealism is invincible / Materialist movements are inherently weaker than Idealist movements in that Idealist movements live forever as long as human beings don't believe in burning books, but Materialist movements die as soon as actual physical organizations are broken up -> there's only one real solution to correct this discrepancy. promote "hypothetical materialism", the new category of philosophies which are spread as disembodied ideas but internally contain only Material Ideas and Materialism. [https://chatonsky.net/ideomaterialism/]

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=|Q=618}}Marxist analysis of non-Marxisms / Marxist analysis of non-Marxist philosophies or movements / infra-Marxism (Marxist analysis which is done either wholly inside a specific formulation of Marxism, or wholly inside that specific Marxism while critiquing non-Marxist philosophies, but where the Marxism does not actually give a proper analysis of either itself or other Marxisms; meta-Marxism) -> a large part of the original stated purpose of Marxism before the Trotskyite conspiracy happened.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The Diggers were a proto-Marxist movement because they began with displaced peasants or allied local houses sensing the impending expansion of estates, and sought to build a community without commodity exchange, loosely and metaphorically compared to Eden (Christopher Hill) / {{book|The World Turned Upside Down}} (Hill 1988; generic) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> ok, in my mind, I can't remember the difference between this description and the Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Narodniks; this doesn't sound like a movement with a very detailed plan behind it. but this {{em|is}} a very juicy and entertaining claim, so I'll code it. I wouldn't really mind someone calling a cottager movement 'Socialists' or 'anarchists'. but, what is the difference between the Diggers and Peter Kropotkin? can you answer that question? I think you need to go into at least that much depth to properly answer whether they can be "communists".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The faithful are duty bound to obey God alone / Because rulers are sinful creatures like us and will have a propensity to do the wrong thing, they will tend to tyranny, decreeing ungodly laws ... in these cases, the faithful are duty bound to obey God alone (Calvin ??/2009) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> that is one killer quote. it's not surprising, given all the {{em|stuff}} in the bible about "powers and principalities" that sounds just like this. but it's definitely mysterious to look at the bible and realize, hey wait, what's all this stuff about never trusting rulers? God doesn't exist, God is one big rationalization. so is Christianity really an anarchism?? I'd argue it is. I'd argue that at least as soon as New Testament Christianity appeared the whole thing was really about pushing the concept that seemed nonsensical at that time of getting rid of all rulers and creating a society based only in social bonds connecting people into a society ("love", "brotherhood", "neighbors"), and Christians had to dress up that concept inside the concept of a worldwide empire just to get anybody to believe it when otherwise it would have seemed unbelievable. 
I'd also argue that by capitulating to the class imagery of their time Christians doomed Christianity and turned it into a tool of empire itself as empire noticed that an ideology about empire was better suited to literally arguing one empire was superior to other empires and deserved to be the one to conquer the world. there's not a lot of difference between Christians and Democrats. Christians: we are all united together as under The King. Romans promptly turn the king into Caesar and argue Christianity promotes somewhat-racist empires that take other nations as slaves. Democrats: we are all united together by voting and a list of civil rights. Capitalists promptly make it mandatory for every minority listed in a civil rights act to support Israel and destroy Palestine, and support products made in Cuba while refusing Cuban products on pain of arrest.

{{li|I=S2/P4|tradition=|Q=618}}An international war will surely clear away all internal contradictions / If there be bad blood in a nation, an honourable foreign war will vent it out (Bacon 1622) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> god, he's the 1600s Dugin. that or Dugin's ideas are as old as dirt. you know, one or the other.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}the revolution betrayed betrayed betrayed -> the motif of Trotskyism getting "betrayed" by the creation of socialism in one country, which then got betrayed by Trotskyism as payback, which then got betrayed by anarchism and critical theory turning the previous two events into evidence against all Marxism.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}I'll question to the death the reason you said it / I don't agree with what you're defending and I'll question to the death the reasons for anyone ever saying that / I don't agree with what you're defending people saying and I'll question to the death the underlying material reasons for anyone ever saying that -> this isn't meaning to imply the statement absolutely should be suppressed or shouldn't be said as much as purely that there is a big elephant being ignored of asking why it is people say things and what will be gained by defending the statement 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + meta-theory = this. 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + demographic Marxist / sectarianism = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani would have done more for the world if he'd bought an illegal Cuban product, showed it off, and gotten arrested than he did by attempting to speak about Israel -> I'm so sick of this new trend of all social contradictions happening in courtrooms between two individuals. I really am. but this would be one way to make the best of it

{{li|I=F2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}They can't arrest all of us -> one of those anarchist sayings that deeply bothers me because of how it's just not true. a country can bring down the law on as many people as it wants to. when it can't arrest everybody, that's when it brings out the tanks and helicopters and just starts shooting them. you should know this. it's already a pretty common talking point to say U.S. people don't revolt against the U.S. because of "the military". if China can bring out the army when there's not enough time for jury trials, and it's already common for cops to shoot petty criminals, what stops the United States from starting an open season on everybody who isn't committed to following all its laws? a bit of Cold War propaganda? do you really think the Great Terror happened for any other reason than that republics are based on laws and when people stop following laws and getting scared by cops they do anything to protect themselves??

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Nations are bodies of law / Nations are legal codes / A nationality is defined by how well people follow a population's current set of laws, and the less people follow the law, the less they are part of that nationality; this is to imply but not state that the moment people intend to follow no laws at all they are not part of a particular nationality any more -> 
this is one of the only models that can explain either separate wing of Liberal-republicanism and Stalin's Marxism and even a Trotskyist republic equally well: the model that republics begin with written laws and laws are the fundamental Ideas that create "nations of ideas". Tories don't follow center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. center-Liberals skirt around Tory laws, Tories call treason. Communists don't respect center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. anarchists or right-Liberals defy Soviet laws, Stalin's government calls treason. Stalin's government defies Trotskyists' desired body of laws, Trotskyists call treason. 
it's all about laws. laws are made by classes, and that's what distinguishes the fundamental character of a body of laws, but actually, all geopolitical conflicts and demographic conflicts deep inside countries start at whether separate groups of people are following each other's internal laws. it's all one big squabble about laws and what laws are inherently good or bad, while that will never have an objective answer because different areas of people hate other people's laws and don't want them. 
this is part of what makes critical-theory so frustrating. as of late it's been picking up talking points that the United States government is totally capable of granting North American tribes rights. but in order to get those "rights" they had to first send people to assimilate to White towns and consent to the overall body of United States laws and agree not to violate any of them, while some of those laws banned the tribal societies they would have been fighting for. it's a bit paradoxical. within the system that boasts all the time about giving people human rights (and also lies to everyone claiming the rights are from birth or 'god-given' despite the fact God doesn't give them to you in Cuba and Cuba requires an invasion to defeat The Regime that's apparently stronger than God himself)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Dengism can defeat God (power scaling) / Deng Xiaoping states are stronger than God / If human rights are granted to people by God when they are born, but the United States needs to invade Cuba to ensure that people have God-given rights, then the Cuban government is strong enough to stop God himself; this is to imply that the United States is proportionally stronger than God by two [[E:feat (power scaling)|feats]] because the United States is stronger than the thing that defeated God but is not God / The U.S. can defeat God (sense)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}There is no difference between morality and "manufacturing consent"; they are the same continuous thing; "manufacturing consent" is precisely an instance of either morality or natural law, and is an example of how Liberal-republicanism abuses these incorrect models of reality to gain power over people that were previously outside its control

{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Return to the Land (White supremacist movement) {{YouTube|e1iSMbzx_Hg}} -> I have.... a bit of a mild "conspiracy theory". I'm not sure Liberal-republicans are actually opposing this thing for the right reasons. sure, the people inside it sound like fairly bad people, and it doesn't sound like a good place to live. but I feel like this thing is being used as leverage to promote things people otherwise wouldn't support. to show that otherwise-bad things are "necessary". like, compounds full of racists are the new 9/11 — or the old one that probably existed decades before it happened. 
(it really doesn't help that the commentator identified the White supremacist compounds as "terrorist cells". that's a pretty heavy-handed rhetorical term when it comes to giving a particular national government great military power over any city within the entire rest of the world. like, anybody who says the word "terrorist" may as well already be king. Marxist parties are the only halfway exception. but it's still bad.) 
I feel like what's happening is something like, critical theory was one big scam by Liberal-republicanism to convince anarchists to turn against other forms of anarchism — granted, some of which were somewhat harmful, making the deal sound weirdly enticing — so Liberal-republicanism could then turn around and eradicate all anarchism and then be free to take over other countries and conquer the world. just like in those civilization games where you can just build one giant republican country and nuclear war never destroys the world first.

{{li|I=F2/LR|tradition=LR, HM|Q=618}}The purpose of Liberal-republicanism is to transition the world out of racism -> this seems to be the hypothesis advanced by critical theory. that republics actually exist in order to force ethnic groups to be friends. no matter what they've done to each other. this explains how Native American movements have been going mainstream: Liberal-republicanism is having trouble getting people to consent to it any more, so it needs to recruit minorities to advance its agenda of expanding itself over people and telling them what to do under the guise that it's making the world better for minorities. 
...this has to be false, doesn't it? the actual function of the United States has been dividing into two anarchisms that are mortal enemies. no matter how much critical theory says that forcing people to interact and integrate should change consciousness it doesn't seem to happen, and to some degree it only seems to make people more and more resentful and more inclined to kill each other. why it happens is less the presence of ethnic groups together in particular and more the presence of multiple populations that could be politically independent being ruled by "external" political factions that feel like foreign countries. like, it would really seem that Deng Xiaoping Thought has been way more successful than Liberal-republicanism, because having a single unified government actually seems to unify people rather than generating this worsening and worsening cycle of hatred. 
critical theory may be ideology generated directly out of Liberal-republicanism in the most insidious way possible. maybe this is what it's always done. maybe the real foundation of Liberal-republicanism is precisely holding up a set of laws, claiming they're inherently moral, and forcing everyone around, even people who aren't part of the country yet, to obey them or else. that is one of the only good explanations for why Liberal-republicanism has been so eager to back Israel. it doesn't even actually run on morality or care about morality. all it cares about is whether as many people as possible across the world are following an arbitrary set of laws. so the more people think Palestine "isn't following the law", {{em|as it is written}}, the easier it is to justify eliminating Palestine. 
you know. queer rights are a sham. they only exist because people have proved gay people are legal. on this weird metaphysical level where laws already exist before laws actually exist. and that's how laws come to be laws. but it isn't gay people that are oppressed by this Kantian interpretation of laws. it's Palestinians. believing that laws inherently exist and they only need to be approved just legitimizes the structure that makes this illusion possible to believe — global empire. this conception of things shouldn't be true, but when your empire is big enough to bully Cuba it's big enough to make almost anything come true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If history can ever be static, then Donald Trump cannot be the slightest bit Good or Bad / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable, including all outcomes in politics, without the recognition that history is always in motion from one state to another and it is always mandatory to make decisions on what it will change to / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable without the recognition history is always in motion -> you cannot say history has ended. not even with a narrow meaning that modes of production have ended. because there is no meaningful distinction between change existing in the form of a change between mode of production and change existing in the form of a country reverting to a global empire that wants to kill people for more land. both are the same kind of change, but reversion to empire cannot be stopped, which is to say that neither kind of change can actually be stopped. the original claim is false because in setting down its basic assumptions it really actually makes a false claim about what change is, which is dangerously false.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}All business owners are terrorists -> abolish copyright and I'll take it back.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Until 2020 Marxism has been unable to create genuinely accurate models of Idealist factions or civilizations because of the way their material interests and the processes that create their behavior are inherently separated; Marxist models start in a form of Materialism that basically assumes that everybody already lives in a Materialist civilization similar to Bolshevism where any particular assembled group of people belonging to a class is aware it has class interests as opposed to the people in a faction being completely unaware of that and acting together for completely different reasons; this has made Marxism inherently well suited to turning around and betraying itself with Marxisms attacking other Marxisms, and inherently badly suited to actually understanding the development over time of Liberal-republicanism and anarchism well enough to be able to defeat them

{{li|I=S1/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}TV times including "central" / 2:30-3:30 central / 9pm-8pm central [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1mgil6/if_there_are_four_time_zones_why_do_national_tv/] / my daughter asked me to pick her up at 2:30-3:30 central -> I keenly remember this idea being printed in some kind of issue of {{book|Reader's Digest}} or something but I do not remember where I first saw it. a joke about the idea that it's really weird that U.S. TV shows tell you two time zones at once and it would be strange if everyone went around saying that. that's really changed in the age of online streaming where YouTube will just kind of tell you what time something happens in your time zone and a stream might be on at a weird time but you don't have to do any calculations. but for various reasons it's still worth remembering the age of "2:30/3:30 central".

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}How will you obtain unicorn horns? / Anarchists presuppose that envisioning a different future separate from the material elements, structures, and processes of society that already exist is meaningful in and of itself, but if this is the case, they seemingly have no way to actually change anything; if the United States changes the day you find unicorn horns on the ground, but there are none of them in the entire land area of the United States, and you cannot fabricate them, and you cannot teleport them in from another place given that nobody in the United States knows how to do that, how can you possibly find them fast enough for your entire party of people to not simply be driven out of the United States to where the unicorn horns actually are — what do you do? -> trying to get anarchists to think harder about the concept of productive forces and the fact that you always need graph connections between people to actually achieve anything

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian / Despite nearly everyone in the United States who is not a member of the Libertarian movement claiming capital-L Libertarian parties to be different and distinct from them, the Libertarian movement in fact describes the founding principles of {{em|all}} political parties in the United States — agorism — and every other Liberal-republican political party in the United States is in fact a variation of Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian movement, including some political movements which are not organized into official parties; United States civil rights movements are a Libertarianism because they are defined as the sum of all non-aggressive activities, the Democratic-Republican party of 1791 was a Libertarianism because it opposed the Federalist party of large monolithic businesses clustered around a central government, the Democratic Party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the concept of people voluntarily joining in non-aggression to continuously vote for a party to supposedly fix their problems and absolutely all political parties that don't directly commit aggression getting to continue existing, the Republican party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the belief that all small, medium-size, and large corporations can form a locus of non-aggression that is being attacked by other loci of non-aggression; the actual center position in the United States that should be in the middle of a political compass is Libertarianism-agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party] -> 
before I found about agorism nothing about Liberal-republicanism made sense, and it all makes a lot more coherent material sense now down to the thing of getting obsessed with finding "the middle" and distinguishing all deviations into new parties as "directional" from the middle or as Extremes, but the more I learn, the more all the inner logic of LiberalRepublicanism-Libertarianism-agorism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Wario believes in Liberal-republicanism then he must be a Libertarian -> I made it simple for you. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-greatest-thread-in-the-history-of-forums-locked-by-a-moderator-after-12239-pages-of-heated-debate]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Ag|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Agorism is a segregation machine / Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them; 
the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation'; 
in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs; 
loci of non-aggression include: towns, families that have not experienced violent child abuse or the murder of a spouse, clusters of employees and owners that haven't committed horrible abuses against each other yet, clusters of tenants the landlord hasn't [[E:landlord rape incidents|literally committed crimes]] against, individual churches, segregated White towns without any gangs, Black towns without any racists, towns without any homeless camps, tiny satellite cities that produce nothing but are not "menaced" by big cities or taxes, individual local-states that come to accurately or falsely believe they've reduced themselves to one Liberal-republican party and no longer worry about the other, clusters of minority subpopulations, the US Bill of Rights, clusters of religions that believe they only have freedom of religion because they all exist together and none of them stopped existing, the overall US empire as it exists in a state of not having wars on its immediate borders, clusters of First World countries that are friendly toward each other but get together to oppress Third-World countries and even more so any Second-World countries that exist as "aggressives" 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this. escape routes (schizoanalysis) + republic based on transition = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Moral vanguard theory is covering up the observation that, as it currently exists inside Liberal-republicanism, agorism is founded on the assumption that all bigotry is fundamentally normal and natural until the day clusters of people end up being compatible with each other rather than toxic to each other and then only after that spontaneously decide hating each other is not okay 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If it's bad to want a utopia then why is anybody allowed to desire an afterlife? -> really think about it. it's very common to criticize utopias in fiction and think "all of them are dystopias"; charcoal anarchists are some of the only people who don't think this way. so why doesn't everyone think that way about the bible? why doesn't everybody realize that if wanting a utopia is "wanting to get something the easy way" or "wanting to get something for nothing" then wanting a god to grant you heaven is literally exactly the same thing? you just have to believe and then you get something for nothing.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more upsetting than {{film|Drawn Together}} / The news is more upsetting than {{film|South Park}} -> today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em|choose}} to do, or does it not?

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618}}Stalin transitioned the {{TTS|USSR|Soviet Union}} backward / Stalin transitioned the Soviet Union backward from Trotskyism to Stalin's Marxism / Stalin took the Soviet Union backward through the stages of history because he did not understand that the Soviet Union was an instance of Trotskyism, Trotskyism is a stage {{em|after}} Stalin's Marxism, and seeking to build Stalin's Marxism while standing on Trotskyism can only result in the reversion of an instance of Trotskyism to a prior physical historical period, destroying Trotskyism; this is to imply but not state that Stalin is a counter-revolutionary just because he failed to understand Trotskyism as a material object and destroyed it -> trying to state what Trotskyists' argument is {{em|clearly}} through the language of meta-Marxism. 
I wish Trotskyists would just admit that the Trotskyite conspiracy happened. because if they did, they could point to this, and they could say, it doesn't matter if Stalin was defending Stalin's Marxism, the problem is Stalin wrecked Trotskyism, and that's why it had to be defended at all costs. Trotsky wrecking Stalin's Marxism is immaterial if Stalin was trying to build a worse version of Marxism over a better version of Marxism. when Liberal-republicans do that, it's counter-revolutionary, so when Stalin does it, it's also counter-revolutionary, no need to even start arguing about The Bureaucracy yet. meta-Marxists, {{em|you}} go build Stalin's Marxism in another country so it doesn't wreck Trotskyism, not the other way around. and I would say, that's a good point actually. maybe Stalin {{em|did}} accidentally transplant a Marxism meant for much more undeveloped countries to the Soviet Union. and maybe it's technically true that Stalin's Marxism vulgarizes really quickly into Dengism if you aren't watching it closely. is Stalin actually a Maoist? are Stalin and Mao actually Dengists? sometimes I just don't know any more.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kōans are really lightbulb jokes / Kōans become lightbulb jokes / Any philosophical kōan can be turned into a lightbulb joke with the addition of ideological factions -> How many roads must a man walk down? If he's a Liberal-republican, infinite, some of them going in circles. If he's a Communist, a finite number because he knows where he's going.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}How many roads must a man walk down?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A debate about gun control is actually a debate over which weapon to use / A debate about gun control is actually a debate about which weapon everyday people should prefer: guns or cops

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}If ancient Greece was a small civilization where did the slaves come from? -> the Roman empire makes logical sense to me. there were territories at the edge of Rome, it conquered them, it put them into the empire, it took slaves. but Greece had slaves too and where did those come from?

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Industry divisions thwart Armageddon / When society is divided into Butcher and Bookbinder it cannot divide into Us and Them / If society is divided qualitatively into industries, none of the divisions of people can be Good or Evil, and it must be that they will come to understand each other on a level that is universal -> implied assumption in agorism, and Liberal-republicanism. I think this was solidly falsified the moment humans invented generative AI. there's been a pretty solid consensus building that generative AI just is Evil and when it exists as an industry some industries are Evil, if that didn't already happen with the oil industry. what anarchists really really don't want to understand is that this discovery has horrifying implications for the philosophical foundations of anarchism. if people can be Good or Evil solely based on what their talents are, you can never guarantee that 'the totality of all non-aggressive activities not forbidden by The State' will ever get along rather than fighting each other and erupting into hierarchy or domination purely because people are determined for one decision to be made rather than another decision and to call that decision Good and the other decision Evil. that is the root of a lot of hierarchy if you ask me. but it's also unavoidable, because who's going to persuade anarchists to just tolerate all the stuff that they feel oppresses them? I think it's more realistic to admit that anarchism can contain domination and hierarchy and the claims it doesn't were lies, and just define anarchism around some other concept than Good and Bad — that includes "domination", "hierarchy", "decency", "respect", "disruption", "empathy", morality, ethics, "enchantment" (which turns into ethics in a couple seconds), "prejudices", and "White culture". the one completely nebulous thing they say that I am genuinely unsure whether they can or can't have is Freedom, because that has hundreds of definitions and I'm still not sure I understand what it is. so, yeah, {{em|maybe}} you can get away with defining anarchism as Freedom-ism and basing it on these long treatises of exactly how Freedom works descriptively with no prescriptive statements about it. I might not like it but at least I can't immediately tell you it's a dead theory. 
Industry divisions thwart Armageddon + Pokémon type chart = Arceus.

{{li|I=S1/MX/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}oppressive membership -> the concept of membership in a relationship or group of people being itself an axis of oppression which operates in a somewhat [[E:atomic process (one-step process)|atomic]] way such that it is completely inseparable from concepts of "hierarchy" or "domination" and those things cannot simply be removed without the relationship itself dissolving. 
oppressive membership + anarchism = anarculture. oppressive membership + The Bureaucracy (Trotskyism) / Stalinism (corruption) = political revolution in the USSR (Trotskyism).

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}Anarchism applies to any situation / Anarchism is a series of moral principles that can be applied in any historical situation -> sounds fine on the surface as a descriptive appraisal of anarchism, but gets really interesting when you remember that the Soviet Union and the conflict between Stalin's party and Trotsky's faction is "any situation". 
Anarchism is acting as if you're already free + Machiavellianism (feudal orders) = Anarchism applies to any situation.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|tradition=|Q=618}}If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube / If Fisherism is true, then every non-politician in China should ignore Chinese politics and make as many videos about United States politics as possible -> this would be for two reasons. 1) people in China are mostly safe from the U.S. government, so they are less likely to face consequences than people in the United States 2) if "creating media" is really so important to changing societal consciousness then most of China's government and politics is in the United States, so they need to change consciousness in the United States to change their government

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.
{{li|I=S1/DFy/ML|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em|is}} inevitable.

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}"Male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are different / In terms of the arts, "male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same thing in all contexts except among the craziest groups of proto-fascist Tories <s>[I promise to revise that on the Ontology: page]</s>, but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are actually different things to a greater extent than "U.S. culture" versus "Japanese culture" or "U.S. culture" versus "British culture"; national population does not affect culture products as greatly as the new and special forms of interaction and description of selves and world that take place within the particular kinds of semi-countable social groups that take part in "queer culture"; this is to imply but not state that "queer culture" carries its own worldview and political faction distinct from Liberal-republican politics -> 
male culture: Digimon Adventure. female culture: MLP gen 4. it's quite obvious what is what with kids' media when you have networks wanting to aim products at apparent differences between boys and girls to try to get more consistent sales, but even when you can point out a 'show for girls' and a 'show for boys' they are not actually that different if they're any good. hence all the bronies, hence that awkward space of women watching anime and trying to ignore the grossly exaggerated female silhouettes because nothing else about the show or game is especially bad. I think you also see this with things aimed at adults but it would be hard to think of an example where you get such a 'nice' region of awkward crossover. {{book|Dragonriders of Pern}} can be argued to be female culture I guess, but it's easy to forget that. then there's like, an argument to be made that {{book|Harry Potter}} is so misogynistic that it's male culture coming out of a woman — if it wasn't enough of an insult to accuse it of being such an 'uncool' book series as to be read by more moms and dads than kids — but it's also just within the range of 'teenage' enough that teenage girls can get obsessed with the male characters. 
so, male culture and female culture are very similar on basic levels. but "queer culture" is something different from either of them. you can really start to identify it the moment you see a furry visual novel with a plot that's "weirdly straight" — where some of the characters are stereotypes, or where the writing is okay but all the characters have totally depressing problems that make you wonder why you're reading a book right now and not just talking to the people around you that are the human equivalent of Twitter feeds, here assuming you also don't like Twitter. when these kinds of things are made "correctly", they have a very different feel. you see people being... idealistic? living in their own world, but not really in an upsetting way. they stop thinking about the outside world where everybody isn't of the same finite cluster of LGBT+ people and the atmosphere becomes very... specific to the people who are there. I want to say "insular" but that's more negative than what I actually mean. 
I think part of what I am saying is that LGBT+ circles tend to generate this consciousness of being a teeny village of people just because they are inherently limited to having only tiny clusters of people available, and because of this they sometimes also start believing that they inherently constitute some kind of "anarchist tribe" that must transition to anarchism because it will never contain enough people to spawn a Liberal-republican nation-state. the way different subpopulations in the United States get so separated really seems to mess with people's heads and cause people to see themselves as entirely separate stateless "nation-states" with separate histories, right down to subconsciously imagining whole trajectories of transition only for their own cluster of people of a particular identity and based on the exact number of people that are in it at the moment. it's funny how identities will take the notion of forms of society comically literally to the point a Marxist would scold them for reading historical materialism too closely, but then they will not even know they're doing it and try to deny that forms of society and social transitions are a thing and just try to tell you everybody needs to transition to anarchism because gay people exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Orange terrain is solid / Orange terrain is stable / Trotskyism is composed of fine-scale structures that are distinguished by their ability to stop parts of society from being overtaken and taken advantage of by The Bureaucracy; these structures may be referred to as "orange structures", although this only labels one specific function of the structures or process they contribute to and is not meant to be exclusive with the category of them being crimson structures / The dictatorship of the proletariat is an unbroken terrain of connected orange structures -> 
so apparently it's only when you look deep into what Trotskyists are claiming The Bureaucracy is that you finally start to understand what it is they're trying to create. they want one basic thing within any particular region, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat; the concept of international permanent revolution can actually be conceptualized as being emergent from this, because anything that keeps continuously defending outwardly red or orange countries from turning strawberry or blue and does appear in multiple nearby countries can link across the country regions so they can defend each other from encroaching bourgeois factions and form a Second World. this makes a lot more sense. the very first few times I read about Trotskyism I took it as this vaguely Idealist proclamation that things [[E:"I believe that everybody" statement|should have happened]] in other countries [[E:Monty Hall problem|that didn't happen]] and there "just should have" been international permanent revolution. but I now see it was more complicated than that. it's less that Trotskyists were upset Trotsky couldn't go to Germany and turn it orange and more that they were upset that the Third International seemingly refused to create a correct model of what happened in Germany, so they thought they had to tirelessly protect any region that really did have the potential to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, wherever it was, to keep The Bureaucracy from getting into it because the parties allied with Stalin were not safe from getting 'infiltrated' and slowly turning strawberry. the aim of trying to hold down a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat and prevent strawberry Marxisms from forming is respectable, given how many strange things strawberry Marxisms do on their best days ('corporations are productive forces', 'socialism is getting rid of poverty', party-approved listicles) and the few actually-awful things they do on their worst days (pre-emptively thinking rude people are reactionaries just because they're rude, battle between strawberry cops and Maoists buried inside resistances). historically speaking strawberry Marxisms are very similar to blue factions in that they slowly restore this dynamic of the most powerful people generating more power and keeping down the weakest people. I wouldn't blame anyone for acting like strawberry Marxisms simply aren't something to be messed with and are more something you want to stop at the root. as long as the people saying that are at least as Marxist as Stalin; anarchists really need to shut up and read enough stuff to learn how to do violet analysis before say anything on the topic of 'power multiplying'. if anarchists knew as much Marxism as the [[E:International Committee of the Fourth International|ICFI]] I would not be anywhere near as mad at them as I am and I would be more tolerant of proposals to create charcoal terrains that are supposed to serve the same function as orange terrains. I was in the beginning, but.... oh boy when anarchism only seems to generate more stupidity every day without ever getting better you quickly get tired of it

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Historically, Trotskyism has always been a "poly-" Marxism and there has never been a molecularized definition of Trotskyism (or any definition) which does not expect {{em|the process inside}} a particular country region to spill to the edge of the country effectively enough to end up creating connected blocs or federations of countries; the process of abolishing "owned country territories" and ruling classes along country borders and the process of defeating other versions of Marxism are not necessarily the direct causes of the "poly-" shape as much as consequences of it, and in fact, Trotskyism having a "poly-" shape is easily explained by processes inside each country region individually, namely a molecularized process of forming a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat which if successful joins multiple countries into a single potentially contiguous Second World region

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=LR, ES, A|Q=618}}Mothers have the power to abolish entire nationalities / When national populations do not base their strategy for development on government welfare programs they inherently treat households as an exploitable resource by making stay-at-home mothers or fathers or other relatives generate and perfect workers that will be exploited by cities to build modernity, therefore if rural parents were to stand up against society they could weaken the power of the oppressive apparatus inside nation-states and all its justifications for either it or a nation-state existing; this is to imply that nation-states are not entitled to calling households citizens just because people do daily activities inside their borders, but also that households are entitled to money from other households in the pool of people a nation-state has assigned them to almost as an apology for having to be part of a nation-state {{YouTube|eotvnm_UDek}} -> this came from an analysis I saw on China. it's clearly from a very Liberal-republican framework, considering the weird fixation on everyone in a country being entitled to all social programs that exist even if the limits on social programs are actually meant to stop urban poverty and stuff like U.S. cities full of homeless camps that ultimately result after too many people move to cities too fast. but the more you look at this statement the weirder it gets. Liberal-republicans will most of the time act like a particular republic existing is only natural and dismantling it would be craziness but at other times they'll act like the entire existence of nationalities is a game to them and everyone can just stop being Chinese at any time if they get tired of it. there is this weird anarchist undercurrent to all Liberal-republicanism which you see vaguely come up in theorists like Rousseau. but when you try to point out that it's there, Liberal-republicanism will generally try to deny it and act like all the people that say taxes are arbitrary constructs or they're 'sovereign citizens' are foreign material and weren't created by glitches in Liberal-republican theory itself. the one time people get bold about it and it becomes the most socially acceptable is when it's applied to other countries than the one people are currently in. tell people that the United States is a made-up game and they get upset and try to argue at you for hours that civil rights court cases that will get repealed tomorrow are objective truth, tell people China is a made-up game that can be broken up or remade from scratch and they'll simply nod.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES onto DX|Q=618}}China designing Deng Xiaoping Thought to suit the United States is pick-me behavior, and the true anti-pick-me move is for China to go back to Bolshevism -> I am so sick of the terrible contradiction between everyone in the United States saying that 'you shouldn't just be what society wants you to be to be convenient to them' and also acting like the pressure on entire Third World countries to be exactly what First World countries want is okay and normal. either people eventually become obligated to mask for others at some point {{em|as a matter of being ethical}}, or telling China it has to have a socioeconomic structure that the United States stamps as okay is "pick-me behavior", and there is no in-between on that question.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}China exporting too many products is exacerbating global tensions [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/21/qkaj-f21.html] -> why? why do you believe that? do you think you'll be able to get the people who made China structure itself based on exports because it was their 'free market right' to stop? you're waging a fight between United States capitalists that want to exploit Third World labor and United States capitalists that want to sell products, and for some reason you're waging it in China as if China had anything to do with it. China did what it was told. so at this point you may as well set up a ballot box for Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump in China and make the president of the United States partly based on what the people of China vote for. because it would make fully as much sense as this.

{{li|I=S2/DX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Jiang Zemin's "theory of three represents" declared that the business elite and emerging middle classes were the most advanced representatives of society, and were as much allies of the CPC as workers (ICFI) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/chin-d30.html]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}The French first republic lasted until the declaration of the first empire [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic] -> that is such an interesting sentence by itself, because it'd make you think that capitalism in France just erupted directly into global empire. I don't think it was that much of a straight line though.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Saying Jewish people outside Israel are obligated to support Israel is the real antisemitism -> Jewish people are one thing. Israelis are another. Germans are one thing. Nazis are another. this is not difficult. but for some reason the United States and all of its messaging and paid ads are determined to make this more difficult than it needs to be

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The major effect of spreading {{book|Settlers}} was to get people very upset about localized Black struggles that immediately affected them but to change nearly nobody's position on Palestine or attempting to use voting to save Palestine

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There are two major forms of imperialism: annexation (conquest) and primitive accumulation (frontier wars, apartheid states, "settler-colonialism", large-scale chunk competition)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ordinary people are confused by the fact that different groups of billionaires can believe entirely different things -> on one hand this is a good thing because people are vaguely understanding that being a billionaire pushes people toward particular forms of ideology. but on the other, it isn't good because people aren't understanding the [[E:material idea|concept]] of [[E:material contradiction|material contradictions]].

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}AI can be a threat, but it can't be useless / Billionaires will casually spread warnings about "the threat" of AI but they will not accept AI being referred to as "slop" -> actually good insight

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Identifying Edgeworth's dialectic identifies who you should vote for / So you would vote for the more neo lib candidate instead of the guy who changed his ways? (Liberal-republicanism)

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty / If you crudely define Socialism as an increasing exercise of "society-ism", then the correct action is to look at poor countries and decide that everyone who isn't currently provided for needs to defect to a different country as fast as possible, which is to say, needs to beg to be actively colonized by the border of a rich country in order to hopefully receive food; the people of Cuba absolutely need to be ruled by the Democratic Party per se, not even their own center-Liberal party / ({{9k|-0Vk8B3cNH8}}) -> it's funny how utterly insane the cluster of commonly-held beliefs U.S. people hold about the overall world sounds if you just say them out loud and combine them into one statement instead of compartmentalizing statements about each part of the world separately.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece -> I'm slightly afraid of what propositions would lead here. 
this proposition is a joke. I do not endorse it. 
A poor country means a bad, fake historical period that must be overthrown + debt in Greece = To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece. 
If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty + debt in Greece = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Political factions and communities are the same thing — all communities become political factions when the situation demands it, and all political factions are communities
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All communities are political factions / All countable cultures or socially-linked groups of people can function as Social-Philosophical Systems given the right situation -> I believed this because it neatly explains why Tories exist. by now, I'm not as eager to believe it, but it's still one of the sharpest replies to Bellegarrigue and easiest ways to start disproving him, so I can't quite let it go. all plurality brought on by social connections, culture, or identity has the potential to become political plurality if one group of people forces itself on another, thus there is no actual distinction between plural communities and plural formal governments. there can be physically plural anarchisms, and they can even have civil wars against each other. the concept of simply getting rid of plurality and getting rid of violence created by plurality by getting rid of The State is impossible.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All political factions are communities / All Social-Philosophical Systems are countable cultures

{{li|I=Z0/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Black defendant with all-White jury -> there are going to be some interesting combinations out of this one. generally combinations that make Liberal-republicanism look very bad. 
this + Liberal-republicanism is government by the people = Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is government by the people
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, A|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=|Q=618|submitter=StackExchange}}If gravity is zero at the center of the earth, then how did iron get there? [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-i] -> the answer says that part of the "error" here is that gravity is not a flat integer zero, it's a fence of 9.8 m/s^2 vectors pointing to all hemispheres of the planet. so iron can get in but it can't get out. some minerals drift down into the core if heavy elements are not bonded to other elements, but it's not as easy for minerals to drift back up. without being part of one big tectonic plate motion or something I guess.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition|Q=618}}Anarchism is everybody ruling everyone all the time {{YouTube|L68a6mIP09E}} -> this is.... not wrong. it came out of somebody who clearly doesn't understand anything but like, it isn't wrong. it's seemingly how a lot of recent anarchism has worked. it's backhandedly true.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition|Q=618}}Hierarchy is weak {{YouTube|CZ-FRyUZ3ok}} -> okay, but what happens when you break it open leaving an empty gap? is war strong? it must be, because it's completely unreasonable on any terms but its own and pretty hard for a small group of anarchists to stop. anarchists love reaction. they love letting anything that's too violent or dangerous for them to defeat just exist. just read Rothenberg's book where 'fascism' is treated as the only real problem but also practically raised to the level of human nature. but they'll turn around and attack things that are too weak to defend themselves against anarchism in an instant just because those things did a couple things they didn't like. this is my question: what will anarchism to do if something {{em|is anarchism}} but does something anarchism doesn't like? attack it and destroy it like anything else? how can you actually be sure that anarchism is a peaceful philosophy and not just one that will end up fighting itself for the rest of time?

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}The United States military is a neutral force within the world because it changes consciousness (anarchism) {{YouTube|LZiT3FgFqA4}} {{YouTube|sMoTWFZjoYA}} / I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong {{YouTube|FCJxf9bq1IU}} -> this is the consequence of unchecked Western-Marxism and letting people think Marxism is about actions that ""change consciousness"" rather than digging through the 'consciousness process' to uncover what structures people can be part of to gain better consciousness and how the sharpest people can start arranging [[E:arrangement of proletarians (meta-Marxism)|empowering structures]] that can [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|create]] or [[E:revolutionary lattice period|defend]] those structures regardless of what other people already notice. the difference between Althusser and Stalin is that Althusser lets you go to imperialist war to learn a lesson purely to not be a Dictator and tell you what to think before you actually learn your lesson firsthand.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong -> my brain was searching trying to think of what this made me think of and then I suddenly realized what it was. it was the MLP song. "I used to wonder what friendship could be..." that's it. like, that show embodies how Liberal-republicanism thinks of "consciousness", and this is the ultimate result of that overall kind of thinking.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}There is nothing wrong with hierarchy -> one of those propositions that's here to be the shocking result of combinations of bad propositions. 
this proposition isn't {{em|obviously}} incorrect, it's somewhat complex actually, but there are enough situations where it's wrong that in this form it would be false.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto LR, IV onto HM|Q=618}}Habermasian history is not a dialectical form of analysis because it does not understand how contradictory interactions or antagonisms rebuild the greater whole and prevent effective reforms / fundamental aspects of a society cannot simply be removed one at a time ... racism cannot be legislated out of capitalism [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> perfectly on the mark. this is what you tell them. 
the one thing you have to look out for, though: schizoanalysts trying to claim that because they included every contradictory minority at once that they've created a model which is 'actually dialectical'.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The human mind cannot become fully conscious of itself until bourgeois society is abolished, which ultimately stamps all non-proletarian philosophy as metaphysical and unscientific (Untermann 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen (Leigh 2024) [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}second-order anarchism -> the motif of someone who finds almost all forms of anarchism actually observed in the real world too specific and divisive to unite people and rebels against anarchism in order to achieve the greater goal of breaking everybody out of competing factions such as Communism versus anarchism and unifying them. this is the only kind of anarchism you could ever get me to believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}If you achieve degrowth through people of different industries periodically fighting each other and destroying each other's machines, then you've achieved degrowth {{YouTube|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> my objection to this isn't a moral one, because I don't believe morality or ethics is real. but I have an aversion to things that don't make any coherent sense. what about this makes sense? when does society know that the goal has been achieved? at what point does the process stop? is it possible for this process to extend into more abstract industries like academia or the arts, and somehow just, end up with people doing everything they can to suppress a paper or something, I don't know? what would people do to suppress pharmaceutical companies over-prescribing drugs? from what I know about anarchists, they draw the line at actually keeping people from receiving anti-depressants and hormones, so they can't stop drug production, even though it's the thing that's sold for money.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}turtles all the way down (motif)

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}botched neopets TTRPG {{YouTube|lirIV57wI34}} {{YouTube|TIxaATMBnvk}} {{YouTube|iYjUzlyEtkw}} -> it often feels like dumb headlines like these give you more insight into what kinds of class structures exist than an actual economics textbook. 
neopets exists. neopets scouts out contractor corporation. contractor corporation hires further contractors that are new at the task. there are no stable structures here; it's turtles all the way down.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Empire is always regenerating / Primitive accumulation keeps happening / Primitive accumulation is always happening -> otherwise it's hard to explain the Cold War and the way the overall concept has continued on and on more like a freezer that first set itself up and then continually circulated heat out.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ethics is the shovel dream of primitive accumulation -> think about it. most 'fitting actions' anarchists want you to do require people to have wealth first, or privilege as a whole society over other societies. create pieces of a 'community' for fun? you have to have all the money and privilege to have learned to do it correctly so your output isn't trash, or everyone will make fun of you and maybe call you immoral, potentially including the anarchists. distribute goods to people of questionable origin? you have to be White so you don't get immediately shot, and somebody first had to besiege Third World countries and make them have exactly the right government and level of wealth to both produce well and pay nothing in order for there to be enough abundance to be at the level where anarchists can claim 'distributing it' is the only problem. 
ethics itself is colonial in that without the creation of an empire you can't go on the continuing journey of people becoming 'more and more' ethical. you have to have that slump first where a huge atrocity is committed and then people progressively learn about it and apologize. a world without atrocities genuinely might not need morality or ethics at all. it might be a wholly amoral world. and the fact people are even talking about ethics may signal either that they're defending something awful, or that they aren't as good of people as they believe they are. 
why is it that anarchists always want to imagine everything perfect but it never occurs to them that a world in an original perfect state might not even have ethics.

{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618}}Plato was the only Greek / Plato was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece (observation on {{film|Chip Chilla}}) {{YouTube|x6IZm3lf50s}} / Aristotle was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece -> good catch! it's rather remarkable how, there were particular classes within ancient Greek society that could be at least vaguely separated out by layer, and almost everybody loves to act like the upper classes were the only class to exist. in reality, it appears that the upper classes and lower classes had different positions on topics like whether Greek gods were real. there was more than one body of ideology in ancient Greece, at least along the division of how educated people were if nothing else, and we don't usually talk about the interactions between those {{em|different}} bodies of ideology.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I {{em|know}} the Asriel plot thread is not that good, but everyone likes it. am I wrong or is everybody else right {{YouTube|ECa4_RWtoHY}} -> I couldn't tell you the answer to the question but I do know this is an interesting motif

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}Japanese culture (essence) / Japanese culture as essence of Japaneseness -> I used to think this concept made some sort of sense before I was an adult but now I don't think it makes any sense.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}Distinguishing countries by "culture" others them (Marxism, Trotskyism)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black vice -> this is how.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black virtue -> this is more how a lot of characterizations of "Japanese culture" or "animist beliefs" work, casually implying that something can both inherently be of a particular "culture" and also be virtuous by having started from that.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}sugar, spice, and everything nice -> Idealism/essentialism in a fairy tale type context.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature — not in the unique sense which has gotten the label that exists within society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature, because it can only exist {{em|within}} sociality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty exists due to greater or lower social bonds
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism, because Idealism cannot change the process of which people are socially compatible and develop stronger social bonds creating high-ranking individuals and marginalized individuals

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}The sun must rise (astronomy) -> I wrote this one down vaguely within context of eucatastrophe and the arguments that it is "realistic".

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Never debate Item names / Do not argue about Item names, given that all Items can have multiple aliases or outward sense labels, and you can debate which concepts belong in each numbered entry within Talk pages

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}Job as Communist antihero / Job as Communist hero -> think about it. he is told to do something and then he turns away from it and bad things keep happening and he keeps getting these reminders of the thing he was supposed to do, that bad things keep happening if he doesn't start doing. begins to remind me of Trotskyists repeatedly talking about crises and despite the claims the crises will lead to something being a little laughable correctly pointing out that none of it will get better if people do nothing. 
Q51,31 Job sounds like job + Christian devotional about Ted = Job as Communist antihero. 
Job sounds like job + Trotskyists obsessing about crises = Job as Communist antihero.

{{li|I=M3/MX/LR|Q=618}}What action taken by cops would be bad enough to actually get society to abolish them? / cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos ([[E:12,1,09|generic]]) -> I was thinking about qualified immunity and how absurdly it's been pushed to include cops getting to do anything that has no precedent and then after my brain churned a bit I was like... wait, {{em|anything}}? so if I pointed to a really messed up video of an anthro cat removing somebody's eyeballs, like, is it true that absolute serial killer shit wouldn't get us to abolish the police, and our society really thinks anything you do behind a cop's badge is okay. 
what if people signed up to a police department and became cops and then they burned down a billionaire's building? would they even get fired? what if a cop assassinated the president? would everything still go on the same as it was? what if a cop went to an immigrant prison and busted the place open and let them out? what if a cop distributed a bunch of illegal copies of a movie? what if a cop hid in a mascot costume and killed several kids at a pizza restaurant? what if a cop killed every single other cop in the state? what if a cop lied under oath? what if a cop shredded every single election ballot, and when there was another attempt to have an election, it happened again? what if a cop cut power to a hospital? what if a cop disrupted the mail? what if a cop somehow confiscated people's tax money and spent it so the government couldn't have it? what if a cop made a statement glorifying Vladimir Putin and Russia invading Ukraine? what if a police department went on strike for Palestine? is that literally the only thing a cop can get fired for? if every cop everywhere went on strike for Palestine would the United States have to abolish the police? 
I bet at least half of the weird scenarios I could think of absolutely wouldn't change anything no matter how strange or how horrific the thing that happened actually was. 
I really, genuinely wonder what it would take to end qualified immunity, and how outrageous the action taken by the cop would actually have to be. 
qualified immunity (United States) + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}failed attempt at anti-essentialism / failed attempt to apply anti-essentialism -> I get really tired of the Ideals + anti-essentialism model of reality because I totally know it is not actually modeling what's real and there are going to be a lot of cases where it simply fails that nobody bothers to talk about. 
this + ?? = Not All Men.
{{li|I=S1/LR/ML|Q=618}}successful application of anti-essentialism denied by Liberal-republicans -> there's this category of statements too.

{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not every house cat is an obligate carnivore -> example where going against an overgeneralization could be harmful.
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone will learn tolerance from media representation -> sad but probably true.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Not every country should practice Liberal-republicanism -> it'll make everyone mad but that alone doesn't make it false.
{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone should vote for Joe Biden (2020) -> hypothetically possible but will make people mad.

{{li|I=F2/HAS|Q=618}}My dog is the only one / My dog is the only dog ever / My dog is the only thing that anyone calls a dog [https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/psych/glossary/undergeneralization/] -> example given to illustrate children failing to learn to generalize words beyond specific examples. one attested use of the term "undergeneralization".

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood 
When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization ... + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes represent international war / Superheroes largely started as a vague depiction of international war -> see: Superman punching Hitler, [https://screenrant.com/superman-first-hero-to-beat-up-hitler-not-captain-america/] Ultraman as representation of Soviet occupations
{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes appear spontaneously and unpredictably because they are a representation of the anhierarchic conditions of large-scale international politics in which war can never truly be regulated and whenever war begins the only thing that can counter it is war completing itself from the other side 
Superheroes represent international war + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If there are no grand narratives that stretch across the world, then it is impossible to tell Alexander Dugin that Russians can't just go kill Ukrainians because that's what they want to do that week and it makes them happy -> without Marxism, the statement that the world shouldn't have international wars or that countries should be "orderly" is nothing more than a narrative, so everyone is free to reject it. ethics is just a narrative. "international law" is just a narrative. suddenly the notion that narratives can't possibly reach around the world and become universal isn't sounding so good any more, is it?

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}In 1949, [[E:the real Chinese people|the real Chinese people]] were the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (Mao) [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm] 
China's conditions are exceptional + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}China's conditions are exceptional / Chinese exceptionalism (history) / China's history is exceptional / China's historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value -> this proposition has a very interesting relationship with the concept of country characteristics. many people will falsely go claiming that this {{em|is}} what country characteristics are, although in many cases it will simply not be true.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}U.S. conditions are exceptional / American exceptionalism (history) / The United States' historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Stalin intentionally created strawberry capitalism in order to get more allies in countries without a fully-developed capitalism [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peoples-republic] -> so in a way Trotskyists are accusing Stalin of having invented the primary phase of development / primary phase of "socialism". 
you know, having a "socialism" constructed over the top of your country for international geopolitical reasons and then living in that for years having to make sense of it is one of the few reasons it would make logical sense for China to bend over backwards to justify strawberry capitalism as "definitely socialism, actually". 
edit: the bot [[redlink - ICFI prompts|told me]] this theory was bogus. which really makes me wonder which party wrote this glossary, because apparently it was not the ICFI.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}bracketing in meta-Marxism / downreductionism in meta-Marxism / reductionism in meta-Marxism (referring to a process that does not remove outgoing interactions and antagonisms) / meta-Marxism and bracketing smaller areas of a larger system of interacting parts to better understand the outgoing interactions and antagonisms of a particular piece
upreductionism in meta-Marxism / meta-Marxism and reconstruction of larger systems or events by combining smaller parts into a whole

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}finding Marxism in {{film|Bee Movie}} {{YouTube|q_agS0hDMvc}} -> yeah, this {{em|is}} inherently funny due to the example fictional work already having meme status. but that doesn't make the concept bad. 
there's nothing wrong with people trying to do Marxist breakdowns of the elements or themes that make up popular media. not even if the popular work is superficial "slop". and you know why? the more popular something is the cheaper it gets to buy after a few years once people start donating it to thrift stores. if you manage to take a really popular work, however bad, and turn it into a teaching tool with a well known meaning, you've created really cheap propaganda that you don't need party organizers to distribute, that will keep getting spread around no matter how many party members get caught, and that will be harder to ban because the bourgeoisie created it and it wasn't created by a group of people easy to strategically label as "an invading foreign country". of all the things Western Marxists do, this is actually one of the smartest ones. because if Gramscians go into academia or movie studios and [[E:|take up job slots]], it doesn't make that big an impact on who can actually make decisions in industries or who can strike, but if you manage to change the use of an existing product then you've somewhat undone the ability of the corporations that made it to make decisions about what will be produced and what everyone is and isn't allowed to think before everybody else can.

{{li|I=S1/MX/ML|Q=618}}revolutionary lattice period / permanent revolution (meta-Marxism onto Stalin's Marxism) -> the motif of a historical era of physical events where people are linking horizontally to get through a battle against an initial bourgeois class rule or at the very least linking into a Lattice to form a nationwide party which will create a workers' state. the revolutionary lattice period ends when a workers' state is created, and it's significant because it allows for a very concrete mathematical definition of "Leninism" using graph theory. approximately synonymous with "permanent revolution", assuming you are not a Trotskyist. Trotskyists could still use this model to describe the creation of an orange party, but for them this is not permanent revolution at all because "[[E:international permanent revolution|permanent revolution]]" is the long setup period for creating a powerful Communist International that would in theory be able to stop imperialism and international wars.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Careers hold no life lessons / {{TTS|Careers*|Careers|title=* Specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training}} cannot teach life lessons / Because all specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training are incapable of seeing anything outside the system they operate in, no statement about "life in general for the human Subject" which a person put together as a statement as a guide to doing their career in the process of doing their career should be held up as The Truth; this includes the careers of David Graeber, Rebecca Sugar, Slavoj Žižek, Carl Sagan, Dinesh D'Souza, and Donald Trump, and it includes the careers of Stalin and Trotsky -> I don't really have to include Mao in that because he came from the peasantry and had a bunch of statements about not 'worshiping' books or theorists (those seem to multiply every time there's a new Marxist republic although nobody heeds them.) so I think he's in the clear, but Stalin and Trotsky on the other hand had cast all sorts of aspersions on each other about being bureaucrats, leading everybody outside the Soviet Union to believe they both were.

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}spontaneous explanation for Trotskyism / contingent explanation for Trotskyism / group-psychological explanation for Trotskyism -> a "spontaneous" explanation for Trotskyism is an attempt to explain the history of Trotskyism which focuses on the causes of individual events and why people might have formed into these events on the day they happened, in the moment. 
these might include: Trotskyists getting expelled from the CPSU was psychologically traumatic or at least not predicted by their theoretical models, people continue to found Trotskyist parties because they identify with the psychological trauma of early Trotskyism and pick it up and advocate about it as a sort of generational trauma they feel is unresolved and waiting for justice, incompatibility between Trotskyist factions and mainstream Marxist-Leninist factions for various reasons created and still creates physical antagonisms between the parties leading them to want to form separate "countries" or civilizations (that last one is easily phrased in terms of dialectical materialism and has no need for a single 'inciting incident').

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}theoretical explanation for Trotskyism / explanation for Trotskyism based on analysis of internal theoretical models used by Trotskyist groups and exactly what historical processes and class interactions or horizontal antagonisms are being claimed inside said theories -> for the longest time I had a hard time finding any of these because of how so much of what Trotskyists say is just lies. I found it a lot easier to analyze their claims once they came out with an LLM and like, I was finally able to make that thing behave like the only Trotskyist that didn't lie for a few minutes at a time (before it started blatantly lying again and going on about 'the Stalinist bureaucracy').

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why invade Cuba? (2026) / If Cuba is not an exclusive republic, why is the United States so dead-set on creating a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over it?

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Cuba to Trump: warning, war causes war [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419]

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump's demands for Cuba (2026) / these included a two-week deadline to release high-profile political prisoners, implement sweeping market reforms, expand the private sector and attract foreign investment [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/21/mgaz-a21.html] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419] -> I'd mark this brown except that these are the most capitalist demands I've seen in a while

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Alabama redistricting ruling (2026) [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-order-requiring-majority-black-district-in-alabama-6024323] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/democrats-ask-us-supreme-court-to-stay-virginia-supreme-court-ruling-invalidating-voter-approved-election-map-6024209]

{{li|I=S2/MX/JC/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung got help from other countries / Kim Il-sung got help from Communist youth organizations in Manchuria and educators in the Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet army [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kim-Il-Sung] -> that is a shocking revelation. if you know much about North Korea and what its values are now you never expect that the story of North Korea would start with this. 
why have I never heard Trotskyists saying this. it's like, the thing they should be pointing out about North Korea. I think it's always the existence of the Soviet army that bothers them. which is so odd and ironic when Trotsky is one of the figureheads of "orange Leninism" and where did he start out? gosh, to live in a world where Trotsky had been every bit as effective at holding down the Second World as Kim Il-sung. with this information that analogy only gets better.

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}How will the Communist Party prevent {{book|Animal Farm}}? -> a question that's annoying but worth answering.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}} / You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}}, because secular animism gives you an imperative to protect the animals from getting eaten, while {{book|Animal Farm}} implies that it doesn't matter what happens to them if they have an inferior culture containing [[E:inherently dominating idea (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideas]] -> there is a particular history of people forgetting {{book|Animal Farm}} had anything to do with Communism and taking it literally because they didn't read the book; in particular, this "interpretation" emerged out of the shadows and became famous when it was used to market capitalist products. {{book|Animal Farm}} being co-opted by vegetarians might seem a little obnoxious at first, but honestly? I think these people could become heroes. and here's why. {{book|Animal Farm}}, being an allegory, was meant to be read as a bit of a metaphor, but vegetarians with no knowledge of Communism took what they knew of the book and interpreted it literally. compared with a lot of methods used in the humanities (in particular in the arts; the situation could be a little better in fields like anthropology), taking things literally is inherently closer to Materialism and thus inherently closer to Marxism. if one were to deliberately analyze {{book|Animal Farm}} as if the animals were literally animals and not the Soviet Union, it would come across as the terribly inhumane and un-humanitarian narrative it really is. I mean, just think about it. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to kill a house cat a lot of people would find that concept disturbing. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to take self-determination away from a group of animals trying to save themselves from quite literally being chopped up and eaten if a population of people had power over them, that concept should be equally disturbing — if somebody wanted to cook and eat Russians just for being Russian almost everybody would consider that a severe human rights violation. and the ending for the Soviet Union was vastly worse than the ending of {{book|Animal Farm}}. the book was way too generous, when the reality was that things went back to the way they were before — if what had been going on before was Russians getting eaten, well, that would be happening again. if that were the universe we lived in you couldn't really blame Russians for going a little crazy and launching wars on neighboring countries; if that is the only way for them to have power and the United States not to have power which is "permitted", of course they're going to take the option where they don't get eaten, no matter how evil that option is. 
Animals kill others to survive. most animals in nature don't experience their survival being threatened constantly; in a normal situation the predator or rival patriarch or matriarch usually walks away at some point if they stand their ground long enough. but nation-states are very different because there's never anywhere to run off to permanently. if a conflict begins and the aggressor has no actual incentive to stop it's going to keep going until somebody starts killing people. it's just going to keep going until wars cull enough people (potentially millions and millions) that "the space to run away in" is at some semblance of being restored. because a society is just a lot of Animals standing together like they were one Animal, and societies threaten each other as wholes, but when a threat refuses to go away, Animals kill. anarchists cannot get away from this. they keep trying to assert that a world with too many people in it having wars "isn't necessary" and "there's no need to apply Malthusianism" but no matter what, their theories cannot [[E:existential materialism|explain what generates]] the actual observed behavior of Russians. the longer anarchists try to assert that indigenous ways of life 'were kinder on the earth' and 'were less violent', the longer real-world populations will attempt to kill millions and millions of people until the world literally has the maximum number of human individuals it did when human populations were mostly tribes. the actual material transition to a world where everyone is predisposed to believe secular animism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's rational for Russians to start wars and kill people if they will never be granted self-determination on the basis of a system where they try to help every Ukrainian and not start wars -> to correctly parse this proposition you have to understand that what is rational and what is ethical are not the same thing, contrary to what Kant says. 
this also doesn't mean that you can assert that 'getting rid of reason' will solve the problem, given that things that are 'rational' in this sense are rational precisely in the sense that they contain a specific [[E:causal logic (logical model of material causation)|sequence of causations]] and happen whether you want them to or not. 
Imperialism is the actual end of history + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Native Americans are capable of genocide / Inasmuch as indigenous populations are human, they are hypothetically capable of coming up with and practicing [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideologies]] that lead to large populational-scale numbers of people dying because other particular groups of people decide that they should die -> we really need to wake people up to the fact that a genocide can consist of five billion people equally drawn from all ethnic groups as opposed to a billion people of one specific ethnic group or nationality, in terms of whether a particular person's ideology can be ""inherently dominating"" enough to inherently lead to killing ten million people. if anybody in the world gets to keep calling a famine in Ukraine a genocide, then there are scenarios where advocating secular animism could itself be advocating for genocide, because it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than that. if everybody would stop saying that about Ukraine, I might consider dropping this.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Stalin's government committed genocide in Ukraine {{em|because}} they killed people using [[E:hierarchy (anarchism)|hierarchy]], and whenever a form of hierarchy is used that leads to a lot of people dying, that form of hierarchy is an [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideology]], and it is morally wrong to allow people to construct that form of hierarchy to any extent and morally right to tear it apart at every scale possible however small as soon as possible -> the best argument I can think of that the famine in Ukraine {{em|was}} a genocide. no, it's {{em|not}} very good. but at least it's logical enough to start analyzing, unlike a lot of things anarchists say. 
this.... is how a lot of people conceptualize the French Revolution, I think. ...oh god, that explains a lot. it even kind of explains where [[E:Menshevism (1900s)|Menshevism]] came from. the logic behind Menshevism is basically one that inherently dominating ideas merely need to be stopped. all Idealism is somewhat similar and there is a big overlap in Idealism between anarchism, Menshevism, Yaroshenkoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Western-Marxism. while mainstream Marxism-Leninism is nearly the only philosophy ever to state that people don't actually decide what ideas to believe, and that they are always simply handed ideas at the populational scale rather than a population actually having a mind of its own and actually being able to think. that's the sense in which BlackPantherism is quite respectable, to say that Black people among other ethnicities get ideas from their current conditions {{em|is}} a Materialist philosophy. one remaining question is whether Trotskyism falls into the trap of Idealist revolution or whether it genuinely is a Materialist revolution. I've always analyzed Trotskyism by taking individual Trotskyists or groups and modeling them through Materialist concepts of revolution, but my conclusions often don't sound much like their conclusions. they always talk like Stalin could have chosen not to do "Stalinism" so I don't know. 
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy + Stalin's government killed Ukrainian farmers = this.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A, DX, LR, ES|Q=618}}Idealist revolution / destroy the idea that ... (generic; popular-culture expression of an Idealist campaign to slay [[E:inherently dominating ideology (anarchism)|dominating ideas]]) -> it took me a long time to put this concept into words, but yeah, I think the real problem with anarchism is that it is defining the concept of revolution based on Idealism. there seems to be a whole concept of an Idealist revolution where people think that if you can slay an "inherently dominating idea" that drives a population on a conceptual level, you can change one historical period into another historical period. now, to use some technical language, this is some unscientific SCP-report plotline {{censor|bullshit}}.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=|Q=618}}thoughtcrime (anarchism) -> the motif of anarchists banning ideas in order to prevent harmful forms of society from being created whether those forms of society are really actually harmful or not, and punishing people for spreading what are actually neutral ideas. 
you can't deny it, in actually asserting that all bad behavior starts at ideas and all change starts at prohibiting ideas, anarchism comes way closer to doing this than Communism.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy / The act of handing money to someone is in and of itself a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|spatial slot hierarchy]] because it is an act of deciding whether someone is good enough to do a task -> this claim would probably sound much stupider if it was coming out of an anarchist, but fortunately "hierarchy" isn't a big hang-up for me as much as a prosaic statement describing what kind of process is happening. 
that said, this is the thing you need to toss at anarchists who claim that hierarchy and expertise are different things. they really aren't. since the start of Liberal-republicanism expertise has generally been the source of almost all hierarchy. 
I feel like anarchists have shifted to saying "domination" largely so that when they mention "hierarchy" they don't sound as stupid. of course, it doesn't really help given that it's become so abstract that it's unclear what on earth it's even referring to.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}X and X's brother / X and X's sister / Trotsky and Trotsky's brother (Animal Farm) / Rock and Rock's brother (Megaman exe) -> the motif of fictional stories taking a historical figure or previous fictional character in another continuity and creating a narrative parallel to them but then unexpectedly adding a sibling who actually does something and changes the story even if in a small way.

{{li|I=S1/HAS/Fy|Q=618}}gender roles in fairy tales -> I just started thinking about this suddenly today because I was trying to think if the concepts of "brother" and "sister" have different connotations in folklore, and then I started thinking about how weirdly often all the more negative characters in fairy tales are female. the wicked stepmother, the witch, maybe the wicked step{{em|sisters}}. but the male characters are often more neutral. kings and princes and medieval artisan type people all just have kind of a neutral presence or sometimes positive. there are some exceptions like 'the fairy godmother' that will be a positive influence. 
I.... don't know what the scope of this entry is because I'm not an expert in the humanities. I think it covers European fairy tales and probably through Eastern Europe into the rest of Asia but I don't really know what the division between "a fairy tale" and "a folktale" is, to me they're kind of the same thing. some people consider "Aladdin" to be broadly in the scope of fairy tales because there is a magic artifact or magic servant character that isn't so different from the fairy godmother. but that extends the geographical range of fairy tales quite a bit. what's the difference between a fairy tale and just a legend that people don't necessarily think is true? I think there's a clear difference between a fairy tale and a "myth" in that myths are religious stories from an ancient time of local gods, and fairy tales are about 'smaller' magical things that sort of just hide themselves in tiny places and cause mischief — "fae" sums up the concept of where fairy tales get their fantastical elements pretty well, you're thinking of a character that is usually pretty small and missable but can also be very powerful, could be the fairy godmother, could be a leprechaun. but I'm pretty confused on the difference between a fairy tale, a folktale, and a legend, because legends can have dragons in them; they don't have to be "historical".

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}belief (utilization) / believing in (utilizing) / I believe in solving math problems with lambda calculus / I believe in pomodoro timers -> a definition of "belief" which is one of the very few sensible ways to define the phrase "believing in Marxism". 
I think it's arguable that this definition doesn't apply to ideologies like Christianity, or even to a lot of secular systems of ethics; ethics is a potentially wrong descriptive model of reality pretending to be a technique. but, on the bright side, this motif does provide a lot of context for why people like to claim Communism "doesn't work". you could easily say "pomodoro timers don't work!" but if you aren't versed in how people actually use them and the exact conditions where people claim they do work versus what specific kinds of conditions lead them to fail, then you wouldn't necessarily be making a true accusation. at the same time, if you {{em|did}} claim "Pomodoro timers work!" without knowing how to use them, you also might not be making a true claim. that's why the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism has been so hard to resolve. out of the very limited number of people in the world who knew how to use Marxism at the time, or that do now, not all of those people genuinely understand how it's currently being used. and it's all downhill from there, because as you get further away from them, ordinary people only know less and less. 
you really do learn a lot more about Marxism itself by examining Trotskyist attacks on Marxism than you do by examining a lot of attacks on Marxism inside Liberal-republicanism. and in that, I think they actually have a counter-intuitive effect on consciousness in the grand scheme of things where depending on the specific issue them making errors may be less harmful than them not being there. not {{em|better}} precisely, yet definitely {{em|less bad}}.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}so mr. errors wants me to correct my errors -> what the early history of Trotskyism always feels like 
now to be perfectly fair to them, there are reasons this can {{em|apparently}} happen without being an actual mistake — Marxists speak of new forms of structure coming in and getting rid of old contradictions but bringing in new ones. I think this is how a lot of things they say happen to function.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}tall, dark, and handsome [https://usdictionary.com/idioms/tall-dark-and-handsome/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3x6bco/in_the_phrase_tall_dark_and_handsome_what_exactly/] / tenebrous (attractive) -> I have seen this explained either as the person literally having dark hair or the person being mysterious (tenebrous). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ténébreux] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrae#Latin] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrous#English] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrize#English] for the purposes of analyzing the word "dark" I'm going to take the latter 
sidenote: the pictures you get when you search {{i|ténébreux}} are so funny, you get like a dude with a cloak, you get {{censor|fucking}} Ezio or Boromir. fantasy stories are very good at portraying this concept apparently. one of the only "modern" stories I can think of off the top of my head that goes there is when Ace Attorney introduced Godot. whether anyone thinks he's attractive I have no idea but he absolutely is trying way too hard to have a mysterious overcast disposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Goku is a bourgeois distortion / Goku is a bourgeois distortion of Buddhism / Goku's character concept is centered around the notion that finding or seeking enlightenment makes you more physically powerful; in the original {{book|Journey to the West}} narrative, this was supposed to be the monkey king's vulgar misunderstanding of Buddhism which ultimately got him sealed under a mountain; within {{book|Dragon Ball}} Goku can be said to represent crude bourgeois materialism as seen in Feuerbach — the major theme quickly established in {{book|Dragon Ball}} is that the world is physical and does what it wants as opposed to what you want it to do, but that this is partly because the world is in some abstract way "modern", and dotted with cities and corporations and most notably the influence of scientific insight and technology; in this sense, Goku is not the {{book|Journey to the West}} character Sun Wukong because while Sun Wukong represents ancient empires, he represents the rise of early capitalism and the ways in which capitalism both correctly and wrongly substituted morality for power going into the hands of those who desire change the hardest and become materially powerful enough to take power and [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic|fight off]] the people they wish would change -> 
this sounds weirdly like I'm on the side of Buddhism over early capitalism. I'm not. I'm just very tired of capitalism acting like it's fully justified to keep power over everything and prevent anything else that would happen after it from forming just because it's better than ancient imperial monarchies. 
if Hegel had known what an "end of history" was, he would have believed that monarchy and feudal orders were the end of history. and now Fukuyama thinks he's not as wrong as Hegel when he does the same thing. honestly... right down to even that thing where you claim a bunch of abstract ideas led to a material system yet were the only possible train of conclusions. capitalist theorists and Kantians are almost exactly just the Hegel of capitalism.

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}Daniel Snowberg, the perfect whistleblower [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/whistleblowers-dont-need-elite-credentials-help-protect-us-government-overreach] -> so, there had been this other blog where I think someone was calling out Ed Snowden for having 'done things wrong' and made up this fake story about Daniel Snowberg to show how he should have done it correctly. and the EFF wasn't having any of it because they knew the realities of real movements don't necessarily look like what you want them to be. 
also... funny story, when messing around with writing fiction and trying to throw Snowberg into a dystopia this had caused Valenoern to accidentally reinvent Trotskyism. but that takes a while to explain, and is a story for another day. to keep things short, they really did not know anything about the history of socialism or what Menshevism or Bolshevism were, they just sort of, created a character in the vein of "Emmanuel Goldstein" (that's just an example) from abstract concepts but didn't know that in the case of 1984 that was Trotsky, and so they reinvented Trotskyism. we've had a lot of fun with anticommunist fables and finding Trotsky in them since then.

{{li|I=S1/MX/MD|class=field_mdem field_14quarters|Q=618}}vermilion international / scarlet international / vermilion Marxism (as Communist International) -> the motif of a Communist international that combines mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism to ultimately form some kind of single global era of socialism. Trotskyists think this can't exist, and have said so rather clearly — what they generally want is to smash all crimson Communist parties and replace them with orange ones.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Videos are the new leaflets (booklets; pamphlets; etc) {{YouTube|bKq-iip4LXs}} / Videos have replaced leaflets -> I remember this coming up in videos on multiple YouTube channels but I don't remember which videos right now 
I wouldn't disagree with this, although... I think there are a few interesting things to note about it. for one, the environment of online videos gives Trotskyists a bizarrely huge advantage because they can all post videos from different countries and make it look like Trotskyism is a lot more omnipresent in any particular country than it really is, as well as like it's a long-standing philosophical tradition (technically not false) which is as rich as mainstream Marxism-Leninism is. online videos make it weirdly easy to "astroturf" the appearance of movements happening more intensely or widely than they actually are.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality; news outlets sell the service of empirical encounters with material reality -> this is the only satisfactory explanation I can find for the way United States people will utterly deny things as a possibility {{caps|until}} they show up in a news article and then suddenly they're "real" and omnipresent and worrying and perhaps scary.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Free Software movement needs a theory of state businesses if it is ever to succeed; it needs a theory of how it is that products and production structures become part of public space and become impossible for individuals to control or 'retract' as opposed to saying that individuals just 'ought to' continually choose to put things in the public space within the space of individual choices and interactions 
methodological individualism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}I'm not here to educate you / It's not my job to educate you (statement that minority groups do not have to explain oppression) -> I don't think you can treat this statement as generally true. funny story, I've been picking up books on Native American history when I go to used book sales, and like, these claim to be educational, but you open them up, and the last one I was reading was treating the tribe in question as very mystical. it was trying to be positive and imply there was nothing wrong with people having a different culture but it overall still ended up presenting things like Rolling Thunder (he was the main topic of the book) had a fundamentally magical way of thinking, that he's almost some kind of wizard with magic occult powers in the way he thinks as opposed to his culture being something that can ever be "normal". I think the book was from 1976 if I remember right, not recently. 
so like, telling people to go educate themselves and implying they can't talk to actual people to learn what their problems are could be very harmful. I suspect that it's old books like these that a lot of anarchists are learning about other groups of people from and effectively where they're getting their anarchism. or that even if that's not literally the case, that you can still study that example to learn about the problems with the thing anarchists are actually doing. 
I think there is like.... a nuance that's totally lost on anarchists about the interaction of individuals or populations. if there's somebody that goes around talking like Rolling Thunder, you can't really just take what he says and present it to other people as his fundamental way of thinking. people in industrial populations are going to take it negatively. there might be one or two people who literally take it as 'backward' and say mean things, but that's not what you need to watch for, the most likely harm you need to keep an eye out for is people softly deciding that tribal populations can't understand modern science and that the way of thinking they have presented is part of their fundamental essence that 'blocks' them from absorbing the understandings people have in industrial society. this is racist, because it puts you into the same rhetorical position as the people who were recently arguing that Black South Africans 'didn't want the farmland taken by Afrikaners because of their culture' and {{em|therefore}} it was okay for European apartheid states to descend in and take whatever they want. I think there's a decent argument to be made that claiming someone like Rolling Thunder has a fundamentally different way of thinking 'than European science' is flat out supporting colonialism and is The Colonizer Attitude, because, just look at its results. 
this leaves open the rather broad question of how exactly you can merge tribal populations' ways of thinking with modern science and the findings of industrial societies. we know it's not optional to do that. we know it's necessary to do it to not essentialize people and treat indigenous people as stupid. we know that anarchists trying to present older and more mystical ways of thinking as 'the natural way of thinking' is not okay because it what it effectively does is allow White people to appropriate indigenous culture for their own benefit but still deny that culture to the actual indigenous people and hand all the power of people to determine themselves, to be able to talk about all topics intelligently as the adults in the room and make sophisticated decisions on various topics and involving several different philosophies, to Europeans. putting yourself in a position where other people will essentialize you to one particular level of ideological development is dangerous. I think it's the anarchists that need to be told this more than the tribal populations; they've been through a lot and I think to some extent they know this. anarchists, on the other hand... I feel like it's vaguely possible that some day in the future, people will talk about anarchists as inherently mystical people and weirdly racialize all anarchists {{em|exactly}} the way they've done with tribes in North or South America.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{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/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{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 {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> 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/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/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=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/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=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=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

</ol><noinclude>

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-06-17T02:50:23Z

Reversedragon: Plagiarism is stating the population of England without context

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

{{li|I=F2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}Plagiarism is stating the population of England without context / Plagiarism is making a non-obvious statement of fact without providing sources; this is to imply that plagiarism is defined as having a belief which is materially accurate (true) but not justified / Remembering a fact is plagiarism -> this statement sounds okay when you are teaching elementary school but becomes laughably incoherent when you try to apply it to actual adult life for even a second. like, how many everyday spoken conversations do you think contain plagiarism just because you don't have time to look up exactly what book you read or what video you watched? if plagiarism is a matter of morality then people do immoral things every day just by speaking; everyone's daily interactions are hurting authors and academics every second of every day. at a certain point you have to ask if morality is nothing more than people {{i|believing that not having control over other people's lives harms them}}. there's a terrible similarity between this concept of plagiarism and people getting upset they are being harmed because they don't have control over trans people. I don't like ethics. I'm done with it.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}Because plagiarism is making a statement of fact without providing sources (sic), any instance of reading a reference book and forgetting what exactly what the title is and where the book came from causes plagiarism; only people with a record of every book they have read within the time they are likely to remember it or who have every book they read accessible in their house can be moral -> now, to be fair, if we weren't talking about the concept of "plagiarism" and were talking about a unified notion of rules of evidence that applies across law and the sciences, I think this would be a reasonable thing to say — a chain of custody makes for better evidence. but it has always been really strange to me that people have seen the need to conflate rules of evidence with "stealing". isn't it enough to identify information as good-quality or bad-quality information? what's the big deal with trying to put so much control on every student that probably isn't even brought down on some publishing corporations? 
I feel like "stating an unverifiable fact" and "copying sentences out of a book" should be completely separate things. this is, unfortunately, one of the only good things large language models have done: they've been slowly forcing people to get better models of what plagiarism is because when they aren't human and can't be held accountable for anything and thus [[E:Reality is tyrannical|inherently have more rights than humans will ever have]], people are forced to fall back to guides on "how to identify AI" and actually explain materially why plagiarism creates less useful text rather than giving a moral argument about how a machine they cannot control "should have" done things differently. it would be wonderful to have something other than "AI" doing that instead but so far nothing has really succeeded at it.

{{li|I=S2/FS|tradition=|Q=618}}It isn't about gun control, it's about product and business-territory control -> you know. there's a certain section of people that are like, "FOSS basement dwellers" — who attribute great power to change society to individual ability to produce things with technology — but the funny thing is that sometimes those people are correct. usually during the times they're getting upset about the seemingly unstoppable power of corporations. let me tell you, Mike Masnick getting upset about corporations continuing to abuse the 'proprietary economy' was vastly more influential in the overall journey of getting me to Communism than everything anybody says about civil rights or even about unions or workers a lot of the time. I think in some ways Free Software types and this swath of "generic libertarians" is really wired into the concept of business territories and owners and trying to break down the business territories of the "big" or "corporatist" owners. it's comical how although the reasons for it are wrong the conclusions are very close to correct and I would unironically support using a surprisingly large slice of the generic-libertarian content that exists to teach Marxism. it's funny how nothing but the antagonism between all business territories eventually begins to undo capitalism if you give it long enough, while no amount of anarchist ideology ever seems to make much of a difference.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}At what point is the proletariat created? -> this is not a trivial question because workers can function very differently inside different sociophilosophies. is the proletariat created when people are displaced from business territories? is the proletariat only created when Bolshevism is created? (I forget where I was going with this comment but I suspect I will remember later)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}real people fiction / {{abbr|RPF|title=real people fiction}} (fan fiction)

{{li|I=M3/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}What is the difference between real people fiction and historical fiction? -> a cop-out answer is that historical fiction can be made out of only made-up people but contains real countries or historical periods. but that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, if there is at least one real person inside a historical fiction scenario, at what point after that does it become real people fiction? immediately? are there other things required? does it have to consist of more real-people characters among the main cast than fake-people characters? if I write a scenario not as a novel but literally as one of those books used to train lawyers or librarians on example cases, and my scenario contains real people, have I written real people fiction?

{{li|I=S2/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}Toontown runs on Menshevism / As evidenced by the layout of the interactable game world and the daily use of jellybeans as currency, the Toons that live in Toontown live in a [[E:agorism|market-based society]] built on small businesses which willingly provides houses -> note: come back and add Toontown to 'related' on 9k page for Growing Around, along with childism

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Ted Kaczynski was not an anarchist [https://www.thetedkarchive.com/special/about-this-project] -> I have never heard of this man but okay. there are a lot of anarchist-sounding philosophies that aren't very good so even without much information I believe it's possible.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Teamsters obstructed worker organization (2018) / The Teamsters are a group of bureaucrats that negotiate with workers to achieve corporations' demands; this is to imply that workers should consider forming their own internal organizations across bigger sectors of industry instead of trusting them (California, 2018) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/20/upam-a20.html]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Kropotkinism leads to populations of people who produce about $5 an hour and end up getting classified as contractors who have to put all their other revenue into expenses -> anarchists like to complain about how Communism and Liberal capitalism 'overwork people for nothing' while anarchism is about finishing work and doing something enjoyable. but.... I have to wonder. what would happen if Kropotkinism actually kicked off? wouldn't you just have a population of people that earns tiny amounts, has huge expenses, and basically lives just like gig workers? what if the reason anarchism hasn't been more successful is Amazon beat anarchists to creating 'easy work' of the kind anarchists want but just not in the conditions they want? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/19/jxer-f19.html] it seems to me like anarchism moves really slow and capitalism moves fast, owning entire market-boxes and communities while anarchists are only talking about those things and before they can meaningfully create them.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Community is a hyperstructure -> the claim that "community", mostly as a materialist version of the anarchist model of what "communities" are, is a system that encourages itself to expand further through parts of the system contributing to the overall system. 
I think the description is really apt because you see this perfect 'blockchain quality' where community looks like a shiny wonderful thing you could only want more and more of, but when you get any particular instance of community, such as a newsfeed platform like YouTube or Twitter, the more people add to it the worse it seems to get and the more it turns into this vector for individual capitalists to own an entire "agora" and exploit the whole concept of an economy existing and make money off that, and the more it feels like community itself was a scam from the start. 
Community is a hyperstructure + Hyperstructures are usually harmful = Community is a cancer.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Hyperstructures are usually harmful -> this is an anarchist or agorist claim more than it is my claim but I wouldn't totally oppose it.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|tradition=|Q=618}}hyperstructure (snowballing system) [https://medium.com/@onjas_buidl/hyperstructures-in-human-history-5a27f31c28df] -> blockchain fanatics' attempt to describe a generalized kind of system which rewards people for contributing to a cumulative pie in a constructive way. 
honestly? if getting people to comprehend "hyperstructures" could get rid of blockchains themselves then I'd be all for it 
I feel like this concept is almost more of a cautionary tale than a desirable thing to have though. one of their examples is the general concept of money because of course they have to explain how bitcoin is similar to money. but like, the expansion of money through creating more products and the central government giving loans to corporations to speed up the process isn't necessarily a good thing, it often leads to the destruction of the environment as it's consumed to create materials and factories, or the destruction of culture as products obsolete other products just to chase money and get more money added. this is so bad that when they present language as the second example I'm like.... okay, is language secretly a bad thing that is destroying the world and I just didn't know it was? I have to say though, the advent of large language models really vindicates the concept of hyperstructures, if in a bad way. the more AI that people create the more different AIs can train on each other to the extent they can generate any meaningful inferences or conversation data that human testers approve, and then there will be more AI. so, yeah. the concept of hyperstructures was very successful. it was successful at describing something, but it seems like basically everything it describes is an existential threat to humanity, including The Economy, capitalism, blockchain, AI, and possibly language (??). 
this might be one of the clearest pieces of evidence that anarchism is inherently dangerous because it doesn't actually build into itself the capability to model societies spending a while building something and then leveling off in a neat S-curve because they moved on to entirely different things without redoing the same things over and over again such as repeatedly reinventing game consoles or phones. (a thing Marxism could do with some effort because it inherently understands the concept of historical periods and shifts from one period to another.) despite all the surface rhetoric about "infinite growth" recently it only really understands infinite growth because of its core values of always making everything about "community" and "inclusivity" and never saying no to anybody. so naturally a system of modeling growth itself is one of the first things to pop out of it, which claims to have a limit but in practice when it hits the limit just divides in two and continues to make more and more.

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}storing properties of chemical reactions in power sets composed out of smaller sets [https://chemrxiv.org/doi/pdf/10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-368pz] -> um. I don't understand any of this but it's very cool.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Stalin's government putting up positive posters in schools is "a lie", then how do you know that solarpunk is true? -> I won't fault you for making the former claim, but the reason the CPSU would be wrong there is that it's letting people be Idealist instead of understanding the terrifying truth that they might not succeed. so.... if the CPSU posters are wrong, and putting up hopeful slogans is bad because it allows the people spreading the potentially incorrect slogans to gain power over you, then how exactly is solarpunk correct?

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Idealism is invincible / Materialist movements are inherently weaker than Idealist movements in that Idealist movements live forever as long as human beings don't believe in burning books, but Materialist movements die as soon as actual physical organizations are broken up -> there's only one real solution to correct this discrepancy. promote "hypothetical materialism", the new category of philosophies which are spread as disembodied ideas but internally contain only Material Ideas and Materialism. [https://chatonsky.net/ideomaterialism/]

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=|Q=618}}Marxist analysis of non-Marxisms / Marxist analysis of non-Marxist philosophies or movements / infra-Marxism (Marxist analysis which is done either wholly inside a specific formulation of Marxism, or wholly inside that specific Marxism while critiquing non-Marxist philosophies, but where the Marxism does not actually give a proper analysis of either itself or other Marxisms; meta-Marxism) -> a large part of the original stated purpose of Marxism before the Trotskyite conspiracy happened.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The Diggers were a proto-Marxist movement because they began with displaced peasants or allied local houses sensing the impending expansion of estates, and sought to build a community without commodity exchange, loosely and metaphorically compared to Eden (Christopher Hill) / {{book|The World Turned Upside Down}} (Hill 1988; generic) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> ok, in my mind, I can't remember the difference between this description and the Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Narodniks; this doesn't sound like a movement with a very detailed plan behind it. but this {{em|is}} a very juicy and entertaining claim, so I'll code it. I wouldn't really mind someone calling a cottager movement 'Socialists' or 'anarchists'. but, what is the difference between the Diggers and Peter Kropotkin? can you answer that question? I think you need to go into at least that much depth to properly answer whether they can be "communists".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The faithful are duty bound to obey God alone / Because rulers are sinful creatures like us and will have a propensity to do the wrong thing, they will tend to tyranny, decreeing ungodly laws ... in these cases, the faithful are duty bound to obey God alone (Calvin ??/2009) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> that is one killer quote. it's not surprising, given all the {{em|stuff}} in the bible about "powers and principalities" that sounds just like this. but it's definitely mysterious to look at the bible and realize, hey wait, what's all this stuff about never trusting rulers? God doesn't exist, God is one big rationalization. so is Christianity really an anarchism?? I'd argue it is. I'd argue that at least as soon as New Testament Christianity appeared the whole thing was really about pushing the concept that seemed nonsensical at that time of getting rid of all rulers and creating a society based only in social bonds connecting people into a society ("love", "brotherhood", "neighbors"), and Christians had to dress up that concept inside the concept of a worldwide empire just to get anybody to believe it when otherwise it would have seemed unbelievable. 
I'd also argue that by capitulating to the class imagery of their time Christians doomed Christianity and turned it into a tool of empire itself as empire noticed that an ideology about empire was better suited to literally arguing one empire was superior to other empires and deserved to be the one to conquer the world. there's not a lot of difference between Christians and Democrats. Christians: we are all united together as under The King. Romans promptly turn the king into Caesar and argue Christianity promotes somewhat-racist empires that take other nations as slaves. Democrats: we are all united together by voting and a list of civil rights. Capitalists promptly make it mandatory for every minority listed in a civil rights act to support Israel and destroy Palestine, and support products made in Cuba while refusing Cuban products on pain of arrest.

{{li|I=S2/P4|tradition=|Q=618}}An international war will surely clear away all internal contradictions / If there be bad blood in a nation, an honourable foreign war will vent it out (Bacon 1622) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> god, he's the 1600s Dugin. that or Dugin's ideas are as old as dirt. you know, one or the other.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}the revolution betrayed betrayed betrayed -> the motif of Trotskyism getting "betrayed" by the creation of socialism in one country, which then got betrayed by Trotskyism as payback, which then got betrayed by anarchism and critical theory turning the previous two events into evidence against all Marxism.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}I'll question to the death the reason you said it / I don't agree with what you're defending and I'll question to the death the reasons for anyone ever saying that / I don't agree with what you're defending people saying and I'll question to the death the underlying material reasons for anyone ever saying that -> this isn't meaning to imply the statement absolutely should be suppressed or shouldn't be said as much as purely that there is a big elephant being ignored of asking why it is people say things and what will be gained by defending the statement 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + meta-theory = this. 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + demographic Marxist / sectarianism = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani would have done more for the world if he'd bought an illegal Cuban product, showed it off, and gotten arrested than he did by attempting to speak about Israel -> I'm so sick of this new trend of all social contradictions happening in courtrooms between two individuals. I really am. but this would be one way to make the best of it

{{li|I=F2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}They can't arrest all of us -> one of those anarchist sayings that deeply bothers me because of how it's just not true. a country can bring down the law on as many people as it wants to. when it can't arrest everybody, that's when it brings out the tanks and helicopters and just starts shooting them. you should know this. it's already a pretty common talking point to say U.S. people don't revolt against the U.S. because of "the military". if China can bring out the army when there's not enough time for jury trials, and it's already common for cops to shoot petty criminals, what stops the United States from starting an open season on everybody who isn't committed to following all its laws? a bit of Cold War propaganda? do you really think the Great Terror happened for any other reason than that republics are based on laws and when people stop following laws and getting scared by cops they do anything to protect themselves??

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Nations are bodies of law / Nations are legal codes / A nationality is defined by how well people follow a population's current set of laws, and the less people follow the law, the less they are part of that nationality; this is to imply but not state that the moment people intend to follow no laws at all they are not part of a particular nationality any more -> 
this is one of the only models that can explain either separate wing of Liberal-republicanism and Stalin's Marxism and even a Trotskyist republic equally well: the model that republics begin with written laws and laws are the fundamental Ideas that create "nations of ideas". Tories don't follow center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. center-Liberals skirt around Tory laws, Tories call treason. Communists don't respect center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. anarchists or right-Liberals defy Soviet laws, Stalin's government calls treason. Stalin's government defies Trotskyists' desired body of laws, Trotskyists call treason. 
it's all about laws. laws are made by classes, and that's what distinguishes the fundamental character of a body of laws, but actually, all geopolitical conflicts and demographic conflicts deep inside countries start at whether separate groups of people are following each other's internal laws. it's all one big squabble about laws and what laws are inherently good or bad, while that will never have an objective answer because different areas of people hate other people's laws and don't want them. 
this is part of what makes critical-theory so frustrating. as of late it's been picking up talking points that the United States government is totally capable of granting North American tribes rights. but in order to get those "rights" they had to first send people to assimilate to White towns and consent to the overall body of United States laws and agree not to violate any of them, while some of those laws banned the tribal societies they would have been fighting for. it's a bit paradoxical. within the system that boasts all the time about giving people human rights (and also lies to everyone claiming the rights are from birth or 'god-given' despite the fact God doesn't give them to you in Cuba and Cuba requires an invasion to defeat The Regime that's apparently stronger than God himself)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Dengism can defeat God (power scaling) / Deng Xiaoping states are stronger than God / If human rights are granted to people by God when they are born, but the United States needs to invade Cuba to ensure that people have God-given rights, then the Cuban government is strong enough to stop God himself; this is to imply that the United States is proportionally stronger than God by two [[E:feat (power scaling)|feats]] because the United States is stronger than the thing that defeated God but is not God / The U.S. can defeat God (sense)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}There is no difference between morality and "manufacturing consent"; they are the same continuous thing; "manufacturing consent" is precisely an instance of either morality or natural law, and is an example of how Liberal-republicanism abuses these incorrect models of reality to gain power over people that were previously outside its control

{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Return to the Land (White supremacist movement) {{YouTube|e1iSMbzx_Hg}} -> I have.... a bit of a mild "conspiracy theory". I'm not sure Liberal-republicans are actually opposing this thing for the right reasons. sure, the people inside it sound like fairly bad people, and it doesn't sound like a good place to live. but I feel like this thing is being used as leverage to promote things people otherwise wouldn't support. to show that otherwise-bad things are "necessary". like, compounds full of racists are the new 9/11 — or the old one that probably existed decades before it happened. 
(it really doesn't help that the commentator identified the White supremacist compounds as "terrorist cells". that's a pretty heavy-handed rhetorical term when it comes to giving a particular national government great military power over any city within the entire rest of the world. like, anybody who says the word "terrorist" may as well already be king. Marxist parties are the only halfway exception. but it's still bad.) 
I feel like what's happening is something like, critical theory was one big scam by Liberal-republicanism to convince anarchists to turn against other forms of anarchism — granted, some of which were somewhat harmful, making the deal sound weirdly enticing — so Liberal-republicanism could then turn around and eradicate all anarchism and then be free to take over other countries and conquer the world. just like in those civilization games where you can just build one giant republican country and nuclear war never destroys the world first.

{{li|I=F2/LR|tradition=LR, HM|Q=618}}The purpose of Liberal-republicanism is to transition the world out of racism -> this seems to be the hypothesis advanced by critical theory. that republics actually exist in order to force ethnic groups to be friends. no matter what they've done to each other. this explains how Native American movements have been going mainstream: Liberal-republicanism is having trouble getting people to consent to it any more, so it needs to recruit minorities to advance its agenda of expanding itself over people and telling them what to do under the guise that it's making the world better for minorities. 
...this has to be false, doesn't it? the actual function of the United States has been dividing into two anarchisms that are mortal enemies. no matter how much critical theory says that forcing people to interact and integrate should change consciousness it doesn't seem to happen, and to some degree it only seems to make people more and more resentful and more inclined to kill each other. why it happens is less the presence of ethnic groups together in particular and more the presence of multiple populations that could be politically independent being ruled by "external" political factions that feel like foreign countries. like, it would really seem that Deng Xiaoping Thought has been way more successful than Liberal-republicanism, because having a single unified government actually seems to unify people rather than generating this worsening and worsening cycle of hatred. 
critical theory may be ideology generated directly out of Liberal-republicanism in the most insidious way possible. maybe this is what it's always done. maybe the real foundation of Liberal-republicanism is precisely holding up a set of laws, claiming they're inherently moral, and forcing everyone around, even people who aren't part of the country yet, to obey them or else. that is one of the only good explanations for why Liberal-republicanism has been so eager to back Israel. it doesn't even actually run on morality or care about morality. all it cares about is whether as many people as possible across the world are following an arbitrary set of laws. so the more people think Palestine "isn't following the law", {{em|as it is written}}, the easier it is to justify eliminating Palestine. 
you know. queer rights are a sham. they only exist because people have proved gay people are legal. on this weird metaphysical level where laws already exist before laws actually exist. and that's how laws come to be laws. but it isn't gay people that are oppressed by this Kantian interpretation of laws. it's Palestinians. believing that laws inherently exist and they only need to be approved just legitimizes the structure that makes this illusion possible to believe — global empire. this conception of things shouldn't be true, but when your empire is big enough to bully Cuba it's big enough to make almost anything come true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If history can ever be static, then Donald Trump cannot be the slightest bit Good or Bad / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable, including all outcomes in politics, without the recognition that history is always in motion from one state to another and it is always mandatory to make decisions on what it will change to / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable without the recognition history is always in motion -> you cannot say history has ended. not even with a narrow meaning that modes of production have ended. because there is no meaningful distinction between change existing in the form of a change between mode of production and change existing in the form of a country reverting to a global empire that wants to kill people for more land. both are the same kind of change, but reversion to empire cannot be stopped, which is to say that neither kind of change can actually be stopped. the original claim is false because in setting down its basic assumptions it really actually makes a false claim about what change is, which is dangerously false.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}All business owners are terrorists -> abolish copyright and I'll take it back.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Until 2020 Marxism has been unable to create genuinely accurate models of Idealist factions or civilizations because of the way their material interests and the processes that create their behavior are inherently separated; Marxist models start in a form of Materialism that basically assumes that everybody already lives in a Materialist civilization similar to Bolshevism where any particular assembled group of people belonging to a class is aware it has class interests as opposed to the people in a faction being completely unaware of that and acting together for completely different reasons; this has made Marxism inherently well suited to turning around and betraying itself with Marxisms attacking other Marxisms, and inherently badly suited to actually understanding the development over time of Liberal-republicanism and anarchism well enough to be able to defeat them

{{li|I=S1/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}TV times including "central" / 2:30-3:30 central / 9pm-8pm central [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1mgil6/if_there_are_four_time_zones_why_do_national_tv/] / my daughter asked me to pick her up at 2:30-3:30 central -> I keenly remember this idea being printed in some kind of issue of {{book|Reader's Digest}} or something but I do not remember where I first saw it. a joke about the idea that it's really weird that U.S. TV shows tell you two time zones at once and it would be strange if everyone went around saying that. that's really changed in the age of online streaming where YouTube will just kind of tell you what time something happens in your time zone and a stream might be on at a weird time but you don't have to do any calculations. but for various reasons it's still worth remembering the age of "2:30/3:30 central".

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}How will you obtain unicorn horns? / Anarchists presuppose that envisioning a different future separate from the material elements, structures, and processes of society that already exist is meaningful in and of itself, but if this is the case, they seemingly have no way to actually change anything; if the United States changes the day you find unicorn horns on the ground, but there are none of them in the entire land area of the United States, and you cannot fabricate them, and you cannot teleport them in from another place given that nobody in the United States knows how to do that, how can you possibly find them fast enough for your entire party of people to not simply be driven out of the United States to where the unicorn horns actually are — what do you do? -> trying to get anarchists to think harder about the concept of productive forces and the fact that you always need graph connections between people to actually achieve anything

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian / Despite nearly everyone in the United States who is not a member of the Libertarian movement claiming capital-L Libertarian parties to be different and distinct from them, the Libertarian movement in fact describes the founding principles of {{em|all}} political parties in the United States — agorism — and every other Liberal-republican political party in the United States is in fact a variation of Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian movement, including some political movements which are not organized into official parties; United States civil rights movements are a Libertarianism because they are defined as the sum of all non-aggressive activities, the Democratic-Republican party of 1791 was a Libertarianism because it opposed the Federalist party of large monolithic businesses clustered around a central government, the Democratic Party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the concept of people voluntarily joining in non-aggression to continuously vote for a party to supposedly fix their problems and absolutely all political parties that don't directly commit aggression getting to continue existing, the Republican party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the belief that all small, medium-size, and large corporations can form a locus of non-aggression that is being attacked by other loci of non-aggression; the actual center position in the United States that should be in the middle of a political compass is Libertarianism-agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party] -> 
before I found about agorism nothing about Liberal-republicanism made sense, and it all makes a lot more coherent material sense now down to the thing of getting obsessed with finding "the middle" and distinguishing all deviations into new parties as "directional" from the middle or as Extremes, but the more I learn, the more all the inner logic of LiberalRepublicanism-Libertarianism-agorism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Wario believes in Liberal-republicanism then he must be a Libertarian -> I made it simple for you. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-greatest-thread-in-the-history-of-forums-locked-by-a-moderator-after-12239-pages-of-heated-debate]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Ag|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Agorism is a segregation machine / Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them; 
the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation'; 
in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs; 
loci of non-aggression include: towns, families that have not experienced violent child abuse or the murder of a spouse, clusters of employees and owners that haven't committed horrible abuses against each other yet, clusters of tenants the landlord hasn't [[E:landlord rape incidents|literally committed crimes]] against, individual churches, segregated White towns without any gangs, Black towns without any racists, towns without any homeless camps, tiny satellite cities that produce nothing but are not "menaced" by big cities or taxes, individual local-states that come to accurately or falsely believe they've reduced themselves to one Liberal-republican party and no longer worry about the other, clusters of minority subpopulations, the US Bill of Rights, clusters of religions that believe they only have freedom of religion because they all exist together and none of them stopped existing, the overall US empire as it exists in a state of not having wars on its immediate borders, clusters of First World countries that are friendly toward each other but get together to oppress Third-World countries and even more so any Second-World countries that exist as "aggressives" 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this. escape routes (schizoanalysis) + republic based on transition = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Moral vanguard theory is covering up the observation that, as it currently exists inside Liberal-republicanism, agorism is founded on the assumption that all bigotry is fundamentally normal and natural until the day clusters of people end up being compatible with each other rather than toxic to each other and then only after that spontaneously decide hating each other is not okay 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If it's bad to want a utopia then why is anybody allowed to desire an afterlife? -> really think about it. it's very common to criticize utopias in fiction and think "all of them are dystopias"; charcoal anarchists are some of the only people who don't think this way. so why doesn't everyone think that way about the bible? why doesn't everybody realize that if wanting a utopia is "wanting to get something the easy way" or "wanting to get something for nothing" then wanting a god to grant you heaven is literally exactly the same thing? you just have to believe and then you get something for nothing.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more upsetting than {{film|Drawn Together}} / The news is more upsetting than {{film|South Park}} -> today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em|choose}} to do, or does it not?

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618}}Stalin transitioned the {{TTS|USSR|Soviet Union}} backward / Stalin transitioned the Soviet Union backward from Trotskyism to Stalin's Marxism / Stalin took the Soviet Union backward through the stages of history because he did not understand that the Soviet Union was an instance of Trotskyism, Trotskyism is a stage {{em|after}} Stalin's Marxism, and seeking to build Stalin's Marxism while standing on Trotskyism can only result in the reversion of an instance of Trotskyism to a prior physical historical period, destroying Trotskyism; this is to imply but not state that Stalin is a counter-revolutionary just because he failed to understand Trotskyism as a material object and destroyed it -> trying to state what Trotskyists' argument is {{em|clearly}} through the language of meta-Marxism. 
I wish Trotskyists would just admit that the Trotskyite conspiracy happened. because if they did, they could point to this, and they could say, it doesn't matter if Stalin was defending Stalin's Marxism, the problem is Stalin wrecked Trotskyism, and that's why it had to be defended at all costs. Trotsky wrecking Stalin's Marxism is immaterial if Stalin was trying to build a worse version of Marxism over a better version of Marxism. when Liberal-republicans do that, it's counter-revolutionary, so when Stalin does it, it's also counter-revolutionary, no need to even start arguing about The Bureaucracy yet. meta-Marxists, {{em|you}} go build Stalin's Marxism in another country so it doesn't wreck Trotskyism, not the other way around. and I would say, that's a good point actually. maybe Stalin {{em|did}} accidentally transplant a Marxism meant for much more undeveloped countries to the Soviet Union. and maybe it's technically true that Stalin's Marxism vulgarizes really quickly into Dengism if you aren't watching it closely. is Stalin actually a Maoist? are Stalin and Mao actually Dengists? sometimes I just don't know any more.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kōans are really lightbulb jokes / Kōans become lightbulb jokes / Any philosophical kōan can be turned into a lightbulb joke with the addition of ideological factions -> How many roads must a man walk down? If he's a Liberal-republican, infinite, some of them going in circles. If he's a Communist, a finite number because he knows where he's going.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}How many roads must a man walk down?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A debate about gun control is actually a debate over which weapon to use / A debate about gun control is actually a debate about which weapon everyday people should prefer: guns or cops

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}If ancient Greece was a small civilization where did the slaves come from? -> the Roman empire makes logical sense to me. there were territories at the edge of Rome, it conquered them, it put them into the empire, it took slaves. but Greece had slaves too and where did those come from?

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Industry divisions thwart Armageddon / When society is divided into Butcher and Bookbinder it cannot divide into Us and Them / If society is divided qualitatively into industries, none of the divisions of people can be Good or Evil, and it must be that they will come to understand each other on a level that is universal -> implied assumption in agorism, and Liberal-republicanism. I think this was solidly falsified the moment humans invented generative AI. there's been a pretty solid consensus building that generative AI just is Evil and when it exists as an industry some industries are Evil, if that didn't already happen with the oil industry. what anarchists really really don't want to understand is that this discovery has horrifying implications for the philosophical foundations of anarchism. if people can be Good or Evil solely based on what their talents are, you can never guarantee that 'the totality of all non-aggressive activities not forbidden by The State' will ever get along rather than fighting each other and erupting into hierarchy or domination purely because people are determined for one decision to be made rather than another decision and to call that decision Good and the other decision Evil. that is the root of a lot of hierarchy if you ask me. but it's also unavoidable, because who's going to persuade anarchists to just tolerate all the stuff that they feel oppresses them? I think it's more realistic to admit that anarchism can contain domination and hierarchy and the claims it doesn't were lies, and just define anarchism around some other concept than Good and Bad — that includes "domination", "hierarchy", "decency", "respect", "disruption", "empathy", morality, ethics, "enchantment" (which turns into ethics in a couple seconds), "prejudices", and "White culture". the one completely nebulous thing they say that I am genuinely unsure whether they can or can't have is Freedom, because that has hundreds of definitions and I'm still not sure I understand what it is. so, yeah, {{em|maybe}} you can get away with defining anarchism as Freedom-ism and basing it on these long treatises of exactly how Freedom works descriptively with no prescriptive statements about it. I might not like it but at least I can't immediately tell you it's a dead theory. 
Industry divisions thwart Armageddon + Pokémon type chart = Arceus.

{{li|I=S1/MX/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}oppressive membership -> the concept of membership in a relationship or group of people being itself an axis of oppression which operates in a somewhat [[E:atomic process (one-step process)|atomic]] way such that it is completely inseparable from concepts of "hierarchy" or "domination" and those things cannot simply be removed without the relationship itself dissolving. 
oppressive membership + anarchism = anarculture. oppressive membership + The Bureaucracy (Trotskyism) / Stalinism (corruption) = political revolution in the USSR (Trotskyism).

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}Anarchism applies to any situation / Anarchism is a series of moral principles that can be applied in any historical situation -> sounds fine on the surface as a descriptive appraisal of anarchism, but gets really interesting when you remember that the Soviet Union and the conflict between Stalin's party and Trotsky's faction is "any situation". 
Anarchism is acting as if you're already free + Machiavellianism (feudal orders) = Anarchism applies to any situation.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|tradition=|Q=618}}If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube / If Fisherism is true, then every non-politician in China should ignore Chinese politics and make as many videos about United States politics as possible -> this would be for two reasons. 1) people in China are mostly safe from the U.S. government, so they are less likely to face consequences than people in the United States 2) if "creating media" is really so important to changing societal consciousness then most of China's government and politics is in the United States, so they need to change consciousness in the United States to change their government

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.
{{li|I=S1/DFy/ML|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em|is}} inevitable.

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}"Male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are different / In terms of the arts, "male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same thing in all contexts except among the craziest groups of proto-fascist Tories <s>[I promise to revise that on the Ontology: page]</s>, but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are actually different things to a greater extent than "U.S. culture" versus "Japanese culture" or "U.S. culture" versus "British culture"; national population does not affect culture products as greatly as the new and special forms of interaction and description of selves and world that take place within the particular kinds of semi-countable social groups that take part in "queer culture"; this is to imply but not state that "queer culture" carries its own worldview and political faction distinct from Liberal-republican politics -> 
male culture: Digimon Adventure. female culture: MLP gen 4. it's quite obvious what is what with kids' media when you have networks wanting to aim products at apparent differences between boys and girls to try to get more consistent sales, but even when you can point out a 'show for girls' and a 'show for boys' they are not actually that different if they're any good. hence all the bronies, hence that awkward space of women watching anime and trying to ignore the grossly exaggerated female silhouettes because nothing else about the show or game is especially bad. I think you also see this with things aimed at adults but it would be hard to think of an example where you get such a 'nice' region of awkward crossover. {{book|Dragonriders of Pern}} can be argued to be female culture I guess, but it's easy to forget that. then there's like, an argument to be made that {{book|Harry Potter}} is so misogynistic that it's male culture coming out of a woman — if it wasn't enough of an insult to accuse it of being such an 'uncool' book series as to be read by more moms and dads than kids — but it's also just within the range of 'teenage' enough that teenage girls can get obsessed with the male characters. 
so, male culture and female culture are very similar on basic levels. but "queer culture" is something different from either of them. you can really start to identify it the moment you see a furry visual novel with a plot that's "weirdly straight" — where some of the characters are stereotypes, or where the writing is okay but all the characters have totally depressing problems that make you wonder why you're reading a book right now and not just talking to the people around you that are the human equivalent of Twitter feeds, here assuming you also don't like Twitter. when these kinds of things are made "correctly", they have a very different feel. you see people being... idealistic? living in their own world, but not really in an upsetting way. they stop thinking about the outside world where everybody isn't of the same finite cluster of LGBT+ people and the atmosphere becomes very... specific to the people who are there. I want to say "insular" but that's more negative than what I actually mean. 
I think part of what I am saying is that LGBT+ circles tend to generate this consciousness of being a teeny village of people just because they are inherently limited to having only tiny clusters of people available, and because of this they sometimes also start believing that they inherently constitute some kind of "anarchist tribe" that must transition to anarchism because it will never contain enough people to spawn a Liberal-republican nation-state. the way different subpopulations in the United States get so separated really seems to mess with people's heads and cause people to see themselves as entirely separate stateless "nation-states" with separate histories, right down to subconsciously imagining whole trajectories of transition only for their own cluster of people of a particular identity and based on the exact number of people that are in it at the moment. it's funny how identities will take the notion of forms of society comically literally to the point a Marxist would scold them for reading historical materialism too closely, but then they will not even know they're doing it and try to deny that forms of society and social transitions are a thing and just try to tell you everybody needs to transition to anarchism because gay people exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Orange terrain is solid / Orange terrain is stable / Trotskyism is composed of fine-scale structures that are distinguished by their ability to stop parts of society from being overtaken and taken advantage of by The Bureaucracy; these structures may be referred to as "orange structures", although this only labels one specific function of the structures or process they contribute to and is not meant to be exclusive with the category of them being crimson structures / The dictatorship of the proletariat is an unbroken terrain of connected orange structures -> 
so apparently it's only when you look deep into what Trotskyists are claiming The Bureaucracy is that you finally start to understand what it is they're trying to create. they want one basic thing within any particular region, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat; the concept of international permanent revolution can actually be conceptualized as being emergent from this, because anything that keeps continuously defending outwardly red or orange countries from turning strawberry or blue and does appear in multiple nearby countries can link across the country regions so they can defend each other from encroaching bourgeois factions and form a Second World. this makes a lot more sense. the very first few times I read about Trotskyism I took it as this vaguely Idealist proclamation that things [[E:"I believe that everybody" statement|should have happened]] in other countries [[E:Monty Hall problem|that didn't happen]] and there "just should have" been international permanent revolution. but I now see it was more complicated than that. it's less that Trotskyists were upset Trotsky couldn't go to Germany and turn it orange and more that they were upset that the Third International seemingly refused to create a correct model of what happened in Germany, so they thought they had to tirelessly protect any region that really did have the potential to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, wherever it was, to keep The Bureaucracy from getting into it because the parties allied with Stalin were not safe from getting 'infiltrated' and slowly turning strawberry. the aim of trying to hold down a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat and prevent strawberry Marxisms from forming is respectable, given how many strange things strawberry Marxisms do on their best days ('corporations are productive forces', 'socialism is getting rid of poverty', party-approved listicles) and the few actually-awful things they do on their worst days (pre-emptively thinking rude people are reactionaries just because they're rude, battle between strawberry cops and Maoists buried inside resistances). historically speaking strawberry Marxisms are very similar to blue factions in that they slowly restore this dynamic of the most powerful people generating more power and keeping down the weakest people. I wouldn't blame anyone for acting like strawberry Marxisms simply aren't something to be messed with and are more something you want to stop at the root. as long as the people saying that are at least as Marxist as Stalin; anarchists really need to shut up and read enough stuff to learn how to do violet analysis before say anything on the topic of 'power multiplying'. if anarchists knew as much Marxism as the [[E:International Committee of the Fourth International|ICFI]] I would not be anywhere near as mad at them as I am and I would be more tolerant of proposals to create charcoal terrains that are supposed to serve the same function as orange terrains. I was in the beginning, but.... oh boy when anarchism only seems to generate more stupidity every day without ever getting better you quickly get tired of it

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Historically, Trotskyism has always been a "poly-" Marxism and there has never been a molecularized definition of Trotskyism (or any definition) which does not expect {{em|the process inside}} a particular country region to spill to the edge of the country effectively enough to end up creating connected blocs or federations of countries; the process of abolishing "owned country territories" and ruling classes along country borders and the process of defeating other versions of Marxism are not necessarily the direct causes of the "poly-" shape as much as consequences of it, and in fact, Trotskyism having a "poly-" shape is easily explained by processes inside each country region individually, namely a molecularized process of forming a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat which if successful joins multiple countries into a single potentially contiguous Second World region

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=LR, ES, A|Q=618}}Mothers have the power to abolish entire nationalities / When national populations do not base their strategy for development on government welfare programs they inherently treat households as an exploitable resource by making stay-at-home mothers or fathers or other relatives generate and perfect workers that will be exploited by cities to build modernity, therefore if rural parents were to stand up against society they could weaken the power of the oppressive apparatus inside nation-states and all its justifications for either it or a nation-state existing; this is to imply that nation-states are not entitled to calling households citizens just because people do daily activities inside their borders, but also that households are entitled to money from other households in the pool of people a nation-state has assigned them to almost as an apology for having to be part of a nation-state {{YouTube|eotvnm_UDek}} -> this came from an analysis I saw on China. it's clearly from a very Liberal-republican framework, considering the weird fixation on everyone in a country being entitled to all social programs that exist even if the limits on social programs are actually meant to stop urban poverty and stuff like U.S. cities full of homeless camps that ultimately result after too many people move to cities too fast. but the more you look at this statement the weirder it gets. Liberal-republicans will most of the time act like a particular republic existing is only natural and dismantling it would be craziness but at other times they'll act like the entire existence of nationalities is a game to them and everyone can just stop being Chinese at any time if they get tired of it. there is this weird anarchist undercurrent to all Liberal-republicanism which you see vaguely come up in theorists like Rousseau. but when you try to point out that it's there, Liberal-republicanism will generally try to deny it and act like all the people that say taxes are arbitrary constructs or they're 'sovereign citizens' are foreign material and weren't created by glitches in Liberal-republican theory itself. the one time people get bold about it and it becomes the most socially acceptable is when it's applied to other countries than the one people are currently in. tell people that the United States is a made-up game and they get upset and try to argue at you for hours that civil rights court cases that will get repealed tomorrow are objective truth, tell people China is a made-up game that can be broken up or remade from scratch and they'll simply nod.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES onto DX|Q=618}}China designing Deng Xiaoping Thought to suit the United States is pick-me behavior, and the true anti-pick-me move is for China to go back to Bolshevism -> I am so sick of the terrible contradiction between everyone in the United States saying that 'you shouldn't just be what society wants you to be to be convenient to them' and also acting like the pressure on entire Third World countries to be exactly what First World countries want is okay and normal. either people eventually become obligated to mask for others at some point {{em|as a matter of being ethical}}, or telling China it has to have a socioeconomic structure that the United States stamps as okay is "pick-me behavior", and there is no in-between on that question.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}China exporting too many products is exacerbating global tensions [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/21/qkaj-f21.html] -> why? why do you believe that? do you think you'll be able to get the people who made China structure itself based on exports because it was their 'free market right' to stop? you're waging a fight between United States capitalists that want to exploit Third World labor and United States capitalists that want to sell products, and for some reason you're waging it in China as if China had anything to do with it. China did what it was told. so at this point you may as well set up a ballot box for Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump in China and make the president of the United States partly based on what the people of China vote for. because it would make fully as much sense as this.

{{li|I=S2/DX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Jiang Zemin's "theory of three represents" declared that the business elite and emerging middle classes were the most advanced representatives of society, and were as much allies of the CPC as workers (ICFI) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/chin-d30.html]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}The French first republic lasted until the declaration of the first empire [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic] -> that is such an interesting sentence by itself, because it'd make you think that capitalism in France just erupted directly into global empire. I don't think it was that much of a straight line though.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Saying Jewish people outside Israel are obligated to support Israel is the real antisemitism -> Jewish people are one thing. Israelis are another. Germans are one thing. Nazis are another. this is not difficult. but for some reason the United States and all of its messaging and paid ads are determined to make this more difficult than it needs to be

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The major effect of spreading {{book|Settlers}} was to get people very upset about localized Black struggles that immediately affected them but to change nearly nobody's position on Palestine or attempting to use voting to save Palestine

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There are two major forms of imperialism: annexation (conquest) and primitive accumulation (frontier wars, apartheid states, "settler-colonialism", large-scale chunk competition)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ordinary people are confused by the fact that different groups of billionaires can believe entirely different things -> on one hand this is a good thing because people are vaguely understanding that being a billionaire pushes people toward particular forms of ideology. but on the other, it isn't good because people aren't understanding the [[E:material idea|concept]] of [[E:material contradiction|material contradictions]].

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}AI can be a threat, but it can't be useless / Billionaires will casually spread warnings about "the threat" of AI but they will not accept AI being referred to as "slop" -> actually good insight

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Identifying Edgeworth's dialectic identifies who you should vote for / So you would vote for the more neo lib candidate instead of the guy who changed his ways? (Liberal-republicanism)

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty / If you crudely define Socialism as an increasing exercise of "society-ism", then the correct action is to look at poor countries and decide that everyone who isn't currently provided for needs to defect to a different country as fast as possible, which is to say, needs to beg to be actively colonized by the border of a rich country in order to hopefully receive food; the people of Cuba absolutely need to be ruled by the Democratic Party per se, not even their own center-Liberal party / ({{9k|-0Vk8B3cNH8}}) -> it's funny how utterly insane the cluster of commonly-held beliefs U.S. people hold about the overall world sounds if you just say them out loud and combine them into one statement instead of compartmentalizing statements about each part of the world separately.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece -> I'm slightly afraid of what propositions would lead here. 
this proposition is a joke. I do not endorse it. 
A poor country means a bad, fake historical period that must be overthrown + debt in Greece = To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece. 
If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty + debt in Greece = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Political factions and communities are the same thing — all communities become political factions when the situation demands it, and all political factions are communities
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All communities are political factions / All countable cultures or socially-linked groups of people can function as Social-Philosophical Systems given the right situation -> I believed this because it neatly explains why Tories exist. by now, I'm not as eager to believe it, but it's still one of the sharpest replies to Bellegarrigue and easiest ways to start disproving him, so I can't quite let it go. all plurality brought on by social connections, culture, or identity has the potential to become political plurality if one group of people forces itself on another, thus there is no actual distinction between plural communities and plural formal governments. there can be physically plural anarchisms, and they can even have civil wars against each other. the concept of simply getting rid of plurality and getting rid of violence created by plurality by getting rid of The State is impossible.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All political factions are communities / All Social-Philosophical Systems are countable cultures

{{li|I=Z0/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Black defendant with all-White jury -> there are going to be some interesting combinations out of this one. generally combinations that make Liberal-republicanism look very bad. 
this + Liberal-republicanism is government by the people = Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is government by the people
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, A|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=|Q=618|submitter=StackExchange}}If gravity is zero at the center of the earth, then how did iron get there? [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-i] -> the answer says that part of the "error" here is that gravity is not a flat integer zero, it's a fence of 9.8 m/s^2 vectors pointing to all hemispheres of the planet. so iron can get in but it can't get out. some minerals drift down into the core if heavy elements are not bonded to other elements, but it's not as easy for minerals to drift back up. without being part of one big tectonic plate motion or something I guess.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition|Q=618}}Anarchism is everybody ruling everyone all the time {{YouTube|L68a6mIP09E}} -> this is.... not wrong. it came out of somebody who clearly doesn't understand anything but like, it isn't wrong. it's seemingly how a lot of recent anarchism has worked. it's backhandedly true.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition|Q=618}}Hierarchy is weak {{YouTube|CZ-FRyUZ3ok}} -> okay, but what happens when you break it open leaving an empty gap? is war strong? it must be, because it's completely unreasonable on any terms but its own and pretty hard for a small group of anarchists to stop. anarchists love reaction. they love letting anything that's too violent or dangerous for them to defeat just exist. just read Rothenberg's book where 'fascism' is treated as the only real problem but also practically raised to the level of human nature. but they'll turn around and attack things that are too weak to defend themselves against anarchism in an instant just because those things did a couple things they didn't like. this is my question: what will anarchism to do if something {{em|is anarchism}} but does something anarchism doesn't like? attack it and destroy it like anything else? how can you actually be sure that anarchism is a peaceful philosophy and not just one that will end up fighting itself for the rest of time?

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}The United States military is a neutral force within the world because it changes consciousness (anarchism) {{YouTube|LZiT3FgFqA4}} {{YouTube|sMoTWFZjoYA}} / I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong {{YouTube|FCJxf9bq1IU}} -> this is the consequence of unchecked Western-Marxism and letting people think Marxism is about actions that ""change consciousness"" rather than digging through the 'consciousness process' to uncover what structures people can be part of to gain better consciousness and how the sharpest people can start arranging [[E:arrangement of proletarians (meta-Marxism)|empowering structures]] that can [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|create]] or [[E:revolutionary lattice period|defend]] those structures regardless of what other people already notice. the difference between Althusser and Stalin is that Althusser lets you go to imperialist war to learn a lesson purely to not be a Dictator and tell you what to think before you actually learn your lesson firsthand.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong -> my brain was searching trying to think of what this made me think of and then I suddenly realized what it was. it was the MLP song. "I used to wonder what friendship could be..." that's it. like, that show embodies how Liberal-republicanism thinks of "consciousness", and this is the ultimate result of that overall kind of thinking.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}There is nothing wrong with hierarchy -> one of those propositions that's here to be the shocking result of combinations of bad propositions. 
this proposition isn't {{em|obviously}} incorrect, it's somewhat complex actually, but there are enough situations where it's wrong that in this form it would be false.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto LR, IV onto HM|Q=618}}Habermasian history is not a dialectical form of analysis because it does not understand how contradictory interactions or antagonisms rebuild the greater whole and prevent effective reforms / fundamental aspects of a society cannot simply be removed one at a time ... racism cannot be legislated out of capitalism [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> perfectly on the mark. this is what you tell them. 
the one thing you have to look out for, though: schizoanalysts trying to claim that because they included every contradictory minority at once that they've created a model which is 'actually dialectical'.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The human mind cannot become fully conscious of itself until bourgeois society is abolished, which ultimately stamps all non-proletarian philosophy as metaphysical and unscientific (Untermann 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen (Leigh 2024) [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}second-order anarchism -> the motif of someone who finds almost all forms of anarchism actually observed in the real world too specific and divisive to unite people and rebels against anarchism in order to achieve the greater goal of breaking everybody out of competing factions such as Communism versus anarchism and unifying them. this is the only kind of anarchism you could ever get me to believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}If you achieve degrowth through people of different industries periodically fighting each other and destroying each other's machines, then you've achieved degrowth {{YouTube|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> my objection to this isn't a moral one, because I don't believe morality or ethics is real. but I have an aversion to things that don't make any coherent sense. what about this makes sense? when does society know that the goal has been achieved? at what point does the process stop? is it possible for this process to extend into more abstract industries like academia or the arts, and somehow just, end up with people doing everything they can to suppress a paper or something, I don't know? what would people do to suppress pharmaceutical companies over-prescribing drugs? from what I know about anarchists, they draw the line at actually keeping people from receiving anti-depressants and hormones, so they can't stop drug production, even though it's the thing that's sold for money.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}turtles all the way down (motif)

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}botched neopets TTRPG {{YouTube|lirIV57wI34}} {{YouTube|TIxaATMBnvk}} {{YouTube|iYjUzlyEtkw}} -> it often feels like dumb headlines like these give you more insight into what kinds of class structures exist than an actual economics textbook. 
neopets exists. neopets scouts out contractor corporation. contractor corporation hires further contractors that are new at the task. there are no stable structures here; it's turtles all the way down.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Empire is always regenerating / Primitive accumulation keeps happening / Primitive accumulation is always happening -> otherwise it's hard to explain the Cold War and the way the overall concept has continued on and on more like a freezer that first set itself up and then continually circulated heat out.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ethics is the shovel dream of primitive accumulation -> think about it. most 'fitting actions' anarchists want you to do require people to have wealth first, or privilege as a whole society over other societies. create pieces of a 'community' for fun? you have to have all the money and privilege to have learned to do it correctly so your output isn't trash, or everyone will make fun of you and maybe call you immoral, potentially including the anarchists. distribute goods to people of questionable origin? you have to be White so you don't get immediately shot, and somebody first had to besiege Third World countries and make them have exactly the right government and level of wealth to both produce well and pay nothing in order for there to be enough abundance to be at the level where anarchists can claim 'distributing it' is the only problem. 
ethics itself is colonial in that without the creation of an empire you can't go on the continuing journey of people becoming 'more and more' ethical. you have to have that slump first where a huge atrocity is committed and then people progressively learn about it and apologize. a world without atrocities genuinely might not need morality or ethics at all. it might be a wholly amoral world. and the fact people are even talking about ethics may signal either that they're defending something awful, or that they aren't as good of people as they believe they are. 
why is it that anarchists always want to imagine everything perfect but it never occurs to them that a world in an original perfect state might not even have ethics.

{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618}}Plato was the only Greek / Plato was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece (observation on {{film|Chip Chilla}}) {{YouTube|x6IZm3lf50s}} / Aristotle was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece -> good catch! it's rather remarkable how, there were particular classes within ancient Greek society that could be at least vaguely separated out by layer, and almost everybody loves to act like the upper classes were the only class to exist. in reality, it appears that the upper classes and lower classes had different positions on topics like whether Greek gods were real. there was more than one body of ideology in ancient Greece, at least along the division of how educated people were if nothing else, and we don't usually talk about the interactions between those {{em|different}} bodies of ideology.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I {{em|know}} the Asriel plot thread is not that good, but everyone likes it. am I wrong or is everybody else right {{YouTube|ECa4_RWtoHY}} -> I couldn't tell you the answer to the question but I do know this is an interesting motif

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}Japanese culture (essence) / Japanese culture as essence of Japaneseness -> I used to think this concept made some sort of sense before I was an adult but now I don't think it makes any sense.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}Distinguishing countries by "culture" others them (Marxism, Trotskyism)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black vice -> this is how.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black virtue -> this is more how a lot of characterizations of "Japanese culture" or "animist beliefs" work, casually implying that something can both inherently be of a particular "culture" and also be virtuous by having started from that.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}sugar, spice, and everything nice -> Idealism/essentialism in a fairy tale type context.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature — not in the unique sense which has gotten the label that exists within society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature, because it can only exist {{em|within}} sociality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty exists due to greater or lower social bonds
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism, because Idealism cannot change the process of which people are socially compatible and develop stronger social bonds creating high-ranking individuals and marginalized individuals

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}The sun must rise (astronomy) -> I wrote this one down vaguely within context of eucatastrophe and the arguments that it is "realistic".

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Never debate Item names / Do not argue about Item names, given that all Items can have multiple aliases or outward sense labels, and you can debate which concepts belong in each numbered entry within Talk pages

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}Job as Communist antihero / Job as Communist hero -> think about it. he is told to do something and then he turns away from it and bad things keep happening and he keeps getting these reminders of the thing he was supposed to do, that bad things keep happening if he doesn't start doing. begins to remind me of Trotskyists repeatedly talking about crises and despite the claims the crises will lead to something being a little laughable correctly pointing out that none of it will get better if people do nothing. 
Q51,31 Job sounds like job + Christian devotional about Ted = Job as Communist antihero. 
Job sounds like job + Trotskyists obsessing about crises = Job as Communist antihero.

{{li|I=M3/MX/LR|Q=618}}What action taken by cops would be bad enough to actually get society to abolish them? / cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos ([[E:12,1,09|generic]]) -> I was thinking about qualified immunity and how absurdly it's been pushed to include cops getting to do anything that has no precedent and then after my brain churned a bit I was like... wait, {{em|anything}}? so if I pointed to a really messed up video of an anthro cat removing somebody's eyeballs, like, is it true that absolute serial killer shit wouldn't get us to abolish the police, and our society really thinks anything you do behind a cop's badge is okay. 
what if people signed up to a police department and became cops and then they burned down a billionaire's building? would they even get fired? what if a cop assassinated the president? would everything still go on the same as it was? what if a cop went to an immigrant prison and busted the place open and let them out? what if a cop distributed a bunch of illegal copies of a movie? what if a cop hid in a mascot costume and killed several kids at a pizza restaurant? what if a cop killed every single other cop in the state? what if a cop lied under oath? what if a cop shredded every single election ballot, and when there was another attempt to have an election, it happened again? what if a cop cut power to a hospital? what if a cop disrupted the mail? what if a cop somehow confiscated people's tax money and spent it so the government couldn't have it? what if a cop made a statement glorifying Vladimir Putin and Russia invading Ukraine? what if a police department went on strike for Palestine? is that literally the only thing a cop can get fired for? if every cop everywhere went on strike for Palestine would the United States have to abolish the police? 
I bet at least half of the weird scenarios I could think of absolutely wouldn't change anything no matter how strange or how horrific the thing that happened actually was. 
I really, genuinely wonder what it would take to end qualified immunity, and how outrageous the action taken by the cop would actually have to be. 
qualified immunity (United States) + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}failed attempt at anti-essentialism / failed attempt to apply anti-essentialism -> I get really tired of the Ideals + anti-essentialism model of reality because I totally know it is not actually modeling what's real and there are going to be a lot of cases where it simply fails that nobody bothers to talk about. 
this + ?? = Not All Men.
{{li|I=S1/LR/ML|Q=618}}successful application of anti-essentialism denied by Liberal-republicans -> there's this category of statements too.

{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not every house cat is an obligate carnivore -> example where going against an overgeneralization could be harmful.
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone will learn tolerance from media representation -> sad but probably true.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Not every country should practice Liberal-republicanism -> it'll make everyone mad but that alone doesn't make it false.
{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone should vote for Joe Biden (2020) -> hypothetically possible but will make people mad.

{{li|I=F2/HAS|Q=618}}My dog is the only one / My dog is the only dog ever / My dog is the only thing that anyone calls a dog [https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/psych/glossary/undergeneralization/] -> example given to illustrate children failing to learn to generalize words beyond specific examples. one attested use of the term "undergeneralization".

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood 
When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization ... + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes represent international war / Superheroes largely started as a vague depiction of international war -> see: Superman punching Hitler, [https://screenrant.com/superman-first-hero-to-beat-up-hitler-not-captain-america/] Ultraman as representation of Soviet occupations
{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes appear spontaneously and unpredictably because they are a representation of the anhierarchic conditions of large-scale international politics in which war can never truly be regulated and whenever war begins the only thing that can counter it is war completing itself from the other side 
Superheroes represent international war + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If there are no grand narratives that stretch across the world, then it is impossible to tell Alexander Dugin that Russians can't just go kill Ukrainians because that's what they want to do that week and it makes them happy -> without Marxism, the statement that the world shouldn't have international wars or that countries should be "orderly" is nothing more than a narrative, so everyone is free to reject it. ethics is just a narrative. "international law" is just a narrative. suddenly the notion that narratives can't possibly reach around the world and become universal isn't sounding so good any more, is it?

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}In 1949, [[E:the real Chinese people|the real Chinese people]] were the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (Mao) [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm] 
China's conditions are exceptional + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}China's conditions are exceptional / Chinese exceptionalism (history) / China's history is exceptional / China's historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value -> this proposition has a very interesting relationship with the concept of country characteristics. many people will falsely go claiming that this {{em|is}} what country characteristics are, although in many cases it will simply not be true.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}U.S. conditions are exceptional / American exceptionalism (history) / The United States' historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Stalin intentionally created strawberry capitalism in order to get more allies in countries without a fully-developed capitalism [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peoples-republic] -> so in a way Trotskyists are accusing Stalin of having invented the primary phase of development / primary phase of "socialism". 
you know, having a "socialism" constructed over the top of your country for international geopolitical reasons and then living in that for years having to make sense of it is one of the few reasons it would make logical sense for China to bend over backwards to justify strawberry capitalism as "definitely socialism, actually". 
edit: the bot [[redlink - ICFI prompts|told me]] this theory was bogus. which really makes me wonder which party wrote this glossary, because apparently it was not the ICFI.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}bracketing in meta-Marxism / downreductionism in meta-Marxism / reductionism in meta-Marxism (referring to a process that does not remove outgoing interactions and antagonisms) / meta-Marxism and bracketing smaller areas of a larger system of interacting parts to better understand the outgoing interactions and antagonisms of a particular piece
upreductionism in meta-Marxism / meta-Marxism and reconstruction of larger systems or events by combining smaller parts into a whole

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}finding Marxism in {{film|Bee Movie}} {{YouTube|q_agS0hDMvc}} -> yeah, this {{em|is}} inherently funny due to the example fictional work already having meme status. but that doesn't make the concept bad. 
there's nothing wrong with people trying to do Marxist breakdowns of the elements or themes that make up popular media. not even if the popular work is superficial "slop". and you know why? the more popular something is the cheaper it gets to buy after a few years once people start donating it to thrift stores. if you manage to take a really popular work, however bad, and turn it into a teaching tool with a well known meaning, you've created really cheap propaganda that you don't need party organizers to distribute, that will keep getting spread around no matter how many party members get caught, and that will be harder to ban because the bourgeoisie created it and it wasn't created by a group of people easy to strategically label as "an invading foreign country". of all the things Western Marxists do, this is actually one of the smartest ones. because if Gramscians go into academia or movie studios and [[E:|take up job slots]], it doesn't make that big an impact on who can actually make decisions in industries or who can strike, but if you manage to change the use of an existing product then you've somewhat undone the ability of the corporations that made it to make decisions about what will be produced and what everyone is and isn't allowed to think before everybody else can.

{{li|I=S1/MX/ML|Q=618}}revolutionary lattice period / permanent revolution (meta-Marxism onto Stalin's Marxism) -> the motif of a historical era of physical events where people are linking horizontally to get through a battle against an initial bourgeois class rule or at the very least linking into a Lattice to form a nationwide party which will create a workers' state. the revolutionary lattice period ends when a workers' state is created, and it's significant because it allows for a very concrete mathematical definition of "Leninism" using graph theory. approximately synonymous with "permanent revolution", assuming you are not a Trotskyist. Trotskyists could still use this model to describe the creation of an orange party, but for them this is not permanent revolution at all because "[[E:international permanent revolution|permanent revolution]]" is the long setup period for creating a powerful Communist International that would in theory be able to stop imperialism and international wars.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Careers hold no life lessons / {{TTS|Careers*|Careers|title=* Specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training}} cannot teach life lessons / Because all specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training are incapable of seeing anything outside the system they operate in, no statement about "life in general for the human Subject" which a person put together as a statement as a guide to doing their career in the process of doing their career should be held up as The Truth; this includes the careers of David Graeber, Rebecca Sugar, Slavoj Žižek, Carl Sagan, Dinesh D'Souza, and Donald Trump, and it includes the careers of Stalin and Trotsky -> I don't really have to include Mao in that because he came from the peasantry and had a bunch of statements about not 'worshiping' books or theorists (those seem to multiply every time there's a new Marxist republic although nobody heeds them.) so I think he's in the clear, but Stalin and Trotsky on the other hand had cast all sorts of aspersions on each other about being bureaucrats, leading everybody outside the Soviet Union to believe they both were.

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}spontaneous explanation for Trotskyism / contingent explanation for Trotskyism / group-psychological explanation for Trotskyism -> a "spontaneous" explanation for Trotskyism is an attempt to explain the history of Trotskyism which focuses on the causes of individual events and why people might have formed into these events on the day they happened, in the moment. 
these might include: Trotskyists getting expelled from the CPSU was psychologically traumatic or at least not predicted by their theoretical models, people continue to found Trotskyist parties because they identify with the psychological trauma of early Trotskyism and pick it up and advocate about it as a sort of generational trauma they feel is unresolved and waiting for justice, incompatibility between Trotskyist factions and mainstream Marxist-Leninist factions for various reasons created and still creates physical antagonisms between the parties leading them to want to form separate "countries" or civilizations (that last one is easily phrased in terms of dialectical materialism and has no need for a single 'inciting incident').

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}theoretical explanation for Trotskyism / explanation for Trotskyism based on analysis of internal theoretical models used by Trotskyist groups and exactly what historical processes and class interactions or horizontal antagonisms are being claimed inside said theories -> for the longest time I had a hard time finding any of these because of how so much of what Trotskyists say is just lies. I found it a lot easier to analyze their claims once they came out with an LLM and like, I was finally able to make that thing behave like the only Trotskyist that didn't lie for a few minutes at a time (before it started blatantly lying again and going on about 'the Stalinist bureaucracy').

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why invade Cuba? (2026) / If Cuba is not an exclusive republic, why is the United States so dead-set on creating a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over it?

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Cuba to Trump: warning, war causes war [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419]

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump's demands for Cuba (2026) / these included a two-week deadline to release high-profile political prisoners, implement sweeping market reforms, expand the private sector and attract foreign investment [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/21/mgaz-a21.html] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419] -> I'd mark this brown except that these are the most capitalist demands I've seen in a while

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Alabama redistricting ruling (2026) [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-order-requiring-majority-black-district-in-alabama-6024323] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/democrats-ask-us-supreme-court-to-stay-virginia-supreme-court-ruling-invalidating-voter-approved-election-map-6024209]

{{li|I=S2/MX/JC/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung got help from other countries / Kim Il-sung got help from Communist youth organizations in Manchuria and educators in the Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet army [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kim-Il-Sung] -> that is a shocking revelation. if you know much about North Korea and what its values are now you never expect that the story of North Korea would start with this. 
why have I never heard Trotskyists saying this. it's like, the thing they should be pointing out about North Korea. I think it's always the existence of the Soviet army that bothers them. which is so odd and ironic when Trotsky is one of the figureheads of "orange Leninism" and where did he start out? gosh, to live in a world where Trotsky had been every bit as effective at holding down the Second World as Kim Il-sung. with this information that analogy only gets better.

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}How will the Communist Party prevent {{book|Animal Farm}}? -> a question that's annoying but worth answering.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}} / You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}}, because secular animism gives you an imperative to protect the animals from getting eaten, while {{book|Animal Farm}} implies that it doesn't matter what happens to them if they have an inferior culture containing [[E:inherently dominating idea (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideas]] -> there is a particular history of people forgetting {{book|Animal Farm}} had anything to do with Communism and taking it literally because they didn't read the book; in particular, this "interpretation" emerged out of the shadows and became famous when it was used to market capitalist products. {{book|Animal Farm}} being co-opted by vegetarians might seem a little obnoxious at first, but honestly? I think these people could become heroes. and here's why. {{book|Animal Farm}}, being an allegory, was meant to be read as a bit of a metaphor, but vegetarians with no knowledge of Communism took what they knew of the book and interpreted it literally. compared with a lot of methods used in the humanities (in particular in the arts; the situation could be a little better in fields like anthropology), taking things literally is inherently closer to Materialism and thus inherently closer to Marxism. if one were to deliberately analyze {{book|Animal Farm}} as if the animals were literally animals and not the Soviet Union, it would come across as the terribly inhumane and un-humanitarian narrative it really is. I mean, just think about it. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to kill a house cat a lot of people would find that concept disturbing. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to take self-determination away from a group of animals trying to save themselves from quite literally being chopped up and eaten if a population of people had power over them, that concept should be equally disturbing — if somebody wanted to cook and eat Russians just for being Russian almost everybody would consider that a severe human rights violation. and the ending for the Soviet Union was vastly worse than the ending of {{book|Animal Farm}}. the book was way too generous, when the reality was that things went back to the way they were before — if what had been going on before was Russians getting eaten, well, that would be happening again. if that were the universe we lived in you couldn't really blame Russians for going a little crazy and launching wars on neighboring countries; if that is the only way for them to have power and the United States not to have power which is "permitted", of course they're going to take the option where they don't get eaten, no matter how evil that option is. 
Animals kill others to survive. most animals in nature don't experience their survival being threatened constantly; in a normal situation the predator or rival patriarch or matriarch usually walks away at some point if they stand their ground long enough. but nation-states are very different because there's never anywhere to run off to permanently. if a conflict begins and the aggressor has no actual incentive to stop it's going to keep going until somebody starts killing people. it's just going to keep going until wars cull enough people (potentially millions and millions) that "the space to run away in" is at some semblance of being restored. because a society is just a lot of Animals standing together like they were one Animal, and societies threaten each other as wholes, but when a threat refuses to go away, Animals kill. anarchists cannot get away from this. they keep trying to assert that a world with too many people in it having wars "isn't necessary" and "there's no need to apply Malthusianism" but no matter what, their theories cannot [[E:existential materialism|explain what generates]] the actual observed behavior of Russians. the longer anarchists try to assert that indigenous ways of life 'were kinder on the earth' and 'were less violent', the longer real-world populations will attempt to kill millions and millions of people until the world literally has the maximum number of human individuals it did when human populations were mostly tribes. the actual material transition to a world where everyone is predisposed to believe secular animism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's rational for Russians to start wars and kill people if they will never be granted self-determination on the basis of a system where they try to help every Ukrainian and not start wars -> to correctly parse this proposition you have to understand that what is rational and what is ethical are not the same thing, contrary to what Kant says. 
this also doesn't mean that you can assert that 'getting rid of reason' will solve the problem, given that things that are 'rational' in this sense are rational precisely in the sense that they contain a specific [[E:causal logic (logical model of material causation)|sequence of causations]] and happen whether you want them to or not. 
Imperialism is the actual end of history + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Native Americans are capable of genocide / Inasmuch as indigenous populations are human, they are hypothetically capable of coming up with and practicing [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideologies]] that lead to large populational-scale numbers of people dying because other particular groups of people decide that they should die -> we really need to wake people up to the fact that a genocide can consist of five billion people equally drawn from all ethnic groups as opposed to a billion people of one specific ethnic group or nationality, in terms of whether a particular person's ideology can be ""inherently dominating"" enough to inherently lead to killing ten million people. if anybody in the world gets to keep calling a famine in Ukraine a genocide, then there are scenarios where advocating secular animism could itself be advocating for genocide, because it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than that. if everybody would stop saying that about Ukraine, I might consider dropping this.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Stalin's government committed genocide in Ukraine {{em|because}} they killed people using [[E:hierarchy (anarchism)|hierarchy]], and whenever a form of hierarchy is used that leads to a lot of people dying, that form of hierarchy is an [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideology]], and it is morally wrong to allow people to construct that form of hierarchy to any extent and morally right to tear it apart at every scale possible however small as soon as possible -> the best argument I can think of that the famine in Ukraine {{em|was}} a genocide. no, it's {{em|not}} very good. but at least it's logical enough to start analyzing, unlike a lot of things anarchists say. 
this.... is how a lot of people conceptualize the French Revolution, I think. ...oh god, that explains a lot. it even kind of explains where [[E:Menshevism (1900s)|Menshevism]] came from. the logic behind Menshevism is basically one that inherently dominating ideas merely need to be stopped. all Idealism is somewhat similar and there is a big overlap in Idealism between anarchism, Menshevism, Yaroshenkoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Western-Marxism. while mainstream Marxism-Leninism is nearly the only philosophy ever to state that people don't actually decide what ideas to believe, and that they are always simply handed ideas at the populational scale rather than a population actually having a mind of its own and actually being able to think. that's the sense in which BlackPantherism is quite respectable, to say that Black people among other ethnicities get ideas from their current conditions {{em|is}} a Materialist philosophy. one remaining question is whether Trotskyism falls into the trap of Idealist revolution or whether it genuinely is a Materialist revolution. I've always analyzed Trotskyism by taking individual Trotskyists or groups and modeling them through Materialist concepts of revolution, but my conclusions often don't sound much like their conclusions. they always talk like Stalin could have chosen not to do "Stalinism" so I don't know. 
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy + Stalin's government killed Ukrainian farmers = this.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A, DX, LR, ES|Q=618}}Idealist revolution / destroy the idea that ... (generic; popular-culture expression of an Idealist campaign to slay [[E:inherently dominating ideology (anarchism)|dominating ideas]]) -> it took me a long time to put this concept into words, but yeah, I think the real problem with anarchism is that it is defining the concept of revolution based on Idealism. there seems to be a whole concept of an Idealist revolution where people think that if you can slay an "inherently dominating idea" that drives a population on a conceptual level, you can change one historical period into another historical period. now, to use some technical language, this is some unscientific SCP-report plotline {{censor|bullshit}}.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=|Q=618}}thoughtcrime (anarchism) -> the motif of anarchists banning ideas in order to prevent harmful forms of society from being created whether those forms of society are really actually harmful or not, and punishing people for spreading what are actually neutral ideas. 
you can't deny it, in actually asserting that all bad behavior starts at ideas and all change starts at prohibiting ideas, anarchism comes way closer to doing this than Communism.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy / The act of handing money to someone is in and of itself a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|spatial slot hierarchy]] because it is an act of deciding whether someone is good enough to do a task -> this claim would probably sound much stupider if it was coming out of an anarchist, but fortunately "hierarchy" isn't a big hang-up for me as much as a prosaic statement describing what kind of process is happening. 
that said, this is the thing you need to toss at anarchists who claim that hierarchy and expertise are different things. they really aren't. since the start of Liberal-republicanism expertise has generally been the source of almost all hierarchy. 
I feel like anarchists have shifted to saying "domination" largely so that when they mention "hierarchy" they don't sound as stupid. of course, it doesn't really help given that it's become so abstract that it's unclear what on earth it's even referring to.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}X and X's brother / X and X's sister / Trotsky and Trotsky's brother (Animal Farm) / Rock and Rock's brother (Megaman exe) -> the motif of fictional stories taking a historical figure or previous fictional character in another continuity and creating a narrative parallel to them but then unexpectedly adding a sibling who actually does something and changes the story even if in a small way.

{{li|I=S1/HAS/Fy|Q=618}}gender roles in fairy tales -> I just started thinking about this suddenly today because I was trying to think if the concepts of "brother" and "sister" have different connotations in folklore, and then I started thinking about how weirdly often all the more negative characters in fairy tales are female. the wicked stepmother, the witch, maybe the wicked step{{em|sisters}}. but the male characters are often more neutral. kings and princes and medieval artisan type people all just have kind of a neutral presence or sometimes positive. there are some exceptions like 'the fairy godmother' that will be a positive influence. 
I.... don't know what the scope of this entry is because I'm not an expert in the humanities. I think it covers European fairy tales and probably through Eastern Europe into the rest of Asia but I don't really know what the division between "a fairy tale" and "a folktale" is, to me they're kind of the same thing. some people consider "Aladdin" to be broadly in the scope of fairy tales because there is a magic artifact or magic servant character that isn't so different from the fairy godmother. but that extends the geographical range of fairy tales quite a bit. what's the difference between a fairy tale and just a legend that people don't necessarily think is true? I think there's a clear difference between a fairy tale and a "myth" in that myths are religious stories from an ancient time of local gods, and fairy tales are about 'smaller' magical things that sort of just hide themselves in tiny places and cause mischief — "fae" sums up the concept of where fairy tales get their fantastical elements pretty well, you're thinking of a character that is usually pretty small and missable but can also be very powerful, could be the fairy godmother, could be a leprechaun. but I'm pretty confused on the difference between a fairy tale, a folktale, and a legend, because legends can have dragons in them; they don't have to be "historical".

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}belief (utilization) / believing in (utilizing) / I believe in solving math problems with lambda calculus / I believe in pomodoro timers -> a definition of "belief" which is one of the very few sensible ways to define the phrase "believing in Marxism". 
I think it's arguable that this definition doesn't apply to ideologies like Christianity, or even to a lot of secular systems of ethics; ethics is a potentially wrong descriptive model of reality pretending to be a technique. but, on the bright side, this motif does provide a lot of context for why people like to claim Communism "doesn't work". you could easily say "pomodoro timers don't work!" but if you aren't versed in how people actually use them and the exact conditions where people claim they do work versus what specific kinds of conditions lead them to fail, then you wouldn't necessarily be making a true accusation. at the same time, if you {{em|did}} claim "Pomodoro timers work!" without knowing how to use them, you also might not be making a true claim. that's why the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism has been so hard to resolve. out of the very limited number of people in the world who knew how to use Marxism at the time, or that do now, not all of those people genuinely understand how it's currently being used. and it's all downhill from there, because as you get further away from them, ordinary people only know less and less. 
you really do learn a lot more about Marxism itself by examining Trotskyist attacks on Marxism than you do by examining a lot of attacks on Marxism inside Liberal-republicanism. and in that, I think they actually have a counter-intuitive effect on consciousness in the grand scheme of things where depending on the specific issue them making errors may be less harmful than them not being there. not {{em|better}} precisely, yet definitely {{em|less bad}}.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}so mr. errors wants me to correct my errors -> what the early history of Trotskyism always feels like 
now to be perfectly fair to them, there are reasons this can {{em|apparently}} happen without being an actual mistake — Marxists speak of new forms of structure coming in and getting rid of old contradictions but bringing in new ones. I think this is how a lot of things they say happen to function.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}tall, dark, and handsome [https://usdictionary.com/idioms/tall-dark-and-handsome/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3x6bco/in_the_phrase_tall_dark_and_handsome_what_exactly/] / tenebrous (attractive) -> I have seen this explained either as the person literally having dark hair or the person being mysterious (tenebrous). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ténébreux] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrae#Latin] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrous#English] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrize#English] for the purposes of analyzing the word "dark" I'm going to take the latter 
sidenote: the pictures you get when you search {{i|ténébreux}} are so funny, you get like a dude with a cloak, you get {{censor|fucking}} Ezio or Boromir. fantasy stories are very good at portraying this concept apparently. one of the only "modern" stories I can think of off the top of my head that goes there is when Ace Attorney introduced Godot. whether anyone thinks he's attractive I have no idea but he absolutely is trying way too hard to have a mysterious overcast disposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Goku is a bourgeois distortion / Goku is a bourgeois distortion of Buddhism / Goku's character concept is centered around the notion that finding or seeking enlightenment makes you more physically powerful; in the original {{book|Journey to the West}} narrative, this was supposed to be the monkey king's vulgar misunderstanding of Buddhism which ultimately got him sealed under a mountain; within {{book|Dragon Ball}} Goku can be said to represent crude bourgeois materialism as seen in Feuerbach — the major theme quickly established in {{book|Dragon Ball}} is that the world is physical and does what it wants as opposed to what you want it to do, but that this is partly because the world is in some abstract way "modern", and dotted with cities and corporations and most notably the influence of scientific insight and technology; in this sense, Goku is not the {{book|Journey to the West}} character Sun Wukong because while Sun Wukong represents ancient empires, he represents the rise of early capitalism and the ways in which capitalism both correctly and wrongly substituted morality for power going into the hands of those who desire change the hardest and become materially powerful enough to take power and [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic|fight off]] the people they wish would change -> 
this sounds weirdly like I'm on the side of Buddhism over early capitalism. I'm not. I'm just very tired of capitalism acting like it's fully justified to keep power over everything and prevent anything else that would happen after it from forming just because it's better than ancient imperial monarchies. 
if Hegel had known what an "end of history" was, he would have believed that monarchy and feudal orders were the end of history. and now Fukuyama thinks he's not as wrong as Hegel when he does the same thing. honestly... right down to even that thing where you claim a bunch of abstract ideas led to a material system yet were the only possible train of conclusions. capitalist theorists and Kantians are almost exactly just the Hegel of capitalism.

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}Daniel Snowberg, the perfect whistleblower [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/whistleblowers-dont-need-elite-credentials-help-protect-us-government-overreach] -> so, there had been this other blog where I think someone was calling out Ed Snowden for having 'done things wrong' and made up this fake story about Daniel Snowberg to show how he should have done it correctly. and the EFF wasn't having any of it because they knew the realities of real movements don't necessarily look like what you want them to be. 
also... funny story, when messing around with writing fiction and trying to throw Snowberg into a dystopia this had caused Valenoern to accidentally reinvent Trotskyism. but that takes a while to explain, and is a story for another day. to keep things short, they really did not know anything about the history of socialism or what Menshevism or Bolshevism were, they just sort of, created a character in the vein of "Emmanuel Goldstein" (that's just an example) from abstract concepts but didn't know that in the case of 1984 that was Trotsky, and so they reinvented Trotskyism. we've had a lot of fun with anticommunist fables and finding Trotsky in them since then.

{{li|I=S1/MX/MD|class=field_mdem field_14quarters|Q=618}}vermilion international / scarlet international / vermilion Marxism (as Communist International) -> the motif of a Communist international that combines mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism to ultimately form some kind of single global era of socialism. Trotskyists think this can't exist, and have said so rather clearly — what they generally want is to smash all crimson Communist parties and replace them with orange ones.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Videos are the new leaflets (booklets; pamphlets; etc) {{YouTube|bKq-iip4LXs}} / Videos have replaced leaflets -> I remember this coming up in videos on multiple YouTube channels but I don't remember which videos right now 
I wouldn't disagree with this, although... I think there are a few interesting things to note about it. for one, the environment of online videos gives Trotskyists a bizarrely huge advantage because they can all post videos from different countries and make it look like Trotskyism is a lot more omnipresent in any particular country than it really is, as well as like it's a long-standing philosophical tradition (technically not false) which is as rich as mainstream Marxism-Leninism is. online videos make it weirdly easy to "astroturf" the appearance of movements happening more intensely or widely than they actually are.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality; news outlets sell the service of empirical encounters with material reality -> this is the only satisfactory explanation I can find for the way United States people will utterly deny things as a possibility {{caps|until}} they show up in a news article and then suddenly they're "real" and omnipresent and worrying and perhaps scary.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Free Software movement needs a theory of state businesses if it is ever to succeed; it needs a theory of how it is that products and production structures become part of public space and become impossible for individuals to control or 'retract' as opposed to saying that individuals just 'ought to' continually choose to put things in the public space within the space of individual choices and interactions 
methodological individualism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}I'm not here to educate you / It's not my job to educate you (statement that minority groups do not have to explain oppression) -> I don't think you can treat this statement as generally true. funny story, I've been picking up books on Native American history when I go to used book sales, and like, these claim to be educational, but you open them up, and the last one I was reading was treating the tribe in question as very mystical. it was trying to be positive and imply there was nothing wrong with people having a different culture but it overall still ended up presenting things like Rolling Thunder (he was the main topic of the book) had a fundamentally magical way of thinking, that he's almost some kind of wizard with magic occult powers in the way he thinks as opposed to his culture being something that can ever be "normal". I think the book was from 1976 if I remember right, not recently. 
so like, telling people to go educate themselves and implying they can't talk to actual people to learn what their problems are could be very harmful. I suspect that it's old books like these that a lot of anarchists are learning about other groups of people from and effectively where they're getting their anarchism. or that even if that's not literally the case, that you can still study that example to learn about the problems with the thing anarchists are actually doing. 
I think there is like.... a nuance that's totally lost on anarchists about the interaction of individuals or populations. if there's somebody that goes around talking like Rolling Thunder, you can't really just take what he says and present it to other people as his fundamental way of thinking. people in industrial populations are going to take it negatively. there might be one or two people who literally take it as 'backward' and say mean things, but that's not what you need to watch for, the most likely harm you need to keep an eye out for is people softly deciding that tribal populations can't understand modern science and that the way of thinking they have presented is part of their fundamental essence that 'blocks' them from absorbing the understandings people have in industrial society. this is racist, because it puts you into the same rhetorical position as the people who were recently arguing that Black South Africans 'didn't want the farmland taken by Afrikaners because of their culture' and {{em|therefore}} it was okay for European apartheid states to descend in and take whatever they want. I think there's a decent argument to be made that claiming someone like Rolling Thunder has a fundamentally different way of thinking 'than European science' is flat out supporting colonialism and is The Colonizer Attitude, because, just look at its results. 
this leaves open the rather broad question of how exactly you can merge tribal populations' ways of thinking with modern science and the findings of industrial societies. we know it's not optional to do that. we know it's necessary to do it to not essentialize people and treat indigenous people as stupid. we know that anarchists trying to present older and more mystical ways of thinking as 'the natural way of thinking' is not okay because it what it effectively does is allow White people to appropriate indigenous culture for their own benefit but still deny that culture to the actual indigenous people and hand all the power of people to determine themselves, to be able to talk about all topics intelligently as the adults in the room and make sophisticated decisions on various topics and involving several different philosophies, to Europeans. putting yourself in a position where other people will essentialize you to one particular level of ideological development is dangerous. I think it's the anarchists that need to be told this more than the tribal populations; they've been through a lot and I think to some extent they know this. anarchists, on the other hand... I feel like it's vaguely possible that some day in the future, people will talk about anarchists as inherently mystical people and weirdly racialize all anarchists {{em|exactly}} the way they've done with tribes in North or South America.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{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/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{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 {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> 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/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/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=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/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=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=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

</ol><noinclude>

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-GodGivenRights

2026-06-17T02:39:50Z

Reversedragon: subpage

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=god-given rights|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= god-given rights }} -> I don't think this is the same motif as natural law, although the concepts are somewhat related. this one is literal. this one is literally invoking a monotheistic or deistic god exactly like the label says. the natural law Item would be more philosophical and less describing a literal supernatural concept.

</li></ol>

== 'The foundation of our democracy' ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Rule of law is rule of morality / Rule of law comes from morality rather than from following what the laws say / Government neither invents nor grounds our rights (Barron) [https://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-kaine-doubles-down-on-comments-about-god-given-rights.html] -> this is one of the most bizarrely anarchist ways of interpreting laws I have ever seen. 
if laws are whatever is morally intuitive then why do we need lawyers? what's the deal with people having to spend years and years studying law just to understand it?? why are there judges?? if rule of law doesn't come from government then why do we need governments? wouldn't there inevitably come a point where everyone decided the United States government was immoral and abolished it because the Real rule of law in everyone's heads forbid a bunch of things the actual government was doing? wouldn't we eventually have to outlaw the United States government? where does it say that in the constitution? it'd seem to me the constitution assumes the United States republic will always be necessary. the US constitution doesn't contain any carve-out exception for abolishing itself like in early Bolshevik writings. but if "rule of law" genuinely came from morality rather than being a circular process between government and the people, that's exactly what you'd expect.

{{li|I=Z1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Brigham Young University -> wait. hold up. BYU? isn't that the mormon university? oh no it is. that link to mormon texts was totally unironic. okay.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Organized religion is the bedrock of our democracy (Bishop Robert Barron) [https://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-kaine-doubles-down-on-comments-about-god-given-rights.html] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_Winona%E2%80%93Rochester]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Thomas Jefferson and James Madison took it as fundamental to our democracy that our rights come from God / All men are endowed by their creator ... (Jefferson, U.S. Declaration of Independence) -> just from memory, I think that statement is at least half false. what about the Jefferson bible? 
the Declaration of Independence isn't good evidence. that had to speak for multiple people. that's like saying that if Trotsky signed a decision by Stalin's party that he believed in Stalinism. this implication that the Declaration of Independence was the opinion of one single man only and contained no concessions shows by itself that Barron has a questionable understanding of what democracy is. 
geez, no wonder the United States likes Trotsky and Bakunin so much. we all love the idea that when a whole room of representatives votes on something and millions of people in the surrounding country stand behind it that the opinion of one person can discard all of that if he believes he has better moral principles than every one of them. none of us actually believes in democracy. we believe in "my moral beliefs for everybody" -ocracy.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ... -> I looked around a bunch to try to find what Madison said about religion. [https://magazine.wfu.edu/2026/06/11/religious-freedom-madison-america-25/] [http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-christian-belief-of-james-madison.html] the closest thing I could find to what he believed himself is a remark that sounded like "sure is weird how everyone is christians here, I guess things have to be designed around that" 
so: the statement is like a quarter right. James Madison agreed that the United States was founded on a population of Christians, so if you think the word "foundation" isn't too strong a word to describe that, then yeah, the United States was founded on {{em|Christians}}, concrete noun, not {{em|Christianity}}, abstract noun. but it's unclear if he agreed that that was an actual part of democracy or not. it's that separation between country characteristics and a Marxist process of socialist transition, only with a Liberal republic and the processes of that

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Voting doesn't create rights }} / Democratic processes don't create rights / If the government were the arbiter of our rights, then it could take them away [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bishop-robert-barron-dangers-behind-sen-kaines-rejection-god-given-rights-founding-principle] -> backhandedly true. he gets it. he gets how government works. when you create a republic and create government by the people, the rights it defends depend on what the people subjectively believe. if that isn't the case, then there isn't democracy. 
what's the difference between a world where all the laws are what the bible says and all the laws are what Stalin says? well, first of all the latter is going to be more logically coherent, but besides that. there's no difference. laws can't just be based on an eternal Ideal without actual input that comes from citizens and alters the content of the supposedly eternal Ideals. that's what democracy is. that's why the real CPSU had to bring in {{em|several}} people that would discuss issues and why there was a struggle between the Left Opposition and the rest of the party. because it was more democratic than God, that's why. this is the ideal central-government body, you may not like what peak performance looks like

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Morality stops corrupt leaders / Only morality stops corrupt leaders / Without morality, leaders deify themselves and impose their will on the people without restraint / Republics must be based on [[E:god-given rights|inherent moral facts that exist before them]]; without morality or ethics (responsibility to God; responsibility to the governed), leaders deify themselves and impose their will on the people without restraint / The denial of God becomes the denial of rights (Barron) [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bishop-robert-barron-dangers-behind-sen-kaines-rejection-god-given-rights-founding-principle] -> 
great. so who's going to impose morality on the United States and get it out of Cuba? are you telling me that Vietnam and the anti-war movement in the United States won because they were the moral ones? are you telling me God wanted there to be Dengism in Vietnam? if God wanted there to be Dengism in Vietnam, then why wouldn't he want there to be Dengism in Cuba? what if God wants there to be Dengism in the United States? how would we know one way or the other?? is it just determined by [[E:Only victors write history|whoever actually wins]]?? doesn't that just mean that God believes in Materialism? God should be a big fan of Marxism if that were the case. 
see, morality doesn't mean {{em|anything}}.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}An inalienable right is any right that does not come from government -> this is a terrible definition. by this definition, international war is an inalienable right because it definitionally comes from a place outside a given nation-state and you can't stop it from happening. are atomic bombs an inalienable right? they weren't brought in by your government. nobody signed them into law, they just arrived. a government can't invent genocide on itself either. oh no. now it's inalienable as long as it's thoroughly extrajudicial and there aren't any laws protecting it. you'd think that would make it worse, not better. does genocide become more inalienable as everyday people become more enthusiastic about it and it comes less from any part of government? what if they say God told them to do it? how would you be able to tell whether that was true? is it true if they win?

{{li|I=M3/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Why do rights require government? / Why do human rights require government? / If rights are not created by government, then why is it necessary to create government? -> this seems stupid at first but really think about it for a while. if human rights {{em|ontologically exist}} without government, you always have them whether there is or isn't a government. so isn't creating government just making society worse given that it results in a lot of errors and separates people from their pre-existing rights? isn't the most logical thing to do to abolish government? 
I think I finally understand why everyone is suddenly moving over to blue or charcoal anarchisms now. the concept of a republic based on "god-given rights" was actually {{em|so}} incoherent it wrapped around to justifying abolishing itself. it failed its task with a meteoric success.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Why do rights require government? -> honorable mention to the line of argument I got out of the chatbot: to defend tiny clusters of bourgeoisie from the formally-powerful clergy that used to exist as well as themselves. yeah, on point.

</li></ol>

== Plurality and rights ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}Rule of law is the same thing as protecting pluralities of political factions; this is to imply that pluralities of political factions are to be preserved no matter how racist they are -> you're making rule of law sound deeply unappealing. 
to be fair though, this definition makes a little more sense than the one where it comes from morality.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Because Mao did not protect pluralities of political factions, there was not rule of law -> why do you think those factions were hunted down exactly? do you think the government entirely made up its enemies? are you not aware of the concept of Communists having laws and people violating particular Maoist laws?

{{li|I=S1/DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}that diabolical Hell-conceived principle of persecution / Pride ignorance and Knavery among the Priesthood and Vice and Wickedness among the Laity. [...] That diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among some and to their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their Quota of Imps for such business (Madison 1774) [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-01-02-0029] -> I feel like in a lot of people's minds the history of religious conflict in the United States "neatly" "maps onto" any observed case of Marxist states attempting to centralize either political parties or religions. 
regardless of what the U.S. founders believed you have to admit they created some great prose.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Without morality, leaders deify themselves and impose their will on the people without restraint -> oh god hang on, hang on. this statement is implying something amazing. so, without {{TTS|____|(blank)}}, leaders deify themselves and get unlimited power, and when {{TTS|____|(blank)}} stops them, they don't have unlimited power. now [[E:christian devotional about Ted|write "Trotsky" in the blanks]]. {{em|yeah}}. 
that just turned a really boring statement about the purpose of the U.S. constitution into a weirdly interesting paradox. according to Dennis Prager's terrible interpretation of Trotskyism, no republic actually grants you freedom from corrupt rulers unless it permits you to totally destroy it. so, if you have the ability to totally smash the United States government, you are free. but the purpose of the United States government is supposedly to protect your inherent freedoms that you had before it existed. how can it actually be doing that if you need the right to destroy it in order to truly be free? 
this is probably one of the best combinations to come out of "christian devotional about Ted". christian devotional about Ted + Only morality stops corrupt leaders = Only Ted stops corrupt leaders. 
Ted-given rights! Ted-given rights!!

</li></ol>

== Secular responses ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}The claim that rights come from God is a radical and dangerous notion that only theocratic kingdoms believe (Tim Kaine) [https://politicalreview.byu.edu/october-2025/endowed-by-our-creator-why-rights-come-from-our-god-not-our-government] [https://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-kaine-doubles-down-on-comments-about-god-given-rights.html] -> the author of the article failed to understand that Kaine was being hyper-literal. like, he literally meant laws coming from the supernatural. he was speaking of the kind of reality where you stepped into the fae realm and you forgot you weren't supposed to eat the food and the consequence was they handed you a constitution but now you're bound to theocracy for the rest of your life, and you specifically have to serve the god of another religion that isn't your own that persecutes Christians. would you want that? Xanthagor the god of rot has granted you eternal rights if you agree to be conquered by the plane of decay. do you accept. sometimes it feels like Liberal-republicans are literally not smart enough to follow a {{game|Dungeons & Dragons}} campaign let alone a debate about constitutional rights.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}... a radical and dangerous notion [https://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-kaine-doubles-down-on-comments-about-god-given-rights.html] -> Christian post says he's a Catholic? wow the mormon article was acting like he was the atheist in the room.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Voting doesn't create rights }} / Bourgeois representatives cannot create human rights (sense) / ({{9k|RD/Q28,84}}) -> rewritten just a bit, we've got another statement for the pile of "Statements that would sound different coming out of Stalin".

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}The CPSU was more democratic than God / The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was more democratic than God; according to Bishop Robert Barron, democracy is what happens when you follow the eternal truths written on people's hearts by God and vaguely sketched out in the bible, and all people receive rights before anyone does anything, which is to say that voting is nothing more than a formality to connect government to God and no vote has ever actually decided anything; Benjamin Franklin directly transcribed the word of God into the Declaration of Independence rather than mentioning a Creator due to input from any other founder in the room or any other U.S. person; meanwhile, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a secular and Materialist organization that contained multiple factions each working from their own subjective understandings and expertise to figure out how the party should deviate from previous understandings of eternal Ideals to create better policies, and considered the responses of various regions throughout the country; because the CPSU was not committed to eternal Ideals existing before anyone was born, it had more room for both humans to have individual will and for change -> 
I had to word this carefully to stave off the kind of people who will have a fit because China has a cooperative congress where none of the representatives are pitted against each other, and make it clear I'm only asserting that the Soviet Union had representatives of the people in the flawed sense the U.S. Congress does, not that it was better than that. but fortunately the bar to be better than God is awfully low, so it's not very hard to clear that.

</li></ol>

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

{{li|I=S2/MX/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}If rights really come from God then the United States must be praying to at least two countable gods, similar in their countability to Greek or Egyptian religious stories -> tumblr would have had so much fun with this 
this really has a lot of B-side potential. just imagine there actually being named gods of particular things that emerged inside the United States instead of immigrants having to bring in their own religions. the United States revolts. the British crown dismisses them as heretics and says none of them worship the real God. the colonies proceed to come up with new gods. I remember how in real life people actually divided themselves across the 13 colonies according to religion, so there are almost definitely going to be 13 new gods to start out with. would it stay at 13 as more colonies formed on the west edge, or would they already be merging by then? I think there's some argument that there would be a merging of people onto the same god as opposed to putting them together as a pantheon of gods. I think that old pattern from the Christian bible of destroying the other gods would come back because when it comes to religion a lot of people are not very original, they just go back to what they know. I think people would converge from the 13 or so gods back to two. and as for the religious stories... I would totally expect a lot of bible stories to get retold for the 13 new gods in the early days, considering that several bible stories either came from earlier myths or were copied into the quran. but somehow, while I don't know how historically believable it is I do know it's really funny to me to imagine the days each of the early-colony gods died getting written into the stories right after the old stories about them, like, the book doesn't attempt to hide the early versions at all and is just going on and on having events like a questionably plotted manga. there are these breaks in the story coinciding with real historical periods, like around the Civil War. and then after the Civil War the North tries really hard to unify everybody onto one god but fails because the southern states are still praying to the Confederate god. 
I get so lost in alternate-history scenarios. I love them. even if they're about religion. I want to read this crazy new bible that doesn't exist.

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|HAS|Hass}} / philosophy

</li></ol>

== Subpages ==
* [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-GodGivenRights/LRBreaks01|LRBreaks01]] - trans4mer page where I try to critique the concept of god-given rights

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-06-17T02:30:08Z

Reversedragon: It isn't about gun control, it's about product control

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

{{li|I=S2/FS|tradition=|Q=618}}It isn't about gun control, it's about product and business-territory control -> you know. there's a certain section of people that are like, "FOSS basement dwellers" — who attribute great power to change society to individual ability to produce things with technology — but the funny thing is that sometimes those people are correct. usually during the times they're getting upset about the seemingly unstoppable power of corporations. let me tell you, Mike Masnick getting upset about corporations continuing to abuse the 'proprietary economy' was vastly more influential in the overall journey of getting me to Communism than everything anybody says about civil rights or even about unions or workers a lot of the time. I think in some ways Free Software types and this swath of "generic libertarians" is really wired into the concept of business territories and owners and trying to break down the business territories of the "big" or "corporatist" owners. it's comical how although the reasons for it are wrong the conclusions are very close to correct and I would unironically support using a surprisingly large slice of the generic-libertarian content that exists to teach Marxism. it's funny how nothing but the antagonism between all business territories eventually begins to undo capitalism if you give it long enough, while no amount of anarchist ideology ever seems to make much of a difference.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}At what point is the proletariat created? -> this is not a trivial question because workers can function very differently inside different sociophilosophies. is the proletariat created when people are displaced from business territories? is the proletariat only created when Bolshevism is created? (I forget where I was going with this comment but I suspect I will remember later)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}real people fiction / {{abbr|RPF|title=real people fiction}} (fan fiction)

{{li|I=M3/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}What is the difference between real people fiction and historical fiction? -> a cop-out answer is that historical fiction can be made out of only made-up people but contains real countries or historical periods. but that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, if there is at least one real person inside a historical fiction scenario, at what point after that does it become real people fiction? immediately? are there other things required? does it have to consist of more real-people characters among the main cast than fake-people characters? if I write a scenario not as a novel but literally as one of those books used to train lawyers or librarians on example cases, and my scenario contains real people, have I written real people fiction?

{{li|I=S2/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}Toontown runs on Menshevism / As evidenced by the layout of the interactable game world and the daily use of jellybeans as currency, the Toons that live in Toontown live in a [[E:agorism|market-based society]] built on small businesses which willingly provides houses -> note: come back and add Toontown to 'related' on 9k page for Growing Around, along with childism

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Ted Kaczynski was not an anarchist [https://www.thetedkarchive.com/special/about-this-project] -> I have never heard of this man but okay. there are a lot of anarchist-sounding philosophies that aren't very good so even without much information I believe it's possible.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Teamsters obstructed worker organization (2018) / The Teamsters are a group of bureaucrats that negotiate with workers to achieve corporations' demands; this is to imply that workers should consider forming their own internal organizations across bigger sectors of industry instead of trusting them (California, 2018) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/20/upam-a20.html]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Kropotkinism leads to populations of people who produce about $5 an hour and end up getting classified as contractors who have to put all their other revenue into expenses -> anarchists like to complain about how Communism and Liberal capitalism 'overwork people for nothing' while anarchism is about finishing work and doing something enjoyable. but.... I have to wonder. what would happen if Kropotkinism actually kicked off? wouldn't you just have a population of people that earns tiny amounts, has huge expenses, and basically lives just like gig workers? what if the reason anarchism hasn't been more successful is Amazon beat anarchists to creating 'easy work' of the kind anarchists want but just not in the conditions they want? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/19/jxer-f19.html] it seems to me like anarchism moves really slow and capitalism moves fast, owning entire market-boxes and communities while anarchists are only talking about those things and before they can meaningfully create them.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Community is a hyperstructure -> the claim that "community", mostly as a materialist version of the anarchist model of what "communities" are, is a system that encourages itself to expand further through parts of the system contributing to the overall system. 
I think the description is really apt because you see this perfect 'blockchain quality' where community looks like a shiny wonderful thing you could only want more and more of, but when you get any particular instance of community, such as a newsfeed platform like YouTube or Twitter, the more people add to it the worse it seems to get and the more it turns into this vector for individual capitalists to own an entire "agora" and exploit the whole concept of an economy existing and make money off that, and the more it feels like community itself was a scam from the start. 
Community is a hyperstructure + Hyperstructures are usually harmful = Community is a cancer.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Hyperstructures are usually harmful -> this is an anarchist or agorist claim more than it is my claim but I wouldn't totally oppose it.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|tradition=|Q=618}}hyperstructure (snowballing system) [https://medium.com/@onjas_buidl/hyperstructures-in-human-history-5a27f31c28df] -> blockchain fanatics' attempt to describe a generalized kind of system which rewards people for contributing to a cumulative pie in a constructive way. 
honestly? if getting people to comprehend "hyperstructures" could get rid of blockchains themselves then I'd be all for it 
I feel like this concept is almost more of a cautionary tale than a desirable thing to have though. one of their examples is the general concept of money because of course they have to explain how bitcoin is similar to money. but like, the expansion of money through creating more products and the central government giving loans to corporations to speed up the process isn't necessarily a good thing, it often leads to the destruction of the environment as it's consumed to create materials and factories, or the destruction of culture as products obsolete other products just to chase money and get more money added. this is so bad that when they present language as the second example I'm like.... okay, is language secretly a bad thing that is destroying the world and I just didn't know it was? I have to say though, the advent of large language models really vindicates the concept of hyperstructures, if in a bad way. the more AI that people create the more different AIs can train on each other to the extent they can generate any meaningful inferences or conversation data that human testers approve, and then there will be more AI. so, yeah. the concept of hyperstructures was very successful. it was successful at describing something, but it seems like basically everything it describes is an existential threat to humanity, including The Economy, capitalism, blockchain, AI, and possibly language (??). 
this might be one of the clearest pieces of evidence that anarchism is inherently dangerous because it doesn't actually build into itself the capability to model societies spending a while building something and then leveling off in a neat S-curve because they moved on to entirely different things without redoing the same things over and over again such as repeatedly reinventing game consoles or phones. (a thing Marxism could do with some effort because it inherently understands the concept of historical periods and shifts from one period to another.) despite all the surface rhetoric about "infinite growth" recently it only really understands infinite growth because of its core values of always making everything about "community" and "inclusivity" and never saying no to anybody. so naturally a system of modeling growth itself is one of the first things to pop out of it, which claims to have a limit but in practice when it hits the limit just divides in two and continues to make more and more.

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}storing properties of chemical reactions in power sets composed out of smaller sets [https://chemrxiv.org/doi/pdf/10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-368pz] -> um. I don't understand any of this but it's very cool.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Stalin's government putting up positive posters in schools is "a lie", then how do you know that solarpunk is true? -> I won't fault you for making the former claim, but the reason the CPSU would be wrong there is that it's letting people be Idealist instead of understanding the terrifying truth that they might not succeed. so.... if the CPSU posters are wrong, and putting up hopeful slogans is bad because it allows the people spreading the potentially incorrect slogans to gain power over you, then how exactly is solarpunk correct?

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Idealism is invincible / Materialist movements are inherently weaker than Idealist movements in that Idealist movements live forever as long as human beings don't believe in burning books, but Materialist movements die as soon as actual physical organizations are broken up -> there's only one real solution to correct this discrepancy. promote "hypothetical materialism", the new category of philosophies which are spread as disembodied ideas but internally contain only Material Ideas and Materialism. [https://chatonsky.net/ideomaterialism/]

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=|Q=618}}Marxist analysis of non-Marxisms / Marxist analysis of non-Marxist philosophies or movements / infra-Marxism (Marxist analysis which is done either wholly inside a specific formulation of Marxism, or wholly inside that specific Marxism while critiquing non-Marxist philosophies, but where the Marxism does not actually give a proper analysis of either itself or other Marxisms; meta-Marxism) -> a large part of the original stated purpose of Marxism before the Trotskyite conspiracy happened.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The Diggers were a proto-Marxist movement because they began with displaced peasants or allied local houses sensing the impending expansion of estates, and sought to build a community without commodity exchange, loosely and metaphorically compared to Eden (Christopher Hill) / {{book|The World Turned Upside Down}} (Hill 1988; generic) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> ok, in my mind, I can't remember the difference between this description and the Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Narodniks; this doesn't sound like a movement with a very detailed plan behind it. but this {{em|is}} a very juicy and entertaining claim, so I'll code it. I wouldn't really mind someone calling a cottager movement 'Socialists' or 'anarchists'. but, what is the difference between the Diggers and Peter Kropotkin? can you answer that question? I think you need to go into at least that much depth to properly answer whether they can be "communists".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The faithful are duty bound to obey God alone / Because rulers are sinful creatures like us and will have a propensity to do the wrong thing, they will tend to tyranny, decreeing ungodly laws ... in these cases, the faithful are duty bound to obey God alone (Calvin ??/2009) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> that is one killer quote. it's not surprising, given all the {{em|stuff}} in the bible about "powers and principalities" that sounds just like this. but it's definitely mysterious to look at the bible and realize, hey wait, what's all this stuff about never trusting rulers? God doesn't exist, God is one big rationalization. so is Christianity really an anarchism?? I'd argue it is. I'd argue that at least as soon as New Testament Christianity appeared the whole thing was really about pushing the concept that seemed nonsensical at that time of getting rid of all rulers and creating a society based only in social bonds connecting people into a society ("love", "brotherhood", "neighbors"), and Christians had to dress up that concept inside the concept of a worldwide empire just to get anybody to believe it when otherwise it would have seemed unbelievable. 
I'd also argue that by capitulating to the class imagery of their time Christians doomed Christianity and turned it into a tool of empire itself as empire noticed that an ideology about empire was better suited to literally arguing one empire was superior to other empires and deserved to be the one to conquer the world. there's not a lot of difference between Christians and Democrats. Christians: we are all united together as under The King. Romans promptly turn the king into Caesar and argue Christianity promotes somewhat-racist empires that take other nations as slaves. Democrats: we are all united together by voting and a list of civil rights. Capitalists promptly make it mandatory for every minority listed in a civil rights act to support Israel and destroy Palestine, and support products made in Cuba while refusing Cuban products on pain of arrest.

{{li|I=S2/P4|tradition=|Q=618}}An international war will surely clear away all internal contradictions / If there be bad blood in a nation, an honourable foreign war will vent it out (Bacon 1622) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> god, he's the 1600s Dugin. that or Dugin's ideas are as old as dirt. you know, one or the other.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}the revolution betrayed betrayed betrayed -> the motif of Trotskyism getting "betrayed" by the creation of socialism in one country, which then got betrayed by Trotskyism as payback, which then got betrayed by anarchism and critical theory turning the previous two events into evidence against all Marxism.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}I'll question to the death the reason you said it / I don't agree with what you're defending and I'll question to the death the reasons for anyone ever saying that / I don't agree with what you're defending people saying and I'll question to the death the underlying material reasons for anyone ever saying that -> this isn't meaning to imply the statement absolutely should be suppressed or shouldn't be said as much as purely that there is a big elephant being ignored of asking why it is people say things and what will be gained by defending the statement 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + meta-theory = this. 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + demographic Marxist / sectarianism = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani would have done more for the world if he'd bought an illegal Cuban product, showed it off, and gotten arrested than he did by attempting to speak about Israel -> I'm so sick of this new trend of all social contradictions happening in courtrooms between two individuals. I really am. but this would be one way to make the best of it

{{li|I=F2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}They can't arrest all of us -> one of those anarchist sayings that deeply bothers me because of how it's just not true. a country can bring down the law on as many people as it wants to. when it can't arrest everybody, that's when it brings out the tanks and helicopters and just starts shooting them. you should know this. it's already a pretty common talking point to say U.S. people don't revolt against the U.S. because of "the military". if China can bring out the army when there's not enough time for jury trials, and it's already common for cops to shoot petty criminals, what stops the United States from starting an open season on everybody who isn't committed to following all its laws? a bit of Cold War propaganda? do you really think the Great Terror happened for any other reason than that republics are based on laws and when people stop following laws and getting scared by cops they do anything to protect themselves??

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Nations are bodies of law / Nations are legal codes / A nationality is defined by how well people follow a population's current set of laws, and the less people follow the law, the less they are part of that nationality; this is to imply but not state that the moment people intend to follow no laws at all they are not part of a particular nationality any more -> 
this is one of the only models that can explain either separate wing of Liberal-republicanism and Stalin's Marxism and even a Trotskyist republic equally well: the model that republics begin with written laws and laws are the fundamental Ideas that create "nations of ideas". Tories don't follow center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. center-Liberals skirt around Tory laws, Tories call treason. Communists don't respect center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. anarchists or right-Liberals defy Soviet laws, Stalin's government calls treason. Stalin's government defies Trotskyists' desired body of laws, Trotskyists call treason. 
it's all about laws. laws are made by classes, and that's what distinguishes the fundamental character of a body of laws, but actually, all geopolitical conflicts and demographic conflicts deep inside countries start at whether separate groups of people are following each other's internal laws. it's all one big squabble about laws and what laws are inherently good or bad, while that will never have an objective answer because different areas of people hate other people's laws and don't want them. 
this is part of what makes critical-theory so frustrating. as of late it's been picking up talking points that the United States government is totally capable of granting North American tribes rights. but in order to get those "rights" they had to first send people to assimilate to White towns and consent to the overall body of United States laws and agree not to violate any of them, while some of those laws banned the tribal societies they would have been fighting for. it's a bit paradoxical. within the system that boasts all the time about giving people human rights (and also lies to everyone claiming the rights are from birth or 'god-given' despite the fact God doesn't give them to you in Cuba and Cuba requires an invasion to defeat The Regime that's apparently stronger than God himself)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Dengism can defeat God (power scaling) / Deng Xiaoping states are stronger than God / If human rights are granted to people by God when they are born, but the United States needs to invade Cuba to ensure that people have God-given rights, then the Cuban government is strong enough to stop God himself; this is to imply that the United States is proportionally stronger than God by two [[E:feat (power scaling)|feats]] because the United States is stronger than the thing that defeated God but is not God / The U.S. can defeat God (sense)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}There is no difference between morality and "manufacturing consent"; they are the same continuous thing; "manufacturing consent" is precisely an instance of either morality or natural law, and is an example of how Liberal-republicanism abuses these incorrect models of reality to gain power over people that were previously outside its control

{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Return to the Land (White supremacist movement) {{YouTube|e1iSMbzx_Hg}} -> I have.... a bit of a mild "conspiracy theory". I'm not sure Liberal-republicans are actually opposing this thing for the right reasons. sure, the people inside it sound like fairly bad people, and it doesn't sound like a good place to live. but I feel like this thing is being used as leverage to promote things people otherwise wouldn't support. to show that otherwise-bad things are "necessary". like, compounds full of racists are the new 9/11 — or the old one that probably existed decades before it happened. 
(it really doesn't help that the commentator identified the White supremacist compounds as "terrorist cells". that's a pretty heavy-handed rhetorical term when it comes to giving a particular national government great military power over any city within the entire rest of the world. like, anybody who says the word "terrorist" may as well already be king. Marxist parties are the only halfway exception. but it's still bad.) 
I feel like what's happening is something like, critical theory was one big scam by Liberal-republicanism to convince anarchists to turn against other forms of anarchism — granted, some of which were somewhat harmful, making the deal sound weirdly enticing — so Liberal-republicanism could then turn around and eradicate all anarchism and then be free to take over other countries and conquer the world. just like in those civilization games where you can just build one giant republican country and nuclear war never destroys the world first.

{{li|I=F2/LR|tradition=LR, HM|Q=618}}The purpose of Liberal-republicanism is to transition the world out of racism -> this seems to be the hypothesis advanced by critical theory. that republics actually exist in order to force ethnic groups to be friends. no matter what they've done to each other. this explains how Native American movements have been going mainstream: Liberal-republicanism is having trouble getting people to consent to it any more, so it needs to recruit minorities to advance its agenda of expanding itself over people and telling them what to do under the guise that it's making the world better for minorities. 
...this has to be false, doesn't it? the actual function of the United States has been dividing into two anarchisms that are mortal enemies. no matter how much critical theory says that forcing people to interact and integrate should change consciousness it doesn't seem to happen, and to some degree it only seems to make people more and more resentful and more inclined to kill each other. why it happens is less the presence of ethnic groups together in particular and more the presence of multiple populations that could be politically independent being ruled by "external" political factions that feel like foreign countries. like, it would really seem that Deng Xiaoping Thought has been way more successful than Liberal-republicanism, because having a single unified government actually seems to unify people rather than generating this worsening and worsening cycle of hatred. 
critical theory may be ideology generated directly out of Liberal-republicanism in the most insidious way possible. maybe this is what it's always done. maybe the real foundation of Liberal-republicanism is precisely holding up a set of laws, claiming they're inherently moral, and forcing everyone around, even people who aren't part of the country yet, to obey them or else. that is one of the only good explanations for why Liberal-republicanism has been so eager to back Israel. it doesn't even actually run on morality or care about morality. all it cares about is whether as many people as possible across the world are following an arbitrary set of laws. so the more people think Palestine "isn't following the law", {{em|as it is written}}, the easier it is to justify eliminating Palestine. 
you know. queer rights are a sham. they only exist because people have proved gay people are legal. on this weird metaphysical level where laws already exist before laws actually exist. and that's how laws come to be laws. but it isn't gay people that are oppressed by this Kantian interpretation of laws. it's Palestinians. believing that laws inherently exist and they only need to be approved just legitimizes the structure that makes this illusion possible to believe — global empire. this conception of things shouldn't be true, but when your empire is big enough to bully Cuba it's big enough to make almost anything come true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If history can ever be static, then Donald Trump cannot be the slightest bit Good or Bad / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable, including all outcomes in politics, without the recognition that history is always in motion from one state to another and it is always mandatory to make decisions on what it will change to / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable without the recognition history is always in motion -> you cannot say history has ended. not even with a narrow meaning that modes of production have ended. because there is no meaningful distinction between change existing in the form of a change between mode of production and change existing in the form of a country reverting to a global empire that wants to kill people for more land. both are the same kind of change, but reversion to empire cannot be stopped, which is to say that neither kind of change can actually be stopped. the original claim is false because in setting down its basic assumptions it really actually makes a false claim about what change is, which is dangerously false.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}All business owners are terrorists -> abolish copyright and I'll take it back.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Until 2020 Marxism has been unable to create genuinely accurate models of Idealist factions or civilizations because of the way their material interests and the processes that create their behavior are inherently separated; Marxist models start in a form of Materialism that basically assumes that everybody already lives in a Materialist civilization similar to Bolshevism where any particular assembled group of people belonging to a class is aware it has class interests as opposed to the people in a faction being completely unaware of that and acting together for completely different reasons; this has made Marxism inherently well suited to turning around and betraying itself with Marxisms attacking other Marxisms, and inherently badly suited to actually understanding the development over time of Liberal-republicanism and anarchism well enough to be able to defeat them

{{li|I=S1/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}TV times including "central" / 2:30-3:30 central / 9pm-8pm central [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1mgil6/if_there_are_four_time_zones_why_do_national_tv/] / my daughter asked me to pick her up at 2:30-3:30 central -> I keenly remember this idea being printed in some kind of issue of {{book|Reader's Digest}} or something but I do not remember where I first saw it. a joke about the idea that it's really weird that U.S. TV shows tell you two time zones at once and it would be strange if everyone went around saying that. that's really changed in the age of online streaming where YouTube will just kind of tell you what time something happens in your time zone and a stream might be on at a weird time but you don't have to do any calculations. but for various reasons it's still worth remembering the age of "2:30/3:30 central".

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}How will you obtain unicorn horns? / Anarchists presuppose that envisioning a different future separate from the material elements, structures, and processes of society that already exist is meaningful in and of itself, but if this is the case, they seemingly have no way to actually change anything; if the United States changes the day you find unicorn horns on the ground, but there are none of them in the entire land area of the United States, and you cannot fabricate them, and you cannot teleport them in from another place given that nobody in the United States knows how to do that, how can you possibly find them fast enough for your entire party of people to not simply be driven out of the United States to where the unicorn horns actually are — what do you do? -> trying to get anarchists to think harder about the concept of productive forces and the fact that you always need graph connections between people to actually achieve anything

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian / Despite nearly everyone in the United States who is not a member of the Libertarian movement claiming capital-L Libertarian parties to be different and distinct from them, the Libertarian movement in fact describes the founding principles of {{em|all}} political parties in the United States — agorism — and every other Liberal-republican political party in the United States is in fact a variation of Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian movement, including some political movements which are not organized into official parties; United States civil rights movements are a Libertarianism because they are defined as the sum of all non-aggressive activities, the Democratic-Republican party of 1791 was a Libertarianism because it opposed the Federalist party of large monolithic businesses clustered around a central government, the Democratic Party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the concept of people voluntarily joining in non-aggression to continuously vote for a party to supposedly fix their problems and absolutely all political parties that don't directly commit aggression getting to continue existing, the Republican party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the belief that all small, medium-size, and large corporations can form a locus of non-aggression that is being attacked by other loci of non-aggression; the actual center position in the United States that should be in the middle of a political compass is Libertarianism-agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party] -> 
before I found about agorism nothing about Liberal-republicanism made sense, and it all makes a lot more coherent material sense now down to the thing of getting obsessed with finding "the middle" and distinguishing all deviations into new parties as "directional" from the middle or as Extremes, but the more I learn, the more all the inner logic of LiberalRepublicanism-Libertarianism-agorism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Wario believes in Liberal-republicanism then he must be a Libertarian -> I made it simple for you. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-greatest-thread-in-the-history-of-forums-locked-by-a-moderator-after-12239-pages-of-heated-debate]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Ag|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Agorism is a segregation machine / Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them; 
the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation'; 
in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs; 
loci of non-aggression include: towns, families that have not experienced violent child abuse or the murder of a spouse, clusters of employees and owners that haven't committed horrible abuses against each other yet, clusters of tenants the landlord hasn't [[E:landlord rape incidents|literally committed crimes]] against, individual churches, segregated White towns without any gangs, Black towns without any racists, towns without any homeless camps, tiny satellite cities that produce nothing but are not "menaced" by big cities or taxes, individual local-states that come to accurately or falsely believe they've reduced themselves to one Liberal-republican party and no longer worry about the other, clusters of minority subpopulations, the US Bill of Rights, clusters of religions that believe they only have freedom of religion because they all exist together and none of them stopped existing, the overall US empire as it exists in a state of not having wars on its immediate borders, clusters of First World countries that are friendly toward each other but get together to oppress Third-World countries and even more so any Second-World countries that exist as "aggressives" 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this. escape routes (schizoanalysis) + republic based on transition = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Moral vanguard theory is covering up the observation that, as it currently exists inside Liberal-republicanism, agorism is founded on the assumption that all bigotry is fundamentally normal and natural until the day clusters of people end up being compatible with each other rather than toxic to each other and then only after that spontaneously decide hating each other is not okay 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If it's bad to want a utopia then why is anybody allowed to desire an afterlife? -> really think about it. it's very common to criticize utopias in fiction and think "all of them are dystopias"; charcoal anarchists are some of the only people who don't think this way. so why doesn't everyone think that way about the bible? why doesn't everybody realize that if wanting a utopia is "wanting to get something the easy way" or "wanting to get something for nothing" then wanting a god to grant you heaven is literally exactly the same thing? you just have to believe and then you get something for nothing.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more upsetting than {{film|Drawn Together}} / The news is more upsetting than {{film|South Park}} -> today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em|choose}} to do, or does it not?

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618}}Stalin transitioned the {{TTS|USSR|Soviet Union}} backward / Stalin transitioned the Soviet Union backward from Trotskyism to Stalin's Marxism / Stalin took the Soviet Union backward through the stages of history because he did not understand that the Soviet Union was an instance of Trotskyism, Trotskyism is a stage {{em|after}} Stalin's Marxism, and seeking to build Stalin's Marxism while standing on Trotskyism can only result in the reversion of an instance of Trotskyism to a prior physical historical period, destroying Trotskyism; this is to imply but not state that Stalin is a counter-revolutionary just because he failed to understand Trotskyism as a material object and destroyed it -> trying to state what Trotskyists' argument is {{em|clearly}} through the language of meta-Marxism. 
I wish Trotskyists would just admit that the Trotskyite conspiracy happened. because if they did, they could point to this, and they could say, it doesn't matter if Stalin was defending Stalin's Marxism, the problem is Stalin wrecked Trotskyism, and that's why it had to be defended at all costs. Trotsky wrecking Stalin's Marxism is immaterial if Stalin was trying to build a worse version of Marxism over a better version of Marxism. when Liberal-republicans do that, it's counter-revolutionary, so when Stalin does it, it's also counter-revolutionary, no need to even start arguing about The Bureaucracy yet. meta-Marxists, {{em|you}} go build Stalin's Marxism in another country so it doesn't wreck Trotskyism, not the other way around. and I would say, that's a good point actually. maybe Stalin {{em|did}} accidentally transplant a Marxism meant for much more undeveloped countries to the Soviet Union. and maybe it's technically true that Stalin's Marxism vulgarizes really quickly into Dengism if you aren't watching it closely. is Stalin actually a Maoist? are Stalin and Mao actually Dengists? sometimes I just don't know any more.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kōans are really lightbulb jokes / Kōans become lightbulb jokes / Any philosophical kōan can be turned into a lightbulb joke with the addition of ideological factions -> How many roads must a man walk down? If he's a Liberal-republican, infinite, some of them going in circles. If he's a Communist, a finite number because he knows where he's going.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}How many roads must a man walk down?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A debate about gun control is actually a debate over which weapon to use / A debate about gun control is actually a debate about which weapon everyday people should prefer: guns or cops

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}If ancient Greece was a small civilization where did the slaves come from? -> the Roman empire makes logical sense to me. there were territories at the edge of Rome, it conquered them, it put them into the empire, it took slaves. but Greece had slaves too and where did those come from?

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Industry divisions thwart Armageddon / When society is divided into Butcher and Bookbinder it cannot divide into Us and Them / If society is divided qualitatively into industries, none of the divisions of people can be Good or Evil, and it must be that they will come to understand each other on a level that is universal -> implied assumption in agorism, and Liberal-republicanism. I think this was solidly falsified the moment humans invented generative AI. there's been a pretty solid consensus building that generative AI just is Evil and when it exists as an industry some industries are Evil, if that didn't already happen with the oil industry. what anarchists really really don't want to understand is that this discovery has horrifying implications for the philosophical foundations of anarchism. if people can be Good or Evil solely based on what their talents are, you can never guarantee that 'the totality of all non-aggressive activities not forbidden by The State' will ever get along rather than fighting each other and erupting into hierarchy or domination purely because people are determined for one decision to be made rather than another decision and to call that decision Good and the other decision Evil. that is the root of a lot of hierarchy if you ask me. but it's also unavoidable, because who's going to persuade anarchists to just tolerate all the stuff that they feel oppresses them? I think it's more realistic to admit that anarchism can contain domination and hierarchy and the claims it doesn't were lies, and just define anarchism around some other concept than Good and Bad — that includes "domination", "hierarchy", "decency", "respect", "disruption", "empathy", morality, ethics, "enchantment" (which turns into ethics in a couple seconds), "prejudices", and "White culture". the one completely nebulous thing they say that I am genuinely unsure whether they can or can't have is Freedom, because that has hundreds of definitions and I'm still not sure I understand what it is. so, yeah, {{em|maybe}} you can get away with defining anarchism as Freedom-ism and basing it on these long treatises of exactly how Freedom works descriptively with no prescriptive statements about it. I might not like it but at least I can't immediately tell you it's a dead theory. 
Industry divisions thwart Armageddon + Pokémon type chart = Arceus.

{{li|I=S1/MX/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}oppressive membership -> the concept of membership in a relationship or group of people being itself an axis of oppression which operates in a somewhat [[E:atomic process (one-step process)|atomic]] way such that it is completely inseparable from concepts of "hierarchy" or "domination" and those things cannot simply be removed without the relationship itself dissolving. 
oppressive membership + anarchism = anarculture. oppressive membership + The Bureaucracy (Trotskyism) / Stalinism (corruption) = political revolution in the USSR (Trotskyism).

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}Anarchism applies to any situation / Anarchism is a series of moral principles that can be applied in any historical situation -> sounds fine on the surface as a descriptive appraisal of anarchism, but gets really interesting when you remember that the Soviet Union and the conflict between Stalin's party and Trotsky's faction is "any situation". 
Anarchism is acting as if you're already free + Machiavellianism (feudal orders) = Anarchism applies to any situation.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|tradition=|Q=618}}If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube / If Fisherism is true, then every non-politician in China should ignore Chinese politics and make as many videos about United States politics as possible -> this would be for two reasons. 1) people in China are mostly safe from the U.S. government, so they are less likely to face consequences than people in the United States 2) if "creating media" is really so important to changing societal consciousness then most of China's government and politics is in the United States, so they need to change consciousness in the United States to change their government

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.
{{li|I=S1/DFy/ML|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em|is}} inevitable.

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}"Male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are different / In terms of the arts, "male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same thing in all contexts except among the craziest groups of proto-fascist Tories <s>[I promise to revise that on the Ontology: page]</s>, but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are actually different things to a greater extent than "U.S. culture" versus "Japanese culture" or "U.S. culture" versus "British culture"; national population does not affect culture products as greatly as the new and special forms of interaction and description of selves and world that take place within the particular kinds of semi-countable social groups that take part in "queer culture"; this is to imply but not state that "queer culture" carries its own worldview and political faction distinct from Liberal-republican politics -> 
male culture: Digimon Adventure. female culture: MLP gen 4. it's quite obvious what is what with kids' media when you have networks wanting to aim products at apparent differences between boys and girls to try to get more consistent sales, but even when you can point out a 'show for girls' and a 'show for boys' they are not actually that different if they're any good. hence all the bronies, hence that awkward space of women watching anime and trying to ignore the grossly exaggerated female silhouettes because nothing else about the show or game is especially bad. I think you also see this with things aimed at adults but it would be hard to think of an example where you get such a 'nice' region of awkward crossover. {{book|Dragonriders of Pern}} can be argued to be female culture I guess, but it's easy to forget that. then there's like, an argument to be made that {{book|Harry Potter}} is so misogynistic that it's male culture coming out of a woman — if it wasn't enough of an insult to accuse it of being such an 'uncool' book series as to be read by more moms and dads than kids — but it's also just within the range of 'teenage' enough that teenage girls can get obsessed with the male characters. 
so, male culture and female culture are very similar on basic levels. but "queer culture" is something different from either of them. you can really start to identify it the moment you see a furry visual novel with a plot that's "weirdly straight" — where some of the characters are stereotypes, or where the writing is okay but all the characters have totally depressing problems that make you wonder why you're reading a book right now and not just talking to the people around you that are the human equivalent of Twitter feeds, here assuming you also don't like Twitter. when these kinds of things are made "correctly", they have a very different feel. you see people being... idealistic? living in their own world, but not really in an upsetting way. they stop thinking about the outside world where everybody isn't of the same finite cluster of LGBT+ people and the atmosphere becomes very... specific to the people who are there. I want to say "insular" but that's more negative than what I actually mean. 
I think part of what I am saying is that LGBT+ circles tend to generate this consciousness of being a teeny village of people just because they are inherently limited to having only tiny clusters of people available, and because of this they sometimes also start believing that they inherently constitute some kind of "anarchist tribe" that must transition to anarchism because it will never contain enough people to spawn a Liberal-republican nation-state. the way different subpopulations in the United States get so separated really seems to mess with people's heads and cause people to see themselves as entirely separate stateless "nation-states" with separate histories, right down to subconsciously imagining whole trajectories of transition only for their own cluster of people of a particular identity and based on the exact number of people that are in it at the moment. it's funny how identities will take the notion of forms of society comically literally to the point a Marxist would scold them for reading historical materialism too closely, but then they will not even know they're doing it and try to deny that forms of society and social transitions are a thing and just try to tell you everybody needs to transition to anarchism because gay people exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Orange terrain is solid / Orange terrain is stable / Trotskyism is composed of fine-scale structures that are distinguished by their ability to stop parts of society from being overtaken and taken advantage of by The Bureaucracy; these structures may be referred to as "orange structures", although this only labels one specific function of the structures or process they contribute to and is not meant to be exclusive with the category of them being crimson structures / The dictatorship of the proletariat is an unbroken terrain of connected orange structures -> 
so apparently it's only when you look deep into what Trotskyists are claiming The Bureaucracy is that you finally start to understand what it is they're trying to create. they want one basic thing within any particular region, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat; the concept of international permanent revolution can actually be conceptualized as being emergent from this, because anything that keeps continuously defending outwardly red or orange countries from turning strawberry or blue and does appear in multiple nearby countries can link across the country regions so they can defend each other from encroaching bourgeois factions and form a Second World. this makes a lot more sense. the very first few times I read about Trotskyism I took it as this vaguely Idealist proclamation that things [[E:"I believe that everybody" statement|should have happened]] in other countries [[E:Monty Hall problem|that didn't happen]] and there "just should have" been international permanent revolution. but I now see it was more complicated than that. it's less that Trotskyists were upset Trotsky couldn't go to Germany and turn it orange and more that they were upset that the Third International seemingly refused to create a correct model of what happened in Germany, so they thought they had to tirelessly protect any region that really did have the potential to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, wherever it was, to keep The Bureaucracy from getting into it because the parties allied with Stalin were not safe from getting 'infiltrated' and slowly turning strawberry. the aim of trying to hold down a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat and prevent strawberry Marxisms from forming is respectable, given how many strange things strawberry Marxisms do on their best days ('corporations are productive forces', 'socialism is getting rid of poverty', party-approved listicles) and the few actually-awful things they do on their worst days (pre-emptively thinking rude people are reactionaries just because they're rude, battle between strawberry cops and Maoists buried inside resistances). historically speaking strawberry Marxisms are very similar to blue factions in that they slowly restore this dynamic of the most powerful people generating more power and keeping down the weakest people. I wouldn't blame anyone for acting like strawberry Marxisms simply aren't something to be messed with and are more something you want to stop at the root. as long as the people saying that are at least as Marxist as Stalin; anarchists really need to shut up and read enough stuff to learn how to do violet analysis before say anything on the topic of 'power multiplying'. if anarchists knew as much Marxism as the [[E:International Committee of the Fourth International|ICFI]] I would not be anywhere near as mad at them as I am and I would be more tolerant of proposals to create charcoal terrains that are supposed to serve the same function as orange terrains. I was in the beginning, but.... oh boy when anarchism only seems to generate more stupidity every day without ever getting better you quickly get tired of it

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Historically, Trotskyism has always been a "poly-" Marxism and there has never been a molecularized definition of Trotskyism (or any definition) which does not expect {{em|the process inside}} a particular country region to spill to the edge of the country effectively enough to end up creating connected blocs or federations of countries; the process of abolishing "owned country territories" and ruling classes along country borders and the process of defeating other versions of Marxism are not necessarily the direct causes of the "poly-" shape as much as consequences of it, and in fact, Trotskyism having a "poly-" shape is easily explained by processes inside each country region individually, namely a molecularized process of forming a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat which if successful joins multiple countries into a single potentially contiguous Second World region

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=LR, ES, A|Q=618}}Mothers have the power to abolish entire nationalities / When national populations do not base their strategy for development on government welfare programs they inherently treat households as an exploitable resource by making stay-at-home mothers or fathers or other relatives generate and perfect workers that will be exploited by cities to build modernity, therefore if rural parents were to stand up against society they could weaken the power of the oppressive apparatus inside nation-states and all its justifications for either it or a nation-state existing; this is to imply that nation-states are not entitled to calling households citizens just because people do daily activities inside their borders, but also that households are entitled to money from other households in the pool of people a nation-state has assigned them to almost as an apology for having to be part of a nation-state {{YouTube|eotvnm_UDek}} -> this came from an analysis I saw on China. it's clearly from a very Liberal-republican framework, considering the weird fixation on everyone in a country being entitled to all social programs that exist even if the limits on social programs are actually meant to stop urban poverty and stuff like U.S. cities full of homeless camps that ultimately result after too many people move to cities too fast. but the more you look at this statement the weirder it gets. Liberal-republicans will most of the time act like a particular republic existing is only natural and dismantling it would be craziness but at other times they'll act like the entire existence of nationalities is a game to them and everyone can just stop being Chinese at any time if they get tired of it. there is this weird anarchist undercurrent to all Liberal-republicanism which you see vaguely come up in theorists like Rousseau. but when you try to point out that it's there, Liberal-republicanism will generally try to deny it and act like all the people that say taxes are arbitrary constructs or they're 'sovereign citizens' are foreign material and weren't created by glitches in Liberal-republican theory itself. the one time people get bold about it and it becomes the most socially acceptable is when it's applied to other countries than the one people are currently in. tell people that the United States is a made-up game and they get upset and try to argue at you for hours that civil rights court cases that will get repealed tomorrow are objective truth, tell people China is a made-up game that can be broken up or remade from scratch and they'll simply nod.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES onto DX|Q=618}}China designing Deng Xiaoping Thought to suit the United States is pick-me behavior, and the true anti-pick-me move is for China to go back to Bolshevism -> I am so sick of the terrible contradiction between everyone in the United States saying that 'you shouldn't just be what society wants you to be to be convenient to them' and also acting like the pressure on entire Third World countries to be exactly what First World countries want is okay and normal. either people eventually become obligated to mask for others at some point {{em|as a matter of being ethical}}, or telling China it has to have a socioeconomic structure that the United States stamps as okay is "pick-me behavior", and there is no in-between on that question.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}China exporting too many products is exacerbating global tensions [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/21/qkaj-f21.html] -> why? why do you believe that? do you think you'll be able to get the people who made China structure itself based on exports because it was their 'free market right' to stop? you're waging a fight between United States capitalists that want to exploit Third World labor and United States capitalists that want to sell products, and for some reason you're waging it in China as if China had anything to do with it. China did what it was told. so at this point you may as well set up a ballot box for Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump in China and make the president of the United States partly based on what the people of China vote for. because it would make fully as much sense as this.

{{li|I=S2/DX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Jiang Zemin's "theory of three represents" declared that the business elite and emerging middle classes were the most advanced representatives of society, and were as much allies of the CPC as workers (ICFI) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/chin-d30.html]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}The French first republic lasted until the declaration of the first empire [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic] -> that is such an interesting sentence by itself, because it'd make you think that capitalism in France just erupted directly into global empire. I don't think it was that much of a straight line though.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Saying Jewish people outside Israel are obligated to support Israel is the real antisemitism -> Jewish people are one thing. Israelis are another. Germans are one thing. Nazis are another. this is not difficult. but for some reason the United States and all of its messaging and paid ads are determined to make this more difficult than it needs to be

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The major effect of spreading {{book|Settlers}} was to get people very upset about localized Black struggles that immediately affected them but to change nearly nobody's position on Palestine or attempting to use voting to save Palestine

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There are two major forms of imperialism: annexation (conquest) and primitive accumulation (frontier wars, apartheid states, "settler-colonialism", large-scale chunk competition)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ordinary people are confused by the fact that different groups of billionaires can believe entirely different things -> on one hand this is a good thing because people are vaguely understanding that being a billionaire pushes people toward particular forms of ideology. but on the other, it isn't good because people aren't understanding the [[E:material idea|concept]] of [[E:material contradiction|material contradictions]].

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}AI can be a threat, but it can't be useless / Billionaires will casually spread warnings about "the threat" of AI but they will not accept AI being referred to as "slop" -> actually good insight

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Identifying Edgeworth's dialectic identifies who you should vote for / So you would vote for the more neo lib candidate instead of the guy who changed his ways? (Liberal-republicanism)

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty / If you crudely define Socialism as an increasing exercise of "society-ism", then the correct action is to look at poor countries and decide that everyone who isn't currently provided for needs to defect to a different country as fast as possible, which is to say, needs to beg to be actively colonized by the border of a rich country in order to hopefully receive food; the people of Cuba absolutely need to be ruled by the Democratic Party per se, not even their own center-Liberal party / ({{9k|-0Vk8B3cNH8}}) -> it's funny how utterly insane the cluster of commonly-held beliefs U.S. people hold about the overall world sounds if you just say them out loud and combine them into one statement instead of compartmentalizing statements about each part of the world separately.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece -> I'm slightly afraid of what propositions would lead here. 
this proposition is a joke. I do not endorse it. 
A poor country means a bad, fake historical period that must be overthrown + debt in Greece = To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece. 
If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty + debt in Greece = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Political factions and communities are the same thing — all communities become political factions when the situation demands it, and all political factions are communities
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All communities are political factions / All countable cultures or socially-linked groups of people can function as Social-Philosophical Systems given the right situation -> I believed this because it neatly explains why Tories exist. by now, I'm not as eager to believe it, but it's still one of the sharpest replies to Bellegarrigue and easiest ways to start disproving him, so I can't quite let it go. all plurality brought on by social connections, culture, or identity has the potential to become political plurality if one group of people forces itself on another, thus there is no actual distinction between plural communities and plural formal governments. there can be physically plural anarchisms, and they can even have civil wars against each other. the concept of simply getting rid of plurality and getting rid of violence created by plurality by getting rid of The State is impossible.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All political factions are communities / All Social-Philosophical Systems are countable cultures

{{li|I=Z0/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Black defendant with all-White jury -> there are going to be some interesting combinations out of this one. generally combinations that make Liberal-republicanism look very bad. 
this + Liberal-republicanism is government by the people = Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is government by the people
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, A|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=|Q=618|submitter=StackExchange}}If gravity is zero at the center of the earth, then how did iron get there? [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-i] -> the answer says that part of the "error" here is that gravity is not a flat integer zero, it's a fence of 9.8 m/s^2 vectors pointing to all hemispheres of the planet. so iron can get in but it can't get out. some minerals drift down into the core if heavy elements are not bonded to other elements, but it's not as easy for minerals to drift back up. without being part of one big tectonic plate motion or something I guess.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition|Q=618}}Anarchism is everybody ruling everyone all the time {{YouTube|L68a6mIP09E}} -> this is.... not wrong. it came out of somebody who clearly doesn't understand anything but like, it isn't wrong. it's seemingly how a lot of recent anarchism has worked. it's backhandedly true.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition|Q=618}}Hierarchy is weak {{YouTube|CZ-FRyUZ3ok}} -> okay, but what happens when you break it open leaving an empty gap? is war strong? it must be, because it's completely unreasonable on any terms but its own and pretty hard for a small group of anarchists to stop. anarchists love reaction. they love letting anything that's too violent or dangerous for them to defeat just exist. just read Rothenberg's book where 'fascism' is treated as the only real problem but also practically raised to the level of human nature. but they'll turn around and attack things that are too weak to defend themselves against anarchism in an instant just because those things did a couple things they didn't like. this is my question: what will anarchism to do if something {{em|is anarchism}} but does something anarchism doesn't like? attack it and destroy it like anything else? how can you actually be sure that anarchism is a peaceful philosophy and not just one that will end up fighting itself for the rest of time?

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}The United States military is a neutral force within the world because it changes consciousness (anarchism) {{YouTube|LZiT3FgFqA4}} {{YouTube|sMoTWFZjoYA}} / I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong {{YouTube|FCJxf9bq1IU}} -> this is the consequence of unchecked Western-Marxism and letting people think Marxism is about actions that ""change consciousness"" rather than digging through the 'consciousness process' to uncover what structures people can be part of to gain better consciousness and how the sharpest people can start arranging [[E:arrangement of proletarians (meta-Marxism)|empowering structures]] that can [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|create]] or [[E:revolutionary lattice period|defend]] those structures regardless of what other people already notice. the difference between Althusser and Stalin is that Althusser lets you go to imperialist war to learn a lesson purely to not be a Dictator and tell you what to think before you actually learn your lesson firsthand.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong -> my brain was searching trying to think of what this made me think of and then I suddenly realized what it was. it was the MLP song. "I used to wonder what friendship could be..." that's it. like, that show embodies how Liberal-republicanism thinks of "consciousness", and this is the ultimate result of that overall kind of thinking.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}There is nothing wrong with hierarchy -> one of those propositions that's here to be the shocking result of combinations of bad propositions. 
this proposition isn't {{em|obviously}} incorrect, it's somewhat complex actually, but there are enough situations where it's wrong that in this form it would be false.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto LR, IV onto HM|Q=618}}Habermasian history is not a dialectical form of analysis because it does not understand how contradictory interactions or antagonisms rebuild the greater whole and prevent effective reforms / fundamental aspects of a society cannot simply be removed one at a time ... racism cannot be legislated out of capitalism [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> perfectly on the mark. this is what you tell them. 
the one thing you have to look out for, though: schizoanalysts trying to claim that because they included every contradictory minority at once that they've created a model which is 'actually dialectical'.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The human mind cannot become fully conscious of itself until bourgeois society is abolished, which ultimately stamps all non-proletarian philosophy as metaphysical and unscientific (Untermann 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen (Leigh 2024) [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}second-order anarchism -> the motif of someone who finds almost all forms of anarchism actually observed in the real world too specific and divisive to unite people and rebels against anarchism in order to achieve the greater goal of breaking everybody out of competing factions such as Communism versus anarchism and unifying them. this is the only kind of anarchism you could ever get me to believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}If you achieve degrowth through people of different industries periodically fighting each other and destroying each other's machines, then you've achieved degrowth {{YouTube|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> my objection to this isn't a moral one, because I don't believe morality or ethics is real. but I have an aversion to things that don't make any coherent sense. what about this makes sense? when does society know that the goal has been achieved? at what point does the process stop? is it possible for this process to extend into more abstract industries like academia or the arts, and somehow just, end up with people doing everything they can to suppress a paper or something, I don't know? what would people do to suppress pharmaceutical companies over-prescribing drugs? from what I know about anarchists, they draw the line at actually keeping people from receiving anti-depressants and hormones, so they can't stop drug production, even though it's the thing that's sold for money.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}turtles all the way down (motif)

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}botched neopets TTRPG {{YouTube|lirIV57wI34}} {{YouTube|TIxaATMBnvk}} {{YouTube|iYjUzlyEtkw}} -> it often feels like dumb headlines like these give you more insight into what kinds of class structures exist than an actual economics textbook. 
neopets exists. neopets scouts out contractor corporation. contractor corporation hires further contractors that are new at the task. there are no stable structures here; it's turtles all the way down.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Empire is always regenerating / Primitive accumulation keeps happening / Primitive accumulation is always happening -> otherwise it's hard to explain the Cold War and the way the overall concept has continued on and on more like a freezer that first set itself up and then continually circulated heat out.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ethics is the shovel dream of primitive accumulation -> think about it. most 'fitting actions' anarchists want you to do require people to have wealth first, or privilege as a whole society over other societies. create pieces of a 'community' for fun? you have to have all the money and privilege to have learned to do it correctly so your output isn't trash, or everyone will make fun of you and maybe call you immoral, potentially including the anarchists. distribute goods to people of questionable origin? you have to be White so you don't get immediately shot, and somebody first had to besiege Third World countries and make them have exactly the right government and level of wealth to both produce well and pay nothing in order for there to be enough abundance to be at the level where anarchists can claim 'distributing it' is the only problem. 
ethics itself is colonial in that without the creation of an empire you can't go on the continuing journey of people becoming 'more and more' ethical. you have to have that slump first where a huge atrocity is committed and then people progressively learn about it and apologize. a world without atrocities genuinely might not need morality or ethics at all. it might be a wholly amoral world. and the fact people are even talking about ethics may signal either that they're defending something awful, or that they aren't as good of people as they believe they are. 
why is it that anarchists always want to imagine everything perfect but it never occurs to them that a world in an original perfect state might not even have ethics.

{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618}}Plato was the only Greek / Plato was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece (observation on {{film|Chip Chilla}}) {{YouTube|x6IZm3lf50s}} / Aristotle was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece -> good catch! it's rather remarkable how, there were particular classes within ancient Greek society that could be at least vaguely separated out by layer, and almost everybody loves to act like the upper classes were the only class to exist. in reality, it appears that the upper classes and lower classes had different positions on topics like whether Greek gods were real. there was more than one body of ideology in ancient Greece, at least along the division of how educated people were if nothing else, and we don't usually talk about the interactions between those {{em|different}} bodies of ideology.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I {{em|know}} the Asriel plot thread is not that good, but everyone likes it. am I wrong or is everybody else right {{YouTube|ECa4_RWtoHY}} -> I couldn't tell you the answer to the question but I do know this is an interesting motif

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}Japanese culture (essence) / Japanese culture as essence of Japaneseness -> I used to think this concept made some sort of sense before I was an adult but now I don't think it makes any sense.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}Distinguishing countries by "culture" others them (Marxism, Trotskyism)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black vice -> this is how.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black virtue -> this is more how a lot of characterizations of "Japanese culture" or "animist beliefs" work, casually implying that something can both inherently be of a particular "culture" and also be virtuous by having started from that.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}sugar, spice, and everything nice -> Idealism/essentialism in a fairy tale type context.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature — not in the unique sense which has gotten the label that exists within society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature, because it can only exist {{em|within}} sociality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty exists due to greater or lower social bonds
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism, because Idealism cannot change the process of which people are socially compatible and develop stronger social bonds creating high-ranking individuals and marginalized individuals

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}The sun must rise (astronomy) -> I wrote this one down vaguely within context of eucatastrophe and the arguments that it is "realistic".

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Never debate Item names / Do not argue about Item names, given that all Items can have multiple aliases or outward sense labels, and you can debate which concepts belong in each numbered entry within Talk pages

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}Job as Communist antihero / Job as Communist hero -> think about it. he is told to do something and then he turns away from it and bad things keep happening and he keeps getting these reminders of the thing he was supposed to do, that bad things keep happening if he doesn't start doing. begins to remind me of Trotskyists repeatedly talking about crises and despite the claims the crises will lead to something being a little laughable correctly pointing out that none of it will get better if people do nothing. 
Q51,31 Job sounds like job + Christian devotional about Ted = Job as Communist antihero. 
Job sounds like job + Trotskyists obsessing about crises = Job as Communist antihero.

{{li|I=M3/MX/LR|Q=618}}What action taken by cops would be bad enough to actually get society to abolish them? / cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos ([[E:12,1,09|generic]]) -> I was thinking about qualified immunity and how absurdly it's been pushed to include cops getting to do anything that has no precedent and then after my brain churned a bit I was like... wait, {{em|anything}}? so if I pointed to a really messed up video of an anthro cat removing somebody's eyeballs, like, is it true that absolute serial killer shit wouldn't get us to abolish the police, and our society really thinks anything you do behind a cop's badge is okay. 
what if people signed up to a police department and became cops and then they burned down a billionaire's building? would they even get fired? what if a cop assassinated the president? would everything still go on the same as it was? what if a cop went to an immigrant prison and busted the place open and let them out? what if a cop distributed a bunch of illegal copies of a movie? what if a cop hid in a mascot costume and killed several kids at a pizza restaurant? what if a cop killed every single other cop in the state? what if a cop lied under oath? what if a cop shredded every single election ballot, and when there was another attempt to have an election, it happened again? what if a cop cut power to a hospital? what if a cop disrupted the mail? what if a cop somehow confiscated people's tax money and spent it so the government couldn't have it? what if a cop made a statement glorifying Vladimir Putin and Russia invading Ukraine? what if a police department went on strike for Palestine? is that literally the only thing a cop can get fired for? if every cop everywhere went on strike for Palestine would the United States have to abolish the police? 
I bet at least half of the weird scenarios I could think of absolutely wouldn't change anything no matter how strange or how horrific the thing that happened actually was. 
I really, genuinely wonder what it would take to end qualified immunity, and how outrageous the action taken by the cop would actually have to be. 
qualified immunity (United States) + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}failed attempt at anti-essentialism / failed attempt to apply anti-essentialism -> I get really tired of the Ideals + anti-essentialism model of reality because I totally know it is not actually modeling what's real and there are going to be a lot of cases where it simply fails that nobody bothers to talk about. 
this + ?? = Not All Men.
{{li|I=S1/LR/ML|Q=618}}successful application of anti-essentialism denied by Liberal-republicans -> there's this category of statements too.

{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not every house cat is an obligate carnivore -> example where going against an overgeneralization could be harmful.
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone will learn tolerance from media representation -> sad but probably true.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Not every country should practice Liberal-republicanism -> it'll make everyone mad but that alone doesn't make it false.
{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone should vote for Joe Biden (2020) -> hypothetically possible but will make people mad.

{{li|I=F2/HAS|Q=618}}My dog is the only one / My dog is the only dog ever / My dog is the only thing that anyone calls a dog [https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/psych/glossary/undergeneralization/] -> example given to illustrate children failing to learn to generalize words beyond specific examples. one attested use of the term "undergeneralization".

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood 
When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization ... + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes represent international war / Superheroes largely started as a vague depiction of international war -> see: Superman punching Hitler, [https://screenrant.com/superman-first-hero-to-beat-up-hitler-not-captain-america/] Ultraman as representation of Soviet occupations
{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes appear spontaneously and unpredictably because they are a representation of the anhierarchic conditions of large-scale international politics in which war can never truly be regulated and whenever war begins the only thing that can counter it is war completing itself from the other side 
Superheroes represent international war + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If there are no grand narratives that stretch across the world, then it is impossible to tell Alexander Dugin that Russians can't just go kill Ukrainians because that's what they want to do that week and it makes them happy -> without Marxism, the statement that the world shouldn't have international wars or that countries should be "orderly" is nothing more than a narrative, so everyone is free to reject it. ethics is just a narrative. "international law" is just a narrative. suddenly the notion that narratives can't possibly reach around the world and become universal isn't sounding so good any more, is it?

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}In 1949, [[E:the real Chinese people|the real Chinese people]] were the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (Mao) [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm] 
China's conditions are exceptional + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}China's conditions are exceptional / Chinese exceptionalism (history) / China's history is exceptional / China's historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value -> this proposition has a very interesting relationship with the concept of country characteristics. many people will falsely go claiming that this {{em|is}} what country characteristics are, although in many cases it will simply not be true.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}U.S. conditions are exceptional / American exceptionalism (history) / The United States' historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Stalin intentionally created strawberry capitalism in order to get more allies in countries without a fully-developed capitalism [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peoples-republic] -> so in a way Trotskyists are accusing Stalin of having invented the primary phase of development / primary phase of "socialism". 
you know, having a "socialism" constructed over the top of your country for international geopolitical reasons and then living in that for years having to make sense of it is one of the few reasons it would make logical sense for China to bend over backwards to justify strawberry capitalism as "definitely socialism, actually". 
edit: the bot [[redlink - ICFI prompts|told me]] this theory was bogus. which really makes me wonder which party wrote this glossary, because apparently it was not the ICFI.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}bracketing in meta-Marxism / downreductionism in meta-Marxism / reductionism in meta-Marxism (referring to a process that does not remove outgoing interactions and antagonisms) / meta-Marxism and bracketing smaller areas of a larger system of interacting parts to better understand the outgoing interactions and antagonisms of a particular piece
upreductionism in meta-Marxism / meta-Marxism and reconstruction of larger systems or events by combining smaller parts into a whole

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}finding Marxism in {{film|Bee Movie}} {{YouTube|q_agS0hDMvc}} -> yeah, this {{em|is}} inherently funny due to the example fictional work already having meme status. but that doesn't make the concept bad. 
there's nothing wrong with people trying to do Marxist breakdowns of the elements or themes that make up popular media. not even if the popular work is superficial "slop". and you know why? the more popular something is the cheaper it gets to buy after a few years once people start donating it to thrift stores. if you manage to take a really popular work, however bad, and turn it into a teaching tool with a well known meaning, you've created really cheap propaganda that you don't need party organizers to distribute, that will keep getting spread around no matter how many party members get caught, and that will be harder to ban because the bourgeoisie created it and it wasn't created by a group of people easy to strategically label as "an invading foreign country". of all the things Western Marxists do, this is actually one of the smartest ones. because if Gramscians go into academia or movie studios and [[E:|take up job slots]], it doesn't make that big an impact on who can actually make decisions in industries or who can strike, but if you manage to change the use of an existing product then you've somewhat undone the ability of the corporations that made it to make decisions about what will be produced and what everyone is and isn't allowed to think before everybody else can.

{{li|I=S1/MX/ML|Q=618}}revolutionary lattice period / permanent revolution (meta-Marxism onto Stalin's Marxism) -> the motif of a historical era of physical events where people are linking horizontally to get through a battle against an initial bourgeois class rule or at the very least linking into a Lattice to form a nationwide party which will create a workers' state. the revolutionary lattice period ends when a workers' state is created, and it's significant because it allows for a very concrete mathematical definition of "Leninism" using graph theory. approximately synonymous with "permanent revolution", assuming you are not a Trotskyist. Trotskyists could still use this model to describe the creation of an orange party, but for them this is not permanent revolution at all because "[[E:international permanent revolution|permanent revolution]]" is the long setup period for creating a powerful Communist International that would in theory be able to stop imperialism and international wars.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Careers hold no life lessons / {{TTS|Careers*|Careers|title=* Specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training}} cannot teach life lessons / Because all specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training are incapable of seeing anything outside the system they operate in, no statement about "life in general for the human Subject" which a person put together as a statement as a guide to doing their career in the process of doing their career should be held up as The Truth; this includes the careers of David Graeber, Rebecca Sugar, Slavoj Žižek, Carl Sagan, Dinesh D'Souza, and Donald Trump, and it includes the careers of Stalin and Trotsky -> I don't really have to include Mao in that because he came from the peasantry and had a bunch of statements about not 'worshiping' books or theorists (those seem to multiply every time there's a new Marxist republic although nobody heeds them.) so I think he's in the clear, but Stalin and Trotsky on the other hand had cast all sorts of aspersions on each other about being bureaucrats, leading everybody outside the Soviet Union to believe they both were.

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}spontaneous explanation for Trotskyism / contingent explanation for Trotskyism / group-psychological explanation for Trotskyism -> a "spontaneous" explanation for Trotskyism is an attempt to explain the history of Trotskyism which focuses on the causes of individual events and why people might have formed into these events on the day they happened, in the moment. 
these might include: Trotskyists getting expelled from the CPSU was psychologically traumatic or at least not predicted by their theoretical models, people continue to found Trotskyist parties because they identify with the psychological trauma of early Trotskyism and pick it up and advocate about it as a sort of generational trauma they feel is unresolved and waiting for justice, incompatibility between Trotskyist factions and mainstream Marxist-Leninist factions for various reasons created and still creates physical antagonisms between the parties leading them to want to form separate "countries" or civilizations (that last one is easily phrased in terms of dialectical materialism and has no need for a single 'inciting incident').

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}theoretical explanation for Trotskyism / explanation for Trotskyism based on analysis of internal theoretical models used by Trotskyist groups and exactly what historical processes and class interactions or horizontal antagonisms are being claimed inside said theories -> for the longest time I had a hard time finding any of these because of how so much of what Trotskyists say is just lies. I found it a lot easier to analyze their claims once they came out with an LLM and like, I was finally able to make that thing behave like the only Trotskyist that didn't lie for a few minutes at a time (before it started blatantly lying again and going on about 'the Stalinist bureaucracy').

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why invade Cuba? (2026) / If Cuba is not an exclusive republic, why is the United States so dead-set on creating a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over it?

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Cuba to Trump: warning, war causes war [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419]

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump's demands for Cuba (2026) / these included a two-week deadline to release high-profile political prisoners, implement sweeping market reforms, expand the private sector and attract foreign investment [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/21/mgaz-a21.html] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419] -> I'd mark this brown except that these are the most capitalist demands I've seen in a while

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Alabama redistricting ruling (2026) [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-order-requiring-majority-black-district-in-alabama-6024323] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/democrats-ask-us-supreme-court-to-stay-virginia-supreme-court-ruling-invalidating-voter-approved-election-map-6024209]

{{li|I=S2/MX/JC/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung got help from other countries / Kim Il-sung got help from Communist youth organizations in Manchuria and educators in the Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet army [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kim-Il-Sung] -> that is a shocking revelation. if you know much about North Korea and what its values are now you never expect that the story of North Korea would start with this. 
why have I never heard Trotskyists saying this. it's like, the thing they should be pointing out about North Korea. I think it's always the existence of the Soviet army that bothers them. which is so odd and ironic when Trotsky is one of the figureheads of "orange Leninism" and where did he start out? gosh, to live in a world where Trotsky had been every bit as effective at holding down the Second World as Kim Il-sung. with this information that analogy only gets better.

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}How will the Communist Party prevent {{book|Animal Farm}}? -> a question that's annoying but worth answering.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}} / You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}}, because secular animism gives you an imperative to protect the animals from getting eaten, while {{book|Animal Farm}} implies that it doesn't matter what happens to them if they have an inferior culture containing [[E:inherently dominating idea (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideas]] -> there is a particular history of people forgetting {{book|Animal Farm}} had anything to do with Communism and taking it literally because they didn't read the book; in particular, this "interpretation" emerged out of the shadows and became famous when it was used to market capitalist products. {{book|Animal Farm}} being co-opted by vegetarians might seem a little obnoxious at first, but honestly? I think these people could become heroes. and here's why. {{book|Animal Farm}}, being an allegory, was meant to be read as a bit of a metaphor, but vegetarians with no knowledge of Communism took what they knew of the book and interpreted it literally. compared with a lot of methods used in the humanities (in particular in the arts; the situation could be a little better in fields like anthropology), taking things literally is inherently closer to Materialism and thus inherently closer to Marxism. if one were to deliberately analyze {{book|Animal Farm}} as if the animals were literally animals and not the Soviet Union, it would come across as the terribly inhumane and un-humanitarian narrative it really is. I mean, just think about it. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to kill a house cat a lot of people would find that concept disturbing. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to take self-determination away from a group of animals trying to save themselves from quite literally being chopped up and eaten if a population of people had power over them, that concept should be equally disturbing — if somebody wanted to cook and eat Russians just for being Russian almost everybody would consider that a severe human rights violation. and the ending for the Soviet Union was vastly worse than the ending of {{book|Animal Farm}}. the book was way too generous, when the reality was that things went back to the way they were before — if what had been going on before was Russians getting eaten, well, that would be happening again. if that were the universe we lived in you couldn't really blame Russians for going a little crazy and launching wars on neighboring countries; if that is the only way for them to have power and the United States not to have power which is "permitted", of course they're going to take the option where they don't get eaten, no matter how evil that option is. 
Animals kill others to survive. most animals in nature don't experience their survival being threatened constantly; in a normal situation the predator or rival patriarch or matriarch usually walks away at some point if they stand their ground long enough. but nation-states are very different because there's never anywhere to run off to permanently. if a conflict begins and the aggressor has no actual incentive to stop it's going to keep going until somebody starts killing people. it's just going to keep going until wars cull enough people (potentially millions and millions) that "the space to run away in" is at some semblance of being restored. because a society is just a lot of Animals standing together like they were one Animal, and societies threaten each other as wholes, but when a threat refuses to go away, Animals kill. anarchists cannot get away from this. they keep trying to assert that a world with too many people in it having wars "isn't necessary" and "there's no need to apply Malthusianism" but no matter what, their theories cannot [[E:existential materialism|explain what generates]] the actual observed behavior of Russians. the longer anarchists try to assert that indigenous ways of life 'were kinder on the earth' and 'were less violent', the longer real-world populations will attempt to kill millions and millions of people until the world literally has the maximum number of human individuals it did when human populations were mostly tribes. the actual material transition to a world where everyone is predisposed to believe secular animism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's rational for Russians to start wars and kill people if they will never be granted self-determination on the basis of a system where they try to help every Ukrainian and not start wars -> to correctly parse this proposition you have to understand that what is rational and what is ethical are not the same thing, contrary to what Kant says. 
this also doesn't mean that you can assert that 'getting rid of reason' will solve the problem, given that things that are 'rational' in this sense are rational precisely in the sense that they contain a specific [[E:causal logic (logical model of material causation)|sequence of causations]] and happen whether you want them to or not. 
Imperialism is the actual end of history + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Native Americans are capable of genocide / Inasmuch as indigenous populations are human, they are hypothetically capable of coming up with and practicing [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideologies]] that lead to large populational-scale numbers of people dying because other particular groups of people decide that they should die -> we really need to wake people up to the fact that a genocide can consist of five billion people equally drawn from all ethnic groups as opposed to a billion people of one specific ethnic group or nationality, in terms of whether a particular person's ideology can be ""inherently dominating"" enough to inherently lead to killing ten million people. if anybody in the world gets to keep calling a famine in Ukraine a genocide, then there are scenarios where advocating secular animism could itself be advocating for genocide, because it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than that. if everybody would stop saying that about Ukraine, I might consider dropping this.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Stalin's government committed genocide in Ukraine {{em|because}} they killed people using [[E:hierarchy (anarchism)|hierarchy]], and whenever a form of hierarchy is used that leads to a lot of people dying, that form of hierarchy is an [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideology]], and it is morally wrong to allow people to construct that form of hierarchy to any extent and morally right to tear it apart at every scale possible however small as soon as possible -> the best argument I can think of that the famine in Ukraine {{em|was}} a genocide. no, it's {{em|not}} very good. but at least it's logical enough to start analyzing, unlike a lot of things anarchists say. 
this.... is how a lot of people conceptualize the French Revolution, I think. ...oh god, that explains a lot. it even kind of explains where [[E:Menshevism (1900s)|Menshevism]] came from. the logic behind Menshevism is basically one that inherently dominating ideas merely need to be stopped. all Idealism is somewhat similar and there is a big overlap in Idealism between anarchism, Menshevism, Yaroshenkoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Western-Marxism. while mainstream Marxism-Leninism is nearly the only philosophy ever to state that people don't actually decide what ideas to believe, and that they are always simply handed ideas at the populational scale rather than a population actually having a mind of its own and actually being able to think. that's the sense in which BlackPantherism is quite respectable, to say that Black people among other ethnicities get ideas from their current conditions {{em|is}} a Materialist philosophy. one remaining question is whether Trotskyism falls into the trap of Idealist revolution or whether it genuinely is a Materialist revolution. I've always analyzed Trotskyism by taking individual Trotskyists or groups and modeling them through Materialist concepts of revolution, but my conclusions often don't sound much like their conclusions. they always talk like Stalin could have chosen not to do "Stalinism" so I don't know. 
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy + Stalin's government killed Ukrainian farmers = this.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A, DX, LR, ES|Q=618}}Idealist revolution / destroy the idea that ... (generic; popular-culture expression of an Idealist campaign to slay [[E:inherently dominating ideology (anarchism)|dominating ideas]]) -> it took me a long time to put this concept into words, but yeah, I think the real problem with anarchism is that it is defining the concept of revolution based on Idealism. there seems to be a whole concept of an Idealist revolution where people think that if you can slay an "inherently dominating idea" that drives a population on a conceptual level, you can change one historical period into another historical period. now, to use some technical language, this is some unscientific SCP-report plotline {{censor|bullshit}}.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=|Q=618}}thoughtcrime (anarchism) -> the motif of anarchists banning ideas in order to prevent harmful forms of society from being created whether those forms of society are really actually harmful or not, and punishing people for spreading what are actually neutral ideas. 
you can't deny it, in actually asserting that all bad behavior starts at ideas and all change starts at prohibiting ideas, anarchism comes way closer to doing this than Communism.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy / The act of handing money to someone is in and of itself a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|spatial slot hierarchy]] because it is an act of deciding whether someone is good enough to do a task -> this claim would probably sound much stupider if it was coming out of an anarchist, but fortunately "hierarchy" isn't a big hang-up for me as much as a prosaic statement describing what kind of process is happening. 
that said, this is the thing you need to toss at anarchists who claim that hierarchy and expertise are different things. they really aren't. since the start of Liberal-republicanism expertise has generally been the source of almost all hierarchy. 
I feel like anarchists have shifted to saying "domination" largely so that when they mention "hierarchy" they don't sound as stupid. of course, it doesn't really help given that it's become so abstract that it's unclear what on earth it's even referring to.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}X and X's brother / X and X's sister / Trotsky and Trotsky's brother (Animal Farm) / Rock and Rock's brother (Megaman exe) -> the motif of fictional stories taking a historical figure or previous fictional character in another continuity and creating a narrative parallel to them but then unexpectedly adding a sibling who actually does something and changes the story even if in a small way.

{{li|I=S1/HAS/Fy|Q=618}}gender roles in fairy tales -> I just started thinking about this suddenly today because I was trying to think if the concepts of "brother" and "sister" have different connotations in folklore, and then I started thinking about how weirdly often all the more negative characters in fairy tales are female. the wicked stepmother, the witch, maybe the wicked step{{em|sisters}}. but the male characters are often more neutral. kings and princes and medieval artisan type people all just have kind of a neutral presence or sometimes positive. there are some exceptions like 'the fairy godmother' that will be a positive influence. 
I.... don't know what the scope of this entry is because I'm not an expert in the humanities. I think it covers European fairy tales and probably through Eastern Europe into the rest of Asia but I don't really know what the division between "a fairy tale" and "a folktale" is, to me they're kind of the same thing. some people consider "Aladdin" to be broadly in the scope of fairy tales because there is a magic artifact or magic servant character that isn't so different from the fairy godmother. but that extends the geographical range of fairy tales quite a bit. what's the difference between a fairy tale and just a legend that people don't necessarily think is true? I think there's a clear difference between a fairy tale and a "myth" in that myths are religious stories from an ancient time of local gods, and fairy tales are about 'smaller' magical things that sort of just hide themselves in tiny places and cause mischief — "fae" sums up the concept of where fairy tales get their fantastical elements pretty well, you're thinking of a character that is usually pretty small and missable but can also be very powerful, could be the fairy godmother, could be a leprechaun. but I'm pretty confused on the difference between a fairy tale, a folktale, and a legend, because legends can have dragons in them; they don't have to be "historical".

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}belief (utilization) / believing in (utilizing) / I believe in solving math problems with lambda calculus / I believe in pomodoro timers -> a definition of "belief" which is one of the very few sensible ways to define the phrase "believing in Marxism". 
I think it's arguable that this definition doesn't apply to ideologies like Christianity, or even to a lot of secular systems of ethics; ethics is a potentially wrong descriptive model of reality pretending to be a technique. but, on the bright side, this motif does provide a lot of context for why people like to claim Communism "doesn't work". you could easily say "pomodoro timers don't work!" but if you aren't versed in how people actually use them and the exact conditions where people claim they do work versus what specific kinds of conditions lead them to fail, then you wouldn't necessarily be making a true accusation. at the same time, if you {{em|did}} claim "Pomodoro timers work!" without knowing how to use them, you also might not be making a true claim. that's why the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism has been so hard to resolve. out of the very limited number of people in the world who knew how to use Marxism at the time, or that do now, not all of those people genuinely understand how it's currently being used. and it's all downhill from there, because as you get further away from them, ordinary people only know less and less. 
you really do learn a lot more about Marxism itself by examining Trotskyist attacks on Marxism than you do by examining a lot of attacks on Marxism inside Liberal-republicanism. and in that, I think they actually have a counter-intuitive effect on consciousness in the grand scheme of things where depending on the specific issue them making errors may be less harmful than them not being there. not {{em|better}} precisely, yet definitely {{em|less bad}}.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}so mr. errors wants me to correct my errors -> what the early history of Trotskyism always feels like 
now to be perfectly fair to them, there are reasons this can {{em|apparently}} happen without being an actual mistake — Marxists speak of new forms of structure coming in and getting rid of old contradictions but bringing in new ones. I think this is how a lot of things they say happen to function.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}tall, dark, and handsome [https://usdictionary.com/idioms/tall-dark-and-handsome/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3x6bco/in_the_phrase_tall_dark_and_handsome_what_exactly/] / tenebrous (attractive) -> I have seen this explained either as the person literally having dark hair or the person being mysterious (tenebrous). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ténébreux] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrae#Latin] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrous#English] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrize#English] for the purposes of analyzing the word "dark" I'm going to take the latter 
sidenote: the pictures you get when you search {{i|ténébreux}} are so funny, you get like a dude with a cloak, you get {{censor|fucking}} Ezio or Boromir. fantasy stories are very good at portraying this concept apparently. one of the only "modern" stories I can think of off the top of my head that goes there is when Ace Attorney introduced Godot. whether anyone thinks he's attractive I have no idea but he absolutely is trying way too hard to have a mysterious overcast disposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Goku is a bourgeois distortion / Goku is a bourgeois distortion of Buddhism / Goku's character concept is centered around the notion that finding or seeking enlightenment makes you more physically powerful; in the original {{book|Journey to the West}} narrative, this was supposed to be the monkey king's vulgar misunderstanding of Buddhism which ultimately got him sealed under a mountain; within {{book|Dragon Ball}} Goku can be said to represent crude bourgeois materialism as seen in Feuerbach — the major theme quickly established in {{book|Dragon Ball}} is that the world is physical and does what it wants as opposed to what you want it to do, but that this is partly because the world is in some abstract way "modern", and dotted with cities and corporations and most notably the influence of scientific insight and technology; in this sense, Goku is not the {{book|Journey to the West}} character Sun Wukong because while Sun Wukong represents ancient empires, he represents the rise of early capitalism and the ways in which capitalism both correctly and wrongly substituted morality for power going into the hands of those who desire change the hardest and become materially powerful enough to take power and [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic|fight off]] the people they wish would change -> 
this sounds weirdly like I'm on the side of Buddhism over early capitalism. I'm not. I'm just very tired of capitalism acting like it's fully justified to keep power over everything and prevent anything else that would happen after it from forming just because it's better than ancient imperial monarchies. 
if Hegel had known what an "end of history" was, he would have believed that monarchy and feudal orders were the end of history. and now Fukuyama thinks he's not as wrong as Hegel when he does the same thing. honestly... right down to even that thing where you claim a bunch of abstract ideas led to a material system yet were the only possible train of conclusions. capitalist theorists and Kantians are almost exactly just the Hegel of capitalism.

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}Daniel Snowberg, the perfect whistleblower [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/whistleblowers-dont-need-elite-credentials-help-protect-us-government-overreach] -> so, there had been this other blog where I think someone was calling out Ed Snowden for having 'done things wrong' and made up this fake story about Daniel Snowberg to show how he should have done it correctly. and the EFF wasn't having any of it because they knew the realities of real movements don't necessarily look like what you want them to be. 
also... funny story, when messing around with writing fiction and trying to throw Snowberg into a dystopia this had caused Valenoern to accidentally reinvent Trotskyism. but that takes a while to explain, and is a story for another day. to keep things short, they really did not know anything about the history of socialism or what Menshevism or Bolshevism were, they just sort of, created a character in the vein of "Emmanuel Goldstein" (that's just an example) from abstract concepts but didn't know that in the case of 1984 that was Trotsky, and so they reinvented Trotskyism. we've had a lot of fun with anticommunist fables and finding Trotsky in them since then.

{{li|I=S1/MX/MD|class=field_mdem field_14quarters|Q=618}}vermilion international / scarlet international / vermilion Marxism (as Communist International) -> the motif of a Communist international that combines mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism to ultimately form some kind of single global era of socialism. Trotskyists think this can't exist, and have said so rather clearly — what they generally want is to smash all crimson Communist parties and replace them with orange ones.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Videos are the new leaflets (booklets; pamphlets; etc) {{YouTube|bKq-iip4LXs}} / Videos have replaced leaflets -> I remember this coming up in videos on multiple YouTube channels but I don't remember which videos right now 
I wouldn't disagree with this, although... I think there are a few interesting things to note about it. for one, the environment of online videos gives Trotskyists a bizarrely huge advantage because they can all post videos from different countries and make it look like Trotskyism is a lot more omnipresent in any particular country than it really is, as well as like it's a long-standing philosophical tradition (technically not false) which is as rich as mainstream Marxism-Leninism is. online videos make it weirdly easy to "astroturf" the appearance of movements happening more intensely or widely than they actually are.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality; news outlets sell the service of empirical encounters with material reality -> this is the only satisfactory explanation I can find for the way United States people will utterly deny things as a possibility {{caps|until}} they show up in a news article and then suddenly they're "real" and omnipresent and worrying and perhaps scary.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Free Software movement needs a theory of state businesses if it is ever to succeed; it needs a theory of how it is that products and production structures become part of public space and become impossible for individuals to control or 'retract' as opposed to saying that individuals just 'ought to' continually choose to put things in the public space within the space of individual choices and interactions 
methodological individualism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}I'm not here to educate you / It's not my job to educate you (statement that minority groups do not have to explain oppression) -> I don't think you can treat this statement as generally true. funny story, I've been picking up books on Native American history when I go to used book sales, and like, these claim to be educational, but you open them up, and the last one I was reading was treating the tribe in question as very mystical. it was trying to be positive and imply there was nothing wrong with people having a different culture but it overall still ended up presenting things like Rolling Thunder (he was the main topic of the book) had a fundamentally magical way of thinking, that he's almost some kind of wizard with magic occult powers in the way he thinks as opposed to his culture being something that can ever be "normal". I think the book was from 1976 if I remember right, not recently. 
so like, telling people to go educate themselves and implying they can't talk to actual people to learn what their problems are could be very harmful. I suspect that it's old books like these that a lot of anarchists are learning about other groups of people from and effectively where they're getting their anarchism. or that even if that's not literally the case, that you can still study that example to learn about the problems with the thing anarchists are actually doing. 
I think there is like.... a nuance that's totally lost on anarchists about the interaction of individuals or populations. if there's somebody that goes around talking like Rolling Thunder, you can't really just take what he says and present it to other people as his fundamental way of thinking. people in industrial populations are going to take it negatively. there might be one or two people who literally take it as 'backward' and say mean things, but that's not what you need to watch for, the most likely harm you need to keep an eye out for is people softly deciding that tribal populations can't understand modern science and that the way of thinking they have presented is part of their fundamental essence that 'blocks' them from absorbing the understandings people have in industrial society. this is racist, because it puts you into the same rhetorical position as the people who were recently arguing that Black South Africans 'didn't want the farmland taken by Afrikaners because of their culture' and {{em|therefore}} it was okay for European apartheid states to descend in and take whatever they want. I think there's a decent argument to be made that claiming someone like Rolling Thunder has a fundamentally different way of thinking 'than European science' is flat out supporting colonialism and is The Colonizer Attitude, because, just look at its results. 
this leaves open the rather broad question of how exactly you can merge tribal populations' ways of thinking with modern science and the findings of industrial societies. we know it's not optional to do that. we know it's necessary to do it to not essentialize people and treat indigenous people as stupid. we know that anarchists trying to present older and more mystical ways of thinking as 'the natural way of thinking' is not okay because it what it effectively does is allow White people to appropriate indigenous culture for their own benefit but still deny that culture to the actual indigenous people and hand all the power of people to determine themselves, to be able to talk about all topics intelligently as the adults in the room and make sophisticated decisions on various topics and involving several different philosophies, to Europeans. putting yourself in a position where other people will essentialize you to one particular level of ideological development is dangerous. I think it's the anarchists that need to be told this more than the tribal populations; they've been through a lot and I think to some extent they know this. anarchists, on the other hand... I feel like it's vaguely possible that some day in the future, people will talk about anarchists as inherently mystical people and weirdly racialize all anarchists {{em|exactly}} the way they've done with tribes in North or South America.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{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/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{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 {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> 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/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/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=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/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=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=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

</ol><noinclude>

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q38,59

2026-06-17T00:23:20Z

Reversedragon: the best conceivable pizza

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=materialist inversion & math|User=RD|E=Q38,59|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=38,59|Q2=3859|rem=Q59 mathematics|h4= [[E:MaterialistInversionAndMath|materialist inversion and math]] }} -> gosh my rants on this topic got so long I think they need their own page just for them.

</li></ol>

== From Idealism to math ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Free Will is more important than science

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, MX|Q=618|h4= All philosophy is subjective }} / ({{9k|RD/Q87}}) -> statement that "philosophy" in general is distinct from "applied science". sounds annoying until you realize that the moment philosophy becomes Materialism is the moment it crosses over from subjective to objective and from philosophy to science. then you realize this statement is [[EC:9k/RD/Q697|backhandedly true]] and very important.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= the best conceivable pizza }} / ({{9k|RD/logical arguments for God}}) -> ... it is.... so hard to get people to understand the concept of Materialism if they don't already understand it. I really think using fiction and hard fictional rules may be one of the best ways because it sits perfectly in that bourgeois niche of the rules to participate in an industry being the eternal law of the universe where a lawyer can't {{em|possibly}} question the assumptions of Law but they can question any other statement you throw at them including whether people are brains in vats. ... I'm pretty sure that this extends past employees and contractors who literally have to follow the rules of their own job into things like fandoms and all levels of art criticism — firmly root something within the established rules of a particular real-life industry, and nobody will ask stupid questions any more. 
I pointed that out before. I thought it was a function of art being tied to countable groups of people who were its audience that had silent membership requirements. but I think you could go a little deeper by looking up toward the nation-wide scale of capitalist society. why are the rules of one trade the ironclad law of the universe? because people earning money is how they survive. whatever earns you money and protects your physical body becomes what is "materially real", while it becomes that nothing else is real. if a particular country's currency ceased to buy anything then something else would become "material reality" depending on exactly what thing it was people's ontology of how to survive was built around then. ...

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Language is logic is math }} / Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing -> they're all steps in the process from basic signal-response instincts to [[EC:9k/RD/Q87|Idealism]] to Materialist models of reality. I know this sounds crazy at first but really, this proposition puts to bed the whole question of whether math is some sort of special thing inherently connected to the universe or the universe 'runs on math'. I've heard versions of that so many times and it's silly every time. when you realize that language is basically math but less efficient, you start to realize that it would be ridiculous (for somebody whose sense of irony hasn't been killed by the Bible talking about "the word") to say that physics and English are connected, or physics and German are connected, or physics and Japanese are connected. because, like, all languages contain ontological objects consisting of a word or phrase and a model of something that goes under it, and some ontological models can be more objectively accurate to a particular phenomenon, so if language was inherently connected to reality, then some languages would be inherently superior to others and there would be languages it would be worth getting rid of. you think about that idea for even five seconds and it's very difficult to imagine any particular language actually being the superior language everyone should have to use; which language would it even be when there are hundreds or thousands of languages and each language contains so {{em|many}} models of things? but there is no such thing as a language, literally referring to a language made of speech and words, which is universal and is not particular and is not connected to a culture, because even international auxiliary languages are spoken by particular groups of people who would become the "Esperanto culture". no human language can be generic, and no human language can be the most superior language, so no human language at all, by virtue of being a language, can be the inherent way that physics functions. but all natural languages are actually made of math, because all languages are made of a sort of crude second-order logic they use to express ontological models, and formal logic is a form of math which can actually be modified into many forms, conceivably even one broad enough to cover all the basic things language does. this does imply something people don't usually think about: that there is not just one continuous math, and that maths start out as separate plural bodies of math. however, math is different from natural languages in that {{em|the way things are defined is not subjective}}, and comes with objective rules; 1 + 1 = 2 for particular sets of reasons. plural bodies of math can be combined into larger bodies of math or even into a single large but technically countable body of math. this is how math can become the only "language" that is universal — because subjective cultural understandings that are arbitrary but required in a particular region cannot be mandatory, or at least cannot remain mandatory, in the process of how bodies of math are combined. so human beings start with calls or words associated with objects and then create language and then create Idealism as a bad explanation of how complex processes work and then create logic and then create math, and math is the final explanation not because there is anything special about it but simply because all the fuzziness in all the previous forms of communication about causality and ontology dropped out and communication about causal processes became maximally precise, to this point it was either exactly as precise as it needed to be or allowed for a lot more unnecessary levels of precision; the goal was met. mathematics was put together because people {{em|physically needed}} to communicate and understand causality and created a tool {{em|for}} that need, not because people simply desired to conquer and change reality.

{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}If you halve an object infinitely, you will never get to zero -> partially false. it depends on whether it's a real-life physical object or a theoretical object. 
I saw a forum thread today where a university student was trying to understand why an asymptote that tends toward infinity or zero doesn't get there. [https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ti1y8o/eli5_trying_to_understand_how_how_something_that/] and suddenly, I had an insight that I think I've also had before. asymptotes can actually be total nonsense. according to the rules of math some graphs have to produce them, but they only make sense in the real world when they are applied to a situation where the rules of the graph and the rules of the real world are the same. many times — now, you can't really say for certain this is true in every case — asymptotes reflect a graph not being under the real limits physical systems are under which in fact cut off a result before it really becomes infinitely big or infinitely small. many times the asymptote in an equation is a genuine singularity. so, the student's intuition wasn't necessarily wrong. in some situations it would be perfectly fine to say "but this quantity won't just get infinitely smaller without getting to zero, will it?", as with that one puzzle where you can supposedly make the chocolate bar smaller and smaller but it stays the same size, unlike how a material object would behave. in other situations, it's okay that the equation has a strange singularity in it, and you should use it as is. the thing about math is that it is an absurdly precise tool that is more precise than real life in its number of possibilities for how to model things and you really have to know how to apply it in order to use it well.

</li></ol>

== Materialism and science ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}Science is more important than Free Will / Materialism or determinism is more important than Free Will because these categories of models do more to explain reality and are more empowering

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Free Will is more important than science -> I would have bristled at this years ago, but now I have a complicated reason for saying.... actually, maybe it is. you know why? because Free Will [[EC:9k/RD/Q697 sublation|isn't the thing it thinks it refers to]]. there is a point where doing scientific research and even to a large extent the production of new Materialist knowledge becomes irrelevant to society, but the application of old Materialism that has already been collected still remains relevant. but even if you could shut off the process of science production without harm you would still have use for the mysterious and unspecified thing the phrase "free will" is vaguely gesturing at. I think one of the many real meanings of that phrase is "philosophy" or "philosophical deduction", which, in the case old bodies of Materialism are being applied, checks out. if somebody like Žižek said that philosophy was more important than science I don't think I would believe him, but when Materialist philosophy is considered a form of philosophy and fully examined, I think things change greatly, and it can be that philosophy becomes more important than science, because judiciously using and applying science is much more important than recording more science.

{{li|I=S2/STM/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Applied sciences are Materialisms }} / "Applied sciences" are not actually science, but named Materialist philosophies; the scientific method or various versions of it are the only thing which are science, and the scientific method is used to compile bodies of facts separate from it itself that become named Materialist philosophies such as biology and geology / You aren't a "rationalist", or a "science fan" — you're a Materialist -> 
this is partly a matter of definitions, but there are big advantages to dividing things this way, such that "the scientific method" is the only thing that's science and all "named Materialisms" are a separate thing that Science creates. it's no longer possible to [[E:If it looks deterministic, it's scientism|vilify science]]. it does become possible to [[E:Materialism aids The Cops|vilify Materialisms]]. but it also becomes possible to separate one Materialism from another Materialism, and start showing that some parts of some Materialisms are actually inaccurate, making it harder for people to try to reject every bit of all of the Materialisms at once. 
I think this is the route people have to take if they want people to keep from splitting into multiple Communist internationals, or multiple non-Marxist philosophical factions. referring to all knowledge about the natural world as Materialism will slowly get people to agree onto the same bodies of knowledge about physics, biology, and other phenomena, which will also slowly draw them onto the same broad category of [[E:Ideology is Idealism unexamined|ideology generated out of those basic assumptions]].

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}applied Materialism / empirical Materialism (field of study which records verifiable empirically-observed statements about material reality) / field of science (generic) -> the motif of a series of statements about material reality which was recorded by a field of applied science or some similar discipline. within this motif, "biology", "physics", "paleontology", "archeology", and "population dynamics" would be considered 'applied Materialisms' as opposed to 'instances of science'. "psychology" would also be considered an applied Materialism, although it might or might not be considered an [[E:eclectic materialism|eclectic Materialism]]. "mathematics" would not itself be considered an applied Materialism because it is simply a set of rules and does not operate empirically. by this definition mathematics would lie within metaphysics or something like that, but it would be considered the most precise form of metaphysics ever invented which is possible to collapse into physics into some situations where it accurately models reality.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}conflict between empirical materialism and dialectical materialism -> I had so much trouble putting this into words until now. here it is. the reason that you have to correct dialectical materialism for accuracy to historical events no matter how strange the events are is this. it's not about some abstract Ideal of "historical accuracy" or "inclusivity" or "kindness", all of which can turn subjective and in the process become a vector for bigotry. nor even an abstract Ideal of "the proletariat" or "seeing from below", which can also turn subjective and lead to conflicts between named Marxisms. it's about the simple fact that dialectical materialism and applied Materialisms including applied sciences and observed history should match. it's really that simple. dialectical materialism is an attempt to elaborate on all applied or empirical materialisms, vaguely similar to the way that quantum physics elaborates on Newtonian physics. the models must line up. if the models do not line up, dialectical materialism becomes potentially invalid and there must be {{em|a new materialism}} proposed to unify all the other empirical Materialisms. the worst case scenario is dialectical materialism getting thrown out like string theory but something else appearing. the worst case scenario will basically never be the replacement being an Idealism. 
this is the reason I'm confident in meta-Marxism and I really doubt there's any going back to something that isn't either violet Marxism, crimson Marxism, or orange Marxism. there is a particular thing about all future political theories that must be true: they must unify all applied or empirical Materialisms. anarchism cannot do that.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618|h4= unifying relativity & quantum }} (Marxism) / unifying relativity and quantum mechanics / ({{9k|RD/Q66}}) -> the motif of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, taken literally as it is, but then applied to the new context of unifying different conflicting Marxisms or unifying all applied sciences by making dialectical materialism the new unified theory that ties together almost all applied Materialisms such that, for instance, natural sciences and social sciences are no longer meaningfully separate, and the faint ties between social sciences, relativity, and quantum mechanics are made clear.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms / The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms, including relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, ecology, paleontology and evolutionary biology, climate science, population dynamics, animal ethology, the analysis of political factions as material objects, the study of ancient settlements (archeology or anthropology), history as the study of feudal orders and warring states periods, applied game theory, empiricist philosophy, the scientific method, and the meta-ontological analysis of systems of logic and reasoning as they apply to applied sciences and representational art; wherever there are small gaps in unifying these fields, Marxism must show that it is capable of creating a fine-grained materialism that can fill in all these gaps and show how overlooked small-scale or large-scale relationships are producing the unexpected patterns that make one field of Materialism not match another field; the test of dialectical materialism is its ability to unify all applied Materialisms as cleanly as is actually possible including applied sciences and diverging applied versions of dialectical materialism -> 
a blatantly Idealist philosophy and Marxism not matching does not mean that Marxism has failed. a Materialist philosophy showing up with empirical observations that don't match Marxism is a greater problem. one variant of Marxism not matching another variant of Marxism {{em|does}} mean Marxism has failed, because if Marxism is functioning then Marxism and Marxism should always overlap and only eclectic Materialisms should be expected not to. sectarianism existing is vastly closer to proving "Communism doesn't work" than anything any center-Liberal or Tory has ever said. so we should all seriously think about that. the day all the Marxisms match and with little correction draw the same conclusions about each other as a particular Marxism draws about itself, we will be a lot closer to defeating capitalism than we ever were. the day all the Marxisms correctly predict what all the blue and charcoal anarchisms are trying to do enough to actually stop them from supporting imperialism in their quest to be anti-imperialist might just be the day Marxism actually wins.

</li></ol>

== Truth values, and signifiers as cultural prejudices ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Kantianism explored race & IQ }} / Kantianism is actually an IQ test / When Kant speaks of "reason", what he is referring to is the concept that human actions do not have [[E:non-binary truth value|truth-value categories]] of Good or Evil, but Smart or Not Smart, which in turn unfortunately means that what Kant is trying to identify as "rationality" or "reason" is contingent on what surrounding clusters of people subjectively believe to be intelligent behavior, which is potentially contingent on people's own racist or xenophobic conceptions of which countable cultures and cultural practices seem intelligent or unintelligent to them / ({{9k|RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach}}) -> 
it hit me today. the concept of claiming that reason and ethics are the same thing is basically the same as the concept of trying to replace Good / Evil with Smart / Not Smart. it makes sense in light of a crude, Feuerbachian type of Materialism where you try to discredit the notion of Good and Evil being cosmic or universal starting by showing that the universe is regular and logical and doesn't really have 'opinions' as much as mindless patterns. surely anyone will stop doing bad things if only you can show they are Not Smart. only.... it's actually rather subjective what actions are smart and what actions aren't. it's a somewhat better way to define Truth or Falsity of human actions than the circular categories of Good and Evil in that you can actually debate it a while with real arguments and maybe come to a conclusion. but it gets thwarted by the existence of contradictory plural sociophilosophies forming and each thinking they're correct such as Stalin's Marxism versus Trotskyism. both of those factions think that they're on the side of Smart and will make the decisions that go down as the materially best decision in later history books, but they don't have enough information to know which one is actually better, so they senselessly fight each other [[E:The material resolves the immaterial|to reach an answer]] and in that conflict they both choose an outcome which is undesirable and could not logically be the Smart decision. 
so why does this happen? well, thinking of it as either Stalin versus Trotsky or center-Liberals versus anarchists, the two factions try to aim to have the Smartest statements in order to be the most legitimate regime, but they don't realize that Smart isn't really a fully objective truth value, it's largely cultural much like Good and Evil were, where some people will try to single things out as Not Smart just because they don't like them. the phenomenon of "Enlightenment rationality turning against brown people" does happen, {{em|but absolutely not for the reasons people think it does}}. it doesn't happen because people have "assumptions" or "aren't Inherently Multicultural enough" (which are both Idealist characterizations of what a racist is). it happens because Smart does not function well as a truth value — because {{em|the sign called Smart is stuck on subjectively as people arbitrarily decide on the spur of the moment what it means}}. this is very inconvenient for fields like queer theory to recognize because they want to say that "subjectivity" creates cultures and marginalized identities are legitimate because people in a local countable culture defining signifiers nearly any way they want is legitimate. but you really can't just define signifiers however you want, not as an individual and not as a culture, because that is how people become prejudiced. think about it: you cannot create art and arbitrarily decide what Blackness is, to some extent you must represent Black history and Black experiences {{em|representationally}} and {{em|realistically}}, using [[E:historical materialism|a materially correct model of what happened]]. if there was such a thing as a moral vanguard, then the moral vanguard would never consist of people who think Subjects can define signifiers however they want; that process simply will never be moral, [[EC:9k/RD/Q86|speaking descriptively]] about whether [[E:people viewed in third person as material objects|people]] will ever definitively decide it is.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/MD|Q=40,59|Q2=4059|h4= Math can save Trotsky }} / No moral argument will ever vindicate Trotskyism, whether it is based on the character of Trotskyist parties as Leninists, based on the justifiability of the Trotskyite conspiracy, or based on the "corrupt" or "tyrannical" character of Stalin's party, ... because any moral framework Stalin-followers may attempt to come up with will invariably cast early Trotskyism as immoral; however, if Trotskyism is taken to be a strictly amoral force in the world rather than an Evil one, then the behavior of Trotskyism can become comprehensible to everyone outside Trotskyism including Stalin-followers, and there is some possibility that Trotskyism can finally be vindicated or forgiven as the bizarre inanimate force of nature it is ... sheer [[EC:9k/RD/Q86|existential-materialist]] analysis of separate Marxist parties {{em|as a contradiction}} can solve the problem through descriptive mathematical models of behavior where neither language nor most forms of logic or argumentation could solve it / ({{9k|RD/Q40,59}})

</li></ol>

== Ideology codes ==

* (none)


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

Ontology talk:9k/Q618-LawyersVersusAceAttorney

2026-06-16T08:28:43Z

Reversedragon: Requiring a trial verdict within three days of arrest is so bad the Magna Carta should have been able to prohibit it

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,30

2026-06-16T08:26:53Z

Reversedragon: real lawyers react to Ace Attorney

{{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 field_horror">

{{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 field_horror">

{{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 / ({{9k|RD/Q64,43}}) -> 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 illustrates Idealism / Wendy Oldbag's debut is an example of Idealist reasoning / ({{9k|RD/Q87}}) -> 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 moment of appearing is slightly surprising. she is a roadblock. ... 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. that joke of "Old as the polar opposite of Kids' Shows" lands because it is not completely obvious, and yet it still comes out of a very basic contradiction between abstract concepts that are believed to be inherently opposed which then manifest in particular material ways — Oldbag literally running after the boy. this is what Idealism is: the use of abstract concepts to ostensibly explain material reality when something happens in material reality and you see it as two labeled ideas colliding after the fact. ...

</li></ol>

== Motifs (AA2) ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">
{{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 / ({{9k|RD/Q64,43}}) -> 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>

== Motifs (AA3) ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations [vol. 3]

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}There are two things I consider inexcusable — poisoning, and betrayal (Phoenix Wright, AA3) -> would this be evidence against or for Phoenix siding with the Trotskyite conspiracy? I'm not sure

</li></ol>

== Motifs (AJ1) ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Yin vs Yang dichotomy / Goku vs Vegeta dichotomy (sense) / Wright vs Edgeworth dichotomy (sense) -> it took me until the very end of the third game to see it. despite the big old magatama being right there looking like a yin-yang diagram.

{{li|I=F2/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Russian and Communist are the same thing / "Communist" is a nationality which is identical with being Russian and Communist culture is indistinguishable from Russian culture / Russian and Stalinist are the same thing (sense) / Chinese and Maoist are the same thing (sense) / Chinese and Dengist are the same thing (sense) -> this proposition gets much less intuitive when you realize that it's not possible for "Chinese" to mean both "Maoist" and "Dengist" at the same time, at least not considering the nature of Marxist parties. 
also. why is it that conflating China with Dengism is as common as conflating China with Maoism but nobody ever conflates the Soviet Union with Trotskyism in particular? have you ever noticed that? nobody ever talks about 'the rich Trotskyist culture of Russia and Ukraine' in which Russians are inherently obsessed with internationalism, even though for a few years in the 1920s they could have; it's always that Trotsky is a foreign presence in the Soviet Union while being "Stalinist" or being "The Bureaucracy" is inherently Russian. 
it's as if national stereotypes are an inherently anarchist thing that gets thrown around as a way of slamming 'older' forms of society in the same sense that people portray all monarchs as tyrants, despite the recent transformation of anarchism into a movement almost solely concerned with getting rid of stereotypes.

</li></ol>

== Characters ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">

{{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 field_horror">
{{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 / subjective themes ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct field_horror field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}real lawyers react to {{game|Ace Attorney}} / ({{9k|RD/Q618-LawyersVersusAceAttorney}})

{{li|I=S2/Fy/LGBT|tradition=|Q=618}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} is an exercise in expressing things The Industry doesn't want people to do or be as loudly as possible without explicitly saying them; these things may include gay characters, rebellion against men, etc. -> most people notice the "love story" between Wright and Edgeworth*. I noticed the French chef and how comically heavily they were hinting he was gay. 
a video pointed out that Franziska von Karma doesn't hit everybody and specifically whips men, which makes her relatable to lesbians. {{YouTube|R_C6tA__pzU}} I can't really add to or take anything away from that comment. all I will say is I stopped overthinking things and started laughing. because that was too likely to be the correct answer 
(* which, if you're going to say the arc between the two is meaningful, I have to say I vastly prefer that interpretation to pointing out Bartleby's dialectic. Edgeworth's change is only significant to him and Phoenix? wonderful actually.)

{{li|I=S2/HM/LGBT|tradition=|Q=618}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} is an exercise in expressing things The Industry doesn't want people to do or be as loudly as possible without explicitly saying them -> there is something to be said about this process of people becoming discontented because an overall structure contains [[E:graph struggle (meta-Marxism)|graph struggles]]

{{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=64,32|Q2=6432}}Ace Attorney is copaganda / ({{9k|RD/Q64,49}}) -> ... 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. ... 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. ...

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}lawyer modernism (fiction) / detective modernism; forensics department modernism (fiction) / police officer modernism (fiction; {{cite|Zootopia}} etc.) / senator modernism (fiction; {{cite|The West Wing}} etc.) -> the motif of creating a modernist setting in fiction but doing that specifically through the lens of occupations or trades, such that the work is very relatable to anyone who has ever experienced the occupations being depicted, but such that the work also effectively praises or defends what already is whether or not it is bad.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}lawyer postmodernism (fiction) -> this logically has to exist if lawyer modernism exists, but I don't really know what it would be.
{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}lawyer metamodernism (fiction) -> this logically has to exist too. I hate culture studies terms. 
but, when I reframed the definition of modernism maybe there would be something interesting within this one.

</li></ol>

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

{{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/Fy/ML|Q=36,18|Q2=3618}}lawyer characters becoming Lenin / characters that would be lawyers becoming Communist theorists / ({{9k|RD/Q1210}})

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=64,49|Q2=6449|h4= Ace Attorney without trials }} / Ace Attorney without lawyers / ({{9k|RD/Q64,49}}) -> so. I said that "Ace Attorney is copaganda" was a stupid proposition ... but. as I wrote that down, I realized that if you tried to redesign the Ace Attorney universe around the constraint of what anarchists {{em|apparently}} want rather than what they literally want... it would actually be a weirdly fun challenge. 
... 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. ... 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 anarchist incident in order to defend it, 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. ... Mia thinks there is going to be a trial but the commotion continues and it doesn't happen. ... 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. ... 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'. hoping he will not have to defeat his new enemy with violence, he vows to help bring Edgeworth down.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}phoenix wright stuck in lawsuit over whether trans people get to use a bathroom -> so today I found out they closed the extra toilet at the grocery store possibly for bigoted reasons. here is my revenge 
phoenix wright gets caught in a lawsuit over whether trans people get to use a bathroom. he is like, oh god, why is this a case, there's nothing to investigate, we're just arguing about whether the thing that happened is a violation or not, what are we doing 
there's something about how practically all the court cases in the games are murder cases and in comparison this kind of case seems like such small potatoes. and yet it's somehow something millions of people across an entire country can get endlessly fired up about

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==

* (none)

== Subpages or related pages ==
* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist|objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,30

2026-06-16T08:25:37Z

Reversedragon: lawyers react to Ace Attorney

{{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 field_horror">

{{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 field_horror">

{{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 / ({{9k|RD/Q64,43}}) -> 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 illustrates Idealism / Wendy Oldbag's debut is an example of Idealist reasoning / ({{9k|RD/Q87}}) -> 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 moment of appearing is slightly surprising. she is a roadblock. ... 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. that joke of "Old as the polar opposite of Kids' Shows" lands because it is not completely obvious, and yet it still comes out of a very basic contradiction between abstract concepts that are believed to be inherently opposed which then manifest in particular material ways — Oldbag literally running after the boy. this is what Idealism is: the use of abstract concepts to ostensibly explain material reality when something happens in material reality and you see it as two labeled ideas colliding after the fact. ...

</li></ol>

== Motifs (AA2) ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">
{{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 / ({{9k|RD/Q64,43}}) -> 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>

== Motifs (AA3) ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations [vol. 3]

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}There are two things I consider inexcusable — poisoning, and betrayal (Phoenix Wright, AA3) -> would this be evidence against or for Phoenix siding with the Trotskyite conspiracy? I'm not sure

</li></ol>

== Motifs (AJ1) ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Yin vs Yang dichotomy / Goku vs Vegeta dichotomy (sense) / Wright vs Edgeworth dichotomy (sense) -> it took me until the very end of the third game to see it. despite the big old magatama being right there looking like a yin-yang diagram.

{{li|I=F2/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Russian and Communist are the same thing / "Communist" is a nationality which is identical with being Russian and Communist culture is indistinguishable from Russian culture / Russian and Stalinist are the same thing (sense) / Chinese and Maoist are the same thing (sense) / Chinese and Dengist are the same thing (sense) -> this proposition gets much less intuitive when you realize that it's not possible for "Chinese" to mean both "Maoist" and "Dengist" at the same time, at least not considering the nature of Marxist parties. 
also. why is it that conflating China with Dengism is as common as conflating China with Maoism but nobody ever conflates the Soviet Union with Trotskyism in particular? have you ever noticed that? nobody ever talks about 'the rich Trotskyist culture of Russia and Ukraine' in which Russians are inherently obsessed with internationalism, even though for a few years in the 1920s they could have; it's always that Trotsky is a foreign presence in the Soviet Union while being "Stalinist" or being "The Bureaucracy" is inherently Russian. 
it's as if national stereotypes are an inherently anarchist thing that gets thrown around as a way of slamming 'older' forms of society in the same sense that people portray all monarchs as tyrants, despite the recent transformation of anarchism into a movement almost solely concerned with getting rid of stereotypes.

</li></ol>

== Characters ==
<ol class="hue clean field_horror">

{{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 field_horror">
{{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 / subjective themes ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct field_horror field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}lawyers react to Ace Attorney / real lawyer reacts to Ace Attorney -> a motif to contain various specific criticisms lawyers have made about the games.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/LGBT|tradition=|Q=618}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} is an exercise in expressing things The Industry doesn't want people to do or be as loudly as possible without explicitly saying them; these things may include gay characters, rebellion against men, etc. -> most people notice the "love story" between Wright and Edgeworth*. I noticed the French chef and how comically heavily they were hinting he was gay. 
a video pointed out that Franziska von Karma doesn't hit everybody and specifically whips men, which makes her relatable to lesbians. {{YouTube|R_C6tA__pzU}} I can't really add to or take anything away from that comment. all I will say is I stopped overthinking things and started laughing. because that was too likely to be the correct answer 
(* which, if you're going to say the arc between the two is meaningful, I have to say I vastly prefer that interpretation to pointing out Bartleby's dialectic. Edgeworth's change is only significant to him and Phoenix? wonderful actually.)

{{li|I=S2/HM/LGBT|tradition=|Q=618}}{{game|Ace Attorney}} is an exercise in expressing things The Industry doesn't want people to do or be as loudly as possible without explicitly saying them -> there is something to be said about this process of people becoming discontented because an overall structure contains [[E:graph struggle (meta-Marxism)|graph struggles]]

{{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=64,32|Q2=6432}}Ace Attorney is copaganda / ({{9k|RD/Q64,49}}) -> ... 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. ... 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. ...

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}lawyer modernism (fiction) / detective modernism; forensics department modernism (fiction) / police officer modernism (fiction; {{cite|Zootopia}} etc.) / senator modernism (fiction; {{cite|The West Wing}} etc.) -> the motif of creating a modernist setting in fiction but doing that specifically through the lens of occupations or trades, such that the work is very relatable to anyone who has ever experienced the occupations being depicted, but such that the work also effectively praises or defends what already is whether or not it is bad.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}lawyer postmodernism (fiction) -> this logically has to exist if lawyer modernism exists, but I don't really know what it would be.
{{li|I=S1/Fy/ES|Q=618}}lawyer metamodernism (fiction) -> this logically has to exist too. I hate culture studies terms. 
but, when I reframed the definition of modernism maybe there would be something interesting within this one.

</li></ol>

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

{{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/Fy/ML|Q=36,18|Q2=3618}}lawyer characters becoming Lenin / characters that would be lawyers becoming Communist theorists / ({{9k|RD/Q1210}})

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=64,49|Q2=6449|h4= Ace Attorney without trials }} / Ace Attorney without lawyers / ({{9k|RD/Q64,49}}) -> so. I said that "Ace Attorney is copaganda" was a stupid proposition ... but. as I wrote that down, I realized that if you tried to redesign the Ace Attorney universe around the constraint of what anarchists {{em|apparently}} want rather than what they literally want... it would actually be a weirdly fun challenge. 
... 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. ... 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 anarchist incident in order to defend it, 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. ... Mia thinks there is going to be a trial but the commotion continues and it doesn't happen. ... 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. ... 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'. hoping he will not have to defeat his new enemy with violence, he vows to help bring Edgeworth down.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}phoenix wright stuck in lawsuit over whether trans people get to use a bathroom -> so today I found out they closed the extra toilet at the grocery store possibly for bigoted reasons. here is my revenge 
phoenix wright gets caught in a lawsuit over whether trans people get to use a bathroom. he is like, oh god, why is this a case, there's nothing to investigate, we're just arguing about whether the thing that happened is a violation or not, what are we doing 
there's something about how practically all the court cases in the games are murder cases and in comparison this kind of case seems like such small potatoes. and yet it's somehow something millions of people across an entire country can get endlessly fired up about

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==

* (none)

== Subpages or related pages ==
* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist|objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-06-16T08:23:19Z

Reversedragon: What is the difference between real people fiction and historical fiction?

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}real people fiction / {{abbr|RPF|title=real people fiction}} (fan fiction)

{{li|I=M3/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}What is the difference between real people fiction and historical fiction? -> a cop-out answer is that historical fiction can be made out of only made-up people but contains real countries or historical periods. but that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, if there is at least one real person inside a historical fiction scenario, at what point after that does it become real people fiction? immediately? are there other things required? does it have to consist of more real-people characters among the main cast than fake-people characters? if I write a scenario not as a novel but literally as one of those books used to train lawyers or librarians on example cases, and my scenario contains real people, have I written real people fiction?

{{li|I=S2/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}Toontown runs on Menshevism / As evidenced by the layout of the interactable game world and the daily use of jellybeans as currency, the Toons that live in Toontown live in a [[E:agorism|market-based society]] built on small businesses which willingly provides houses -> note: come back and add Toontown to 'related' on 9k page for Growing Around, along with childism

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Ted Kaczynski was not an anarchist [https://www.thetedkarchive.com/special/about-this-project] -> I have never heard of this man but okay. there are a lot of anarchist-sounding philosophies that aren't very good so even without much information I believe it's possible.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Teamsters obstructed worker organization (2018) / The Teamsters are a group of bureaucrats that negotiate with workers to achieve corporations' demands; this is to imply that workers should consider forming their own internal organizations across bigger sectors of industry instead of trusting them (California, 2018) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/20/upam-a20.html]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Kropotkinism leads to populations of people who produce about $5 an hour and end up getting classified as contractors who have to put all their other revenue into expenses -> anarchists like to complain about how Communism and Liberal capitalism 'overwork people for nothing' while anarchism is about finishing work and doing something enjoyable. but.... I have to wonder. what would happen if Kropotkinism actually kicked off? wouldn't you just have a population of people that earns tiny amounts, has huge expenses, and basically lives just like gig workers? what if the reason anarchism hasn't been more successful is Amazon beat anarchists to creating 'easy work' of the kind anarchists want but just not in the conditions they want? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/19/jxer-f19.html] it seems to me like anarchism moves really slow and capitalism moves fast, owning entire market-boxes and communities while anarchists are only talking about those things and before they can meaningfully create them.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Community is a hyperstructure -> the claim that "community", mostly as a materialist version of the anarchist model of what "communities" are, is a system that encourages itself to expand further through parts of the system contributing to the overall system. 
I think the description is really apt because you see this perfect 'blockchain quality' where community looks like a shiny wonderful thing you could only want more and more of, but when you get any particular instance of community, such as a newsfeed platform like YouTube or Twitter, the more people add to it the worse it seems to get and the more it turns into this vector for individual capitalists to own an entire "agora" and exploit the whole concept of an economy existing and make money off that, and the more it feels like community itself was a scam from the start. 
Community is a hyperstructure + Hyperstructures are usually harmful = Community is a cancer.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Hyperstructures are usually harmful -> this is an anarchist or agorist claim more than it is my claim but I wouldn't totally oppose it.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|tradition=|Q=618}}hyperstructure (snowballing system) [https://medium.com/@onjas_buidl/hyperstructures-in-human-history-5a27f31c28df] -> blockchain fanatics' attempt to describe a generalized kind of system which rewards people for contributing to a cumulative pie in a constructive way. 
honestly? if getting people to comprehend "hyperstructures" could get rid of blockchains themselves then I'd be all for it 
I feel like this concept is almost more of a cautionary tale than a desirable thing to have though. one of their examples is the general concept of money because of course they have to explain how bitcoin is similar to money. but like, the expansion of money through creating more products and the central government giving loans to corporations to speed up the process isn't necessarily a good thing, it often leads to the destruction of the environment as it's consumed to create materials and factories, or the destruction of culture as products obsolete other products just to chase money and get more money added. this is so bad that when they present language as the second example I'm like.... okay, is language secretly a bad thing that is destroying the world and I just didn't know it was? I have to say though, the advent of large language models really vindicates the concept of hyperstructures, if in a bad way. the more AI that people create the more different AIs can train on each other to the extent they can generate any meaningful inferences or conversation data that human testers approve, and then there will be more AI. so, yeah. the concept of hyperstructures was very successful. it was successful at describing something, but it seems like basically everything it describes is an existential threat to humanity, including The Economy, capitalism, blockchain, AI, and possibly language (??). 
this might be one of the clearest pieces of evidence that anarchism is inherently dangerous because it doesn't actually build into itself the capability to model societies spending a while building something and then leveling off in a neat S-curve because they moved on to entirely different things without redoing the same things over and over again such as repeatedly reinventing game consoles or phones. (a thing Marxism could do with some effort because it inherently understands the concept of historical periods and shifts from one period to another.) despite all the surface rhetoric about "infinite growth" recently it only really understands infinite growth because of its core values of always making everything about "community" and "inclusivity" and never saying no to anybody. so naturally a system of modeling growth itself is one of the first things to pop out of it, which claims to have a limit but in practice when it hits the limit just divides in two and continues to make more and more.

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}storing properties of chemical reactions in power sets composed out of smaller sets [https://chemrxiv.org/doi/pdf/10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-368pz] -> um. I don't understand any of this but it's very cool.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Stalin's government putting up positive posters in schools is "a lie", then how do you know that solarpunk is true? -> I won't fault you for making the former claim, but the reason the CPSU would be wrong there is that it's letting people be Idealist instead of understanding the terrifying truth that they might not succeed. so.... if the CPSU posters are wrong, and putting up hopeful slogans is bad because it allows the people spreading the potentially incorrect slogans to gain power over you, then how exactly is solarpunk correct?

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Idealism is invincible / Materialist movements are inherently weaker than Idealist movements in that Idealist movements live forever as long as human beings don't believe in burning books, but Materialist movements die as soon as actual physical organizations are broken up -> there's only one real solution to correct this discrepancy. promote "hypothetical materialism", the new category of philosophies which are spread as disembodied ideas but internally contain only Material Ideas and Materialism. [https://chatonsky.net/ideomaterialism/]

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=|Q=618}}Marxist analysis of non-Marxisms / Marxist analysis of non-Marxist philosophies or movements / infra-Marxism (Marxist analysis which is done either wholly inside a specific formulation of Marxism, or wholly inside that specific Marxism while critiquing non-Marxist philosophies, but where the Marxism does not actually give a proper analysis of either itself or other Marxisms; meta-Marxism) -> a large part of the original stated purpose of Marxism before the Trotskyite conspiracy happened.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The Diggers were a proto-Marxist movement because they began with displaced peasants or allied local houses sensing the impending expansion of estates, and sought to build a community without commodity exchange, loosely and metaphorically compared to Eden (Christopher Hill) / {{book|The World Turned Upside Down}} (Hill 1988; generic) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> ok, in my mind, I can't remember the difference between this description and the Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Narodniks; this doesn't sound like a movement with a very detailed plan behind it. but this {{em|is}} a very juicy and entertaining claim, so I'll code it. I wouldn't really mind someone calling a cottager movement 'Socialists' or 'anarchists'. but, what is the difference between the Diggers and Peter Kropotkin? can you answer that question? I think you need to go into at least that much depth to properly answer whether they can be "communists".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The faithful are duty bound to obey God alone / Because rulers are sinful creatures like us and will have a propensity to do the wrong thing, they will tend to tyranny, decreeing ungodly laws ... in these cases, the faithful are duty bound to obey God alone (Calvin ??/2009) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> that is one killer quote. it's not surprising, given all the {{em|stuff}} in the bible about "powers and principalities" that sounds just like this. but it's definitely mysterious to look at the bible and realize, hey wait, what's all this stuff about never trusting rulers? God doesn't exist, God is one big rationalization. so is Christianity really an anarchism?? I'd argue it is. I'd argue that at least as soon as New Testament Christianity appeared the whole thing was really about pushing the concept that seemed nonsensical at that time of getting rid of all rulers and creating a society based only in social bonds connecting people into a society ("love", "brotherhood", "neighbors"), and Christians had to dress up that concept inside the concept of a worldwide empire just to get anybody to believe it when otherwise it would have seemed unbelievable. 
I'd also argue that by capitulating to the class imagery of their time Christians doomed Christianity and turned it into a tool of empire itself as empire noticed that an ideology about empire was better suited to literally arguing one empire was superior to other empires and deserved to be the one to conquer the world. there's not a lot of difference between Christians and Democrats. Christians: we are all united together as under The King. Romans promptly turn the king into Caesar and argue Christianity promotes somewhat-racist empires that take other nations as slaves. Democrats: we are all united together by voting and a list of civil rights. Capitalists promptly make it mandatory for every minority listed in a civil rights act to support Israel and destroy Palestine, and support products made in Cuba while refusing Cuban products on pain of arrest.

{{li|I=S2/P4|tradition=|Q=618}}An international war will surely clear away all internal contradictions / If there be bad blood in a nation, an honourable foreign war will vent it out (Bacon 1622) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> god, he's the 1600s Dugin. that or Dugin's ideas are as old as dirt. you know, one or the other.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}the revolution betrayed betrayed betrayed -> the motif of Trotskyism getting "betrayed" by the creation of socialism in one country, which then got betrayed by Trotskyism as payback, which then got betrayed by anarchism and critical theory turning the previous two events into evidence against all Marxism.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}I'll question to the death the reason you said it / I don't agree with what you're defending and I'll question to the death the reasons for anyone ever saying that / I don't agree with what you're defending people saying and I'll question to the death the underlying material reasons for anyone ever saying that -> this isn't meaning to imply the statement absolutely should be suppressed or shouldn't be said as much as purely that there is a big elephant being ignored of asking why it is people say things and what will be gained by defending the statement 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + meta-theory = this. 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + demographic Marxist / sectarianism = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani would have done more for the world if he'd bought an illegal Cuban product, showed it off, and gotten arrested than he did by attempting to speak about Israel -> I'm so sick of this new trend of all social contradictions happening in courtrooms between two individuals. I really am. but this would be one way to make the best of it

{{li|I=F2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}They can't arrest all of us -> one of those anarchist sayings that deeply bothers me because of how it's just not true. a country can bring down the law on as many people as it wants to. when it can't arrest everybody, that's when it brings out the tanks and helicopters and just starts shooting them. you should know this. it's already a pretty common talking point to say U.S. people don't revolt against the U.S. because of "the military". if China can bring out the army when there's not enough time for jury trials, and it's already common for cops to shoot petty criminals, what stops the United States from starting an open season on everybody who isn't committed to following all its laws? a bit of Cold War propaganda? do you really think the Great Terror happened for any other reason than that republics are based on laws and when people stop following laws and getting scared by cops they do anything to protect themselves??

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Nations are bodies of law / Nations are legal codes / A nationality is defined by how well people follow a population's current set of laws, and the less people follow the law, the less they are part of that nationality; this is to imply but not state that the moment people intend to follow no laws at all they are not part of a particular nationality any more -> 
this is one of the only models that can explain either separate wing of Liberal-republicanism and Stalin's Marxism and even a Trotskyist republic equally well: the model that republics begin with written laws and laws are the fundamental Ideas that create "nations of ideas". Tories don't follow center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. center-Liberals skirt around Tory laws, Tories call treason. Communists don't respect center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. anarchists or right-Liberals defy Soviet laws, Stalin's government calls treason. Stalin's government defies Trotskyists' desired body of laws, Trotskyists call treason. 
it's all about laws. laws are made by classes, and that's what distinguishes the fundamental character of a body of laws, but actually, all geopolitical conflicts and demographic conflicts deep inside countries start at whether separate groups of people are following each other's internal laws. it's all one big squabble about laws and what laws are inherently good or bad, while that will never have an objective answer because different areas of people hate other people's laws and don't want them. 
this is part of what makes critical-theory so frustrating. as of late it's been picking up talking points that the United States government is totally capable of granting North American tribes rights. but in order to get those "rights" they had to first send people to assimilate to White towns and consent to the overall body of United States laws and agree not to violate any of them, while some of those laws banned the tribal societies they would have been fighting for. it's a bit paradoxical. within the system that boasts all the time about giving people human rights (and also lies to everyone claiming the rights are from birth or 'god-given' despite the fact God doesn't give them to you in Cuba and Cuba requires an invasion to defeat The Regime that's apparently stronger than God himself)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Dengism can defeat God (power scaling) / Deng Xiaoping states are stronger than God / If human rights are granted to people by God when they are born, but the United States needs to invade Cuba to ensure that people have God-given rights, then the Cuban government is strong enough to stop God himself; this is to imply that the United States is proportionally stronger than God by two [[E:feat (power scaling)|feats]] because the United States is stronger than the thing that defeated God but is not God / The U.S. can defeat God (sense)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}There is no difference between morality and "manufacturing consent"; they are the same continuous thing; "manufacturing consent" is precisely an instance of either morality or natural law, and is an example of how Liberal-republicanism abuses these incorrect models of reality to gain power over people that were previously outside its control

{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Return to the Land (White supremacist movement) {{YouTube|e1iSMbzx_Hg}} -> I have.... a bit of a mild "conspiracy theory". I'm not sure Liberal-republicans are actually opposing this thing for the right reasons. sure, the people inside it sound like fairly bad people, and it doesn't sound like a good place to live. but I feel like this thing is being used as leverage to promote things people otherwise wouldn't support. to show that otherwise-bad things are "necessary". like, compounds full of racists are the new 9/11 — or the old one that probably existed decades before it happened. 
(it really doesn't help that the commentator identified the White supremacist compounds as "terrorist cells". that's a pretty heavy-handed rhetorical term when it comes to giving a particular national government great military power over any city within the entire rest of the world. like, anybody who says the word "terrorist" may as well already be king. Marxist parties are the only halfway exception. but it's still bad.) 
I feel like what's happening is something like, critical theory was one big scam by Liberal-republicanism to convince anarchists to turn against other forms of anarchism — granted, some of which were somewhat harmful, making the deal sound weirdly enticing — so Liberal-republicanism could then turn around and eradicate all anarchism and then be free to take over other countries and conquer the world. just like in those civilization games where you can just build one giant republican country and nuclear war never destroys the world first.

{{li|I=F2/LR|tradition=LR, HM|Q=618}}The purpose of Liberal-republicanism is to transition the world out of racism -> this seems to be the hypothesis advanced by critical theory. that republics actually exist in order to force ethnic groups to be friends. no matter what they've done to each other. this explains how Native American movements have been going mainstream: Liberal-republicanism is having trouble getting people to consent to it any more, so it needs to recruit minorities to advance its agenda of expanding itself over people and telling them what to do under the guise that it's making the world better for minorities. 
...this has to be false, doesn't it? the actual function of the United States has been dividing into two anarchisms that are mortal enemies. no matter how much critical theory says that forcing people to interact and integrate should change consciousness it doesn't seem to happen, and to some degree it only seems to make people more and more resentful and more inclined to kill each other. why it happens is less the presence of ethnic groups together in particular and more the presence of multiple populations that could be politically independent being ruled by "external" political factions that feel like foreign countries. like, it would really seem that Deng Xiaoping Thought has been way more successful than Liberal-republicanism, because having a single unified government actually seems to unify people rather than generating this worsening and worsening cycle of hatred. 
critical theory may be ideology generated directly out of Liberal-republicanism in the most insidious way possible. maybe this is what it's always done. maybe the real foundation of Liberal-republicanism is precisely holding up a set of laws, claiming they're inherently moral, and forcing everyone around, even people who aren't part of the country yet, to obey them or else. that is one of the only good explanations for why Liberal-republicanism has been so eager to back Israel. it doesn't even actually run on morality or care about morality. all it cares about is whether as many people as possible across the world are following an arbitrary set of laws. so the more people think Palestine "isn't following the law", {{em|as it is written}}, the easier it is to justify eliminating Palestine. 
you know. queer rights are a sham. they only exist because people have proved gay people are legal. on this weird metaphysical level where laws already exist before laws actually exist. and that's how laws come to be laws. but it isn't gay people that are oppressed by this Kantian interpretation of laws. it's Palestinians. believing that laws inherently exist and they only need to be approved just legitimizes the structure that makes this illusion possible to believe — global empire. this conception of things shouldn't be true, but when your empire is big enough to bully Cuba it's big enough to make almost anything come true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If history can ever be static, then Donald Trump cannot be the slightest bit Good or Bad / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable, including all outcomes in politics, without the recognition that history is always in motion from one state to another and it is always mandatory to make decisions on what it will change to / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable without the recognition history is always in motion -> you cannot say history has ended. not even with a narrow meaning that modes of production have ended. because there is no meaningful distinction between change existing in the form of a change between mode of production and change existing in the form of a country reverting to a global empire that wants to kill people for more land. both are the same kind of change, but reversion to empire cannot be stopped, which is to say that neither kind of change can actually be stopped. the original claim is false because in setting down its basic assumptions it really actually makes a false claim about what change is, which is dangerously false.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}All business owners are terrorists -> abolish copyright and I'll take it back.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Until 2020 Marxism has been unable to create genuinely accurate models of Idealist factions or civilizations because of the way their material interests and the processes that create their behavior are inherently separated; Marxist models start in a form of Materialism that basically assumes that everybody already lives in a Materialist civilization similar to Bolshevism where any particular assembled group of people belonging to a class is aware it has class interests as opposed to the people in a faction being completely unaware of that and acting together for completely different reasons; this has made Marxism inherently well suited to turning around and betraying itself with Marxisms attacking other Marxisms, and inherently badly suited to actually understanding the development over time of Liberal-republicanism and anarchism well enough to be able to defeat them

{{li|I=S1/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}TV times including "central" / 2:30-3:30 central / 9pm-8pm central [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1mgil6/if_there_are_four_time_zones_why_do_national_tv/] / my daughter asked me to pick her up at 2:30-3:30 central -> I keenly remember this idea being printed in some kind of issue of {{book|Reader's Digest}} or something but I do not remember where I first saw it. a joke about the idea that it's really weird that U.S. TV shows tell you two time zones at once and it would be strange if everyone went around saying that. that's really changed in the age of online streaming where YouTube will just kind of tell you what time something happens in your time zone and a stream might be on at a weird time but you don't have to do any calculations. but for various reasons it's still worth remembering the age of "2:30/3:30 central".

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}How will you obtain unicorn horns? / Anarchists presuppose that envisioning a different future separate from the material elements, structures, and processes of society that already exist is meaningful in and of itself, but if this is the case, they seemingly have no way to actually change anything; if the United States changes the day you find unicorn horns on the ground, but there are none of them in the entire land area of the United States, and you cannot fabricate them, and you cannot teleport them in from another place given that nobody in the United States knows how to do that, how can you possibly find them fast enough for your entire party of people to not simply be driven out of the United States to where the unicorn horns actually are — what do you do? -> trying to get anarchists to think harder about the concept of productive forces and the fact that you always need graph connections between people to actually achieve anything

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian / Despite nearly everyone in the United States who is not a member of the Libertarian movement claiming capital-L Libertarian parties to be different and distinct from them, the Libertarian movement in fact describes the founding principles of {{em|all}} political parties in the United States — agorism — and every other Liberal-republican political party in the United States is in fact a variation of Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian movement, including some political movements which are not organized into official parties; United States civil rights movements are a Libertarianism because they are defined as the sum of all non-aggressive activities, the Democratic-Republican party of 1791 was a Libertarianism because it opposed the Federalist party of large monolithic businesses clustered around a central government, the Democratic Party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the concept of people voluntarily joining in non-aggression to continuously vote for a party to supposedly fix their problems and absolutely all political parties that don't directly commit aggression getting to continue existing, the Republican party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the belief that all small, medium-size, and large corporations can form a locus of non-aggression that is being attacked by other loci of non-aggression; the actual center position in the United States that should be in the middle of a political compass is Libertarianism-agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party] -> 
before I found about agorism nothing about Liberal-republicanism made sense, and it all makes a lot more coherent material sense now down to the thing of getting obsessed with finding "the middle" and distinguishing all deviations into new parties as "directional" from the middle or as Extremes, but the more I learn, the more all the inner logic of LiberalRepublicanism-Libertarianism-agorism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Wario believes in Liberal-republicanism then he must be a Libertarian -> I made it simple for you. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-greatest-thread-in-the-history-of-forums-locked-by-a-moderator-after-12239-pages-of-heated-debate]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Ag|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Agorism is a segregation machine / Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them; 
the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation'; 
in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs; 
loci of non-aggression include: towns, families that have not experienced violent child abuse or the murder of a spouse, clusters of employees and owners that haven't committed horrible abuses against each other yet, clusters of tenants the landlord hasn't [[E:landlord rape incidents|literally committed crimes]] against, individual churches, segregated White towns without any gangs, Black towns without any racists, towns without any homeless camps, tiny satellite cities that produce nothing but are not "menaced" by big cities or taxes, individual local-states that come to accurately or falsely believe they've reduced themselves to one Liberal-republican party and no longer worry about the other, clusters of minority subpopulations, the US Bill of Rights, clusters of religions that believe they only have freedom of religion because they all exist together and none of them stopped existing, the overall US empire as it exists in a state of not having wars on its immediate borders, clusters of First World countries that are friendly toward each other but get together to oppress Third-World countries and even more so any Second-World countries that exist as "aggressives" 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this. escape routes (schizoanalysis) + republic based on transition = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Moral vanguard theory is covering up the observation that, as it currently exists inside Liberal-republicanism, agorism is founded on the assumption that all bigotry is fundamentally normal and natural until the day clusters of people end up being compatible with each other rather than toxic to each other and then only after that spontaneously decide hating each other is not okay 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If it's bad to want a utopia then why is anybody allowed to desire an afterlife? -> really think about it. it's very common to criticize utopias in fiction and think "all of them are dystopias"; charcoal anarchists are some of the only people who don't think this way. so why doesn't everyone think that way about the bible? why doesn't everybody realize that if wanting a utopia is "wanting to get something the easy way" or "wanting to get something for nothing" then wanting a god to grant you heaven is literally exactly the same thing? you just have to believe and then you get something for nothing.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more upsetting than {{film|Drawn Together}} / The news is more upsetting than {{film|South Park}} -> today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em|choose}} to do, or does it not?

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618}}Stalin transitioned the {{TTS|USSR|Soviet Union}} backward / Stalin transitioned the Soviet Union backward from Trotskyism to Stalin's Marxism / Stalin took the Soviet Union backward through the stages of history because he did not understand that the Soviet Union was an instance of Trotskyism, Trotskyism is a stage {{em|after}} Stalin's Marxism, and seeking to build Stalin's Marxism while standing on Trotskyism can only result in the reversion of an instance of Trotskyism to a prior physical historical period, destroying Trotskyism; this is to imply but not state that Stalin is a counter-revolutionary just because he failed to understand Trotskyism as a material object and destroyed it -> trying to state what Trotskyists' argument is {{em|clearly}} through the language of meta-Marxism. 
I wish Trotskyists would just admit that the Trotskyite conspiracy happened. because if they did, they could point to this, and they could say, it doesn't matter if Stalin was defending Stalin's Marxism, the problem is Stalin wrecked Trotskyism, and that's why it had to be defended at all costs. Trotsky wrecking Stalin's Marxism is immaterial if Stalin was trying to build a worse version of Marxism over a better version of Marxism. when Liberal-republicans do that, it's counter-revolutionary, so when Stalin does it, it's also counter-revolutionary, no need to even start arguing about The Bureaucracy yet. meta-Marxists, {{em|you}} go build Stalin's Marxism in another country so it doesn't wreck Trotskyism, not the other way around. and I would say, that's a good point actually. maybe Stalin {{em|did}} accidentally transplant a Marxism meant for much more undeveloped countries to the Soviet Union. and maybe it's technically true that Stalin's Marxism vulgarizes really quickly into Dengism if you aren't watching it closely. is Stalin actually a Maoist? are Stalin and Mao actually Dengists? sometimes I just don't know any more.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kōans are really lightbulb jokes / Kōans become lightbulb jokes / Any philosophical kōan can be turned into a lightbulb joke with the addition of ideological factions -> How many roads must a man walk down? If he's a Liberal-republican, infinite, some of them going in circles. If he's a Communist, a finite number because he knows where he's going.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}How many roads must a man walk down?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A debate about gun control is actually a debate over which weapon to use / A debate about gun control is actually a debate about which weapon everyday people should prefer: guns or cops

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}If ancient Greece was a small civilization where did the slaves come from? -> the Roman empire makes logical sense to me. there were territories at the edge of Rome, it conquered them, it put them into the empire, it took slaves. but Greece had slaves too and where did those come from?

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Industry divisions thwart Armageddon / When society is divided into Butcher and Bookbinder it cannot divide into Us and Them / If society is divided qualitatively into industries, none of the divisions of people can be Good or Evil, and it must be that they will come to understand each other on a level that is universal -> implied assumption in agorism, and Liberal-republicanism. I think this was solidly falsified the moment humans invented generative AI. there's been a pretty solid consensus building that generative AI just is Evil and when it exists as an industry some industries are Evil, if that didn't already happen with the oil industry. what anarchists really really don't want to understand is that this discovery has horrifying implications for the philosophical foundations of anarchism. if people can be Good or Evil solely based on what their talents are, you can never guarantee that 'the totality of all non-aggressive activities not forbidden by The State' will ever get along rather than fighting each other and erupting into hierarchy or domination purely because people are determined for one decision to be made rather than another decision and to call that decision Good and the other decision Evil. that is the root of a lot of hierarchy if you ask me. but it's also unavoidable, because who's going to persuade anarchists to just tolerate all the stuff that they feel oppresses them? I think it's more realistic to admit that anarchism can contain domination and hierarchy and the claims it doesn't were lies, and just define anarchism around some other concept than Good and Bad — that includes "domination", "hierarchy", "decency", "respect", "disruption", "empathy", morality, ethics, "enchantment" (which turns into ethics in a couple seconds), "prejudices", and "White culture". the one completely nebulous thing they say that I am genuinely unsure whether they can or can't have is Freedom, because that has hundreds of definitions and I'm still not sure I understand what it is. so, yeah, {{em|maybe}} you can get away with defining anarchism as Freedom-ism and basing it on these long treatises of exactly how Freedom works descriptively with no prescriptive statements about it. I might not like it but at least I can't immediately tell you it's a dead theory. 
Industry divisions thwart Armageddon + Pokémon type chart = Arceus.

{{li|I=S1/MX/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}oppressive membership -> the concept of membership in a relationship or group of people being itself an axis of oppression which operates in a somewhat [[E:atomic process (one-step process)|atomic]] way such that it is completely inseparable from concepts of "hierarchy" or "domination" and those things cannot simply be removed without the relationship itself dissolving. 
oppressive membership + anarchism = anarculture. oppressive membership + The Bureaucracy (Trotskyism) / Stalinism (corruption) = political revolution in the USSR (Trotskyism).

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}Anarchism applies to any situation / Anarchism is a series of moral principles that can be applied in any historical situation -> sounds fine on the surface as a descriptive appraisal of anarchism, but gets really interesting when you remember that the Soviet Union and the conflict between Stalin's party and Trotsky's faction is "any situation". 
Anarchism is acting as if you're already free + Machiavellianism (feudal orders) = Anarchism applies to any situation.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|tradition=|Q=618}}If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube / If Fisherism is true, then every non-politician in China should ignore Chinese politics and make as many videos about United States politics as possible -> this would be for two reasons. 1) people in China are mostly safe from the U.S. government, so they are less likely to face consequences than people in the United States 2) if "creating media" is really so important to changing societal consciousness then most of China's government and politics is in the United States, so they need to change consciousness in the United States to change their government

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.
{{li|I=S1/DFy/ML|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em|is}} inevitable.

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}"Male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are different / In terms of the arts, "male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same thing in all contexts except among the craziest groups of proto-fascist Tories <s>[I promise to revise that on the Ontology: page]</s>, but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are actually different things to a greater extent than "U.S. culture" versus "Japanese culture" or "U.S. culture" versus "British culture"; national population does not affect culture products as greatly as the new and special forms of interaction and description of selves and world that take place within the particular kinds of semi-countable social groups that take part in "queer culture"; this is to imply but not state that "queer culture" carries its own worldview and political faction distinct from Liberal-republican politics -> 
male culture: Digimon Adventure. female culture: MLP gen 4. it's quite obvious what is what with kids' media when you have networks wanting to aim products at apparent differences between boys and girls to try to get more consistent sales, but even when you can point out a 'show for girls' and a 'show for boys' they are not actually that different if they're any good. hence all the bronies, hence that awkward space of women watching anime and trying to ignore the grossly exaggerated female silhouettes because nothing else about the show or game is especially bad. I think you also see this with things aimed at adults but it would be hard to think of an example where you get such a 'nice' region of awkward crossover. {{book|Dragonriders of Pern}} can be argued to be female culture I guess, but it's easy to forget that. then there's like, an argument to be made that {{book|Harry Potter}} is so misogynistic that it's male culture coming out of a woman — if it wasn't enough of an insult to accuse it of being such an 'uncool' book series as to be read by more moms and dads than kids — but it's also just within the range of 'teenage' enough that teenage girls can get obsessed with the male characters. 
so, male culture and female culture are very similar on basic levels. but "queer culture" is something different from either of them. you can really start to identify it the moment you see a furry visual novel with a plot that's "weirdly straight" — where some of the characters are stereotypes, or where the writing is okay but all the characters have totally depressing problems that make you wonder why you're reading a book right now and not just talking to the people around you that are the human equivalent of Twitter feeds, here assuming you also don't like Twitter. when these kinds of things are made "correctly", they have a very different feel. you see people being... idealistic? living in their own world, but not really in an upsetting way. they stop thinking about the outside world where everybody isn't of the same finite cluster of LGBT+ people and the atmosphere becomes very... specific to the people who are there. I want to say "insular" but that's more negative than what I actually mean. 
I think part of what I am saying is that LGBT+ circles tend to generate this consciousness of being a teeny village of people just because they are inherently limited to having only tiny clusters of people available, and because of this they sometimes also start believing that they inherently constitute some kind of "anarchist tribe" that must transition to anarchism because it will never contain enough people to spawn a Liberal-republican nation-state. the way different subpopulations in the United States get so separated really seems to mess with people's heads and cause people to see themselves as entirely separate stateless "nation-states" with separate histories, right down to subconsciously imagining whole trajectories of transition only for their own cluster of people of a particular identity and based on the exact number of people that are in it at the moment. it's funny how identities will take the notion of forms of society comically literally to the point a Marxist would scold them for reading historical materialism too closely, but then they will not even know they're doing it and try to deny that forms of society and social transitions are a thing and just try to tell you everybody needs to transition to anarchism because gay people exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Orange terrain is solid / Orange terrain is stable / Trotskyism is composed of fine-scale structures that are distinguished by their ability to stop parts of society from being overtaken and taken advantage of by The Bureaucracy; these structures may be referred to as "orange structures", although this only labels one specific function of the structures or process they contribute to and is not meant to be exclusive with the category of them being crimson structures / The dictatorship of the proletariat is an unbroken terrain of connected orange structures -> 
so apparently it's only when you look deep into what Trotskyists are claiming The Bureaucracy is that you finally start to understand what it is they're trying to create. they want one basic thing within any particular region, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat; the concept of international permanent revolution can actually be conceptualized as being emergent from this, because anything that keeps continuously defending outwardly red or orange countries from turning strawberry or blue and does appear in multiple nearby countries can link across the country regions so they can defend each other from encroaching bourgeois factions and form a Second World. this makes a lot more sense. the very first few times I read about Trotskyism I took it as this vaguely Idealist proclamation that things [[E:"I believe that everybody" statement|should have happened]] in other countries [[E:Monty Hall problem|that didn't happen]] and there "just should have" been international permanent revolution. but I now see it was more complicated than that. it's less that Trotskyists were upset Trotsky couldn't go to Germany and turn it orange and more that they were upset that the Third International seemingly refused to create a correct model of what happened in Germany, so they thought they had to tirelessly protect any region that really did have the potential to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, wherever it was, to keep The Bureaucracy from getting into it because the parties allied with Stalin were not safe from getting 'infiltrated' and slowly turning strawberry. the aim of trying to hold down a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat and prevent strawberry Marxisms from forming is respectable, given how many strange things strawberry Marxisms do on their best days ('corporations are productive forces', 'socialism is getting rid of poverty', party-approved listicles) and the few actually-awful things they do on their worst days (pre-emptively thinking rude people are reactionaries just because they're rude, battle between strawberry cops and Maoists buried inside resistances). historically speaking strawberry Marxisms are very similar to blue factions in that they slowly restore this dynamic of the most powerful people generating more power and keeping down the weakest people. I wouldn't blame anyone for acting like strawberry Marxisms simply aren't something to be messed with and are more something you want to stop at the root. as long as the people saying that are at least as Marxist as Stalin; anarchists really need to shut up and read enough stuff to learn how to do violet analysis before say anything on the topic of 'power multiplying'. if anarchists knew as much Marxism as the [[E:International Committee of the Fourth International|ICFI]] I would not be anywhere near as mad at them as I am and I would be more tolerant of proposals to create charcoal terrains that are supposed to serve the same function as orange terrains. I was in the beginning, but.... oh boy when anarchism only seems to generate more stupidity every day without ever getting better you quickly get tired of it

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Historically, Trotskyism has always been a "poly-" Marxism and there has never been a molecularized definition of Trotskyism (or any definition) which does not expect {{em|the process inside}} a particular country region to spill to the edge of the country effectively enough to end up creating connected blocs or federations of countries; the process of abolishing "owned country territories" and ruling classes along country borders and the process of defeating other versions of Marxism are not necessarily the direct causes of the "poly-" shape as much as consequences of it, and in fact, Trotskyism having a "poly-" shape is easily explained by processes inside each country region individually, namely a molecularized process of forming a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat which if successful joins multiple countries into a single potentially contiguous Second World region

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=LR, ES, A|Q=618}}Mothers have the power to abolish entire nationalities / When national populations do not base their strategy for development on government welfare programs they inherently treat households as an exploitable resource by making stay-at-home mothers or fathers or other relatives generate and perfect workers that will be exploited by cities to build modernity, therefore if rural parents were to stand up against society they could weaken the power of the oppressive apparatus inside nation-states and all its justifications for either it or a nation-state existing; this is to imply that nation-states are not entitled to calling households citizens just because people do daily activities inside their borders, but also that households are entitled to money from other households in the pool of people a nation-state has assigned them to almost as an apology for having to be part of a nation-state {{YouTube|eotvnm_UDek}} -> this came from an analysis I saw on China. it's clearly from a very Liberal-republican framework, considering the weird fixation on everyone in a country being entitled to all social programs that exist even if the limits on social programs are actually meant to stop urban poverty and stuff like U.S. cities full of homeless camps that ultimately result after too many people move to cities too fast. but the more you look at this statement the weirder it gets. Liberal-republicans will most of the time act like a particular republic existing is only natural and dismantling it would be craziness but at other times they'll act like the entire existence of nationalities is a game to them and everyone can just stop being Chinese at any time if they get tired of it. there is this weird anarchist undercurrent to all Liberal-republicanism which you see vaguely come up in theorists like Rousseau. but when you try to point out that it's there, Liberal-republicanism will generally try to deny it and act like all the people that say taxes are arbitrary constructs or they're 'sovereign citizens' are foreign material and weren't created by glitches in Liberal-republican theory itself. the one time people get bold about it and it becomes the most socially acceptable is when it's applied to other countries than the one people are currently in. tell people that the United States is a made-up game and they get upset and try to argue at you for hours that civil rights court cases that will get repealed tomorrow are objective truth, tell people China is a made-up game that can be broken up or remade from scratch and they'll simply nod.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES onto DX|Q=618}}China designing Deng Xiaoping Thought to suit the United States is pick-me behavior, and the true anti-pick-me move is for China to go back to Bolshevism -> I am so sick of the terrible contradiction between everyone in the United States saying that 'you shouldn't just be what society wants you to be to be convenient to them' and also acting like the pressure on entire Third World countries to be exactly what First World countries want is okay and normal. either people eventually become obligated to mask for others at some point {{em|as a matter of being ethical}}, or telling China it has to have a socioeconomic structure that the United States stamps as okay is "pick-me behavior", and there is no in-between on that question.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}China exporting too many products is exacerbating global tensions [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/21/qkaj-f21.html] -> why? why do you believe that? do you think you'll be able to get the people who made China structure itself based on exports because it was their 'free market right' to stop? you're waging a fight between United States capitalists that want to exploit Third World labor and United States capitalists that want to sell products, and for some reason you're waging it in China as if China had anything to do with it. China did what it was told. so at this point you may as well set up a ballot box for Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump in China and make the president of the United States partly based on what the people of China vote for. because it would make fully as much sense as this.

{{li|I=S2/DX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Jiang Zemin's "theory of three represents" declared that the business elite and emerging middle classes were the most advanced representatives of society, and were as much allies of the CPC as workers (ICFI) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/chin-d30.html]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}The French first republic lasted until the declaration of the first empire [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic] -> that is such an interesting sentence by itself, because it'd make you think that capitalism in France just erupted directly into global empire. I don't think it was that much of a straight line though.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Saying Jewish people outside Israel are obligated to support Israel is the real antisemitism -> Jewish people are one thing. Israelis are another. Germans are one thing. Nazis are another. this is not difficult. but for some reason the United States and all of its messaging and paid ads are determined to make this more difficult than it needs to be

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The major effect of spreading {{book|Settlers}} was to get people very upset about localized Black struggles that immediately affected them but to change nearly nobody's position on Palestine or attempting to use voting to save Palestine

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There are two major forms of imperialism: annexation (conquest) and primitive accumulation (frontier wars, apartheid states, "settler-colonialism", large-scale chunk competition)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ordinary people are confused by the fact that different groups of billionaires can believe entirely different things -> on one hand this is a good thing because people are vaguely understanding that being a billionaire pushes people toward particular forms of ideology. but on the other, it isn't good because people aren't understanding the [[E:material idea|concept]] of [[E:material contradiction|material contradictions]].

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}AI can be a threat, but it can't be useless / Billionaires will casually spread warnings about "the threat" of AI but they will not accept AI being referred to as "slop" -> actually good insight

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Identifying Edgeworth's dialectic identifies who you should vote for / So you would vote for the more neo lib candidate instead of the guy who changed his ways? (Liberal-republicanism)

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty / If you crudely define Socialism as an increasing exercise of "society-ism", then the correct action is to look at poor countries and decide that everyone who isn't currently provided for needs to defect to a different country as fast as possible, which is to say, needs to beg to be actively colonized by the border of a rich country in order to hopefully receive food; the people of Cuba absolutely need to be ruled by the Democratic Party per se, not even their own center-Liberal party / ({{9k|-0Vk8B3cNH8}}) -> it's funny how utterly insane the cluster of commonly-held beliefs U.S. people hold about the overall world sounds if you just say them out loud and combine them into one statement instead of compartmentalizing statements about each part of the world separately.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece -> I'm slightly afraid of what propositions would lead here. 
this proposition is a joke. I do not endorse it. 
A poor country means a bad, fake historical period that must be overthrown + debt in Greece = To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece. 
If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty + debt in Greece = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Political factions and communities are the same thing — all communities become political factions when the situation demands it, and all political factions are communities
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All communities are political factions / All countable cultures or socially-linked groups of people can function as Social-Philosophical Systems given the right situation -> I believed this because it neatly explains why Tories exist. by now, I'm not as eager to believe it, but it's still one of the sharpest replies to Bellegarrigue and easiest ways to start disproving him, so I can't quite let it go. all plurality brought on by social connections, culture, or identity has the potential to become political plurality if one group of people forces itself on another, thus there is no actual distinction between plural communities and plural formal governments. there can be physically plural anarchisms, and they can even have civil wars against each other. the concept of simply getting rid of plurality and getting rid of violence created by plurality by getting rid of The State is impossible.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All political factions are communities / All Social-Philosophical Systems are countable cultures

{{li|I=Z0/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Black defendant with all-White jury -> there are going to be some interesting combinations out of this one. generally combinations that make Liberal-republicanism look very bad. 
this + Liberal-republicanism is government by the people = Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is government by the people
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, A|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=|Q=618|submitter=StackExchange}}If gravity is zero at the center of the earth, then how did iron get there? [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-i] -> the answer says that part of the "error" here is that gravity is not a flat integer zero, it's a fence of 9.8 m/s^2 vectors pointing to all hemispheres of the planet. so iron can get in but it can't get out. some minerals drift down into the core if heavy elements are not bonded to other elements, but it's not as easy for minerals to drift back up. without being part of one big tectonic plate motion or something I guess.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition|Q=618}}Anarchism is everybody ruling everyone all the time {{YouTube|L68a6mIP09E}} -> this is.... not wrong. it came out of somebody who clearly doesn't understand anything but like, it isn't wrong. it's seemingly how a lot of recent anarchism has worked. it's backhandedly true.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition|Q=618}}Hierarchy is weak {{YouTube|CZ-FRyUZ3ok}} -> okay, but what happens when you break it open leaving an empty gap? is war strong? it must be, because it's completely unreasonable on any terms but its own and pretty hard for a small group of anarchists to stop. anarchists love reaction. they love letting anything that's too violent or dangerous for them to defeat just exist. just read Rothenberg's book where 'fascism' is treated as the only real problem but also practically raised to the level of human nature. but they'll turn around and attack things that are too weak to defend themselves against anarchism in an instant just because those things did a couple things they didn't like. this is my question: what will anarchism to do if something {{em|is anarchism}} but does something anarchism doesn't like? attack it and destroy it like anything else? how can you actually be sure that anarchism is a peaceful philosophy and not just one that will end up fighting itself for the rest of time?

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}The United States military is a neutral force within the world because it changes consciousness (anarchism) {{YouTube|LZiT3FgFqA4}} {{YouTube|sMoTWFZjoYA}} / I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong {{YouTube|FCJxf9bq1IU}} -> this is the consequence of unchecked Western-Marxism and letting people think Marxism is about actions that ""change consciousness"" rather than digging through the 'consciousness process' to uncover what structures people can be part of to gain better consciousness and how the sharpest people can start arranging [[E:arrangement of proletarians (meta-Marxism)|empowering structures]] that can [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|create]] or [[E:revolutionary lattice period|defend]] those structures regardless of what other people already notice. the difference between Althusser and Stalin is that Althusser lets you go to imperialist war to learn a lesson purely to not be a Dictator and tell you what to think before you actually learn your lesson firsthand.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong -> my brain was searching trying to think of what this made me think of and then I suddenly realized what it was. it was the MLP song. "I used to wonder what friendship could be..." that's it. like, that show embodies how Liberal-republicanism thinks of "consciousness", and this is the ultimate result of that overall kind of thinking.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}There is nothing wrong with hierarchy -> one of those propositions that's here to be the shocking result of combinations of bad propositions. 
this proposition isn't {{em|obviously}} incorrect, it's somewhat complex actually, but there are enough situations where it's wrong that in this form it would be false.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto LR, IV onto HM|Q=618}}Habermasian history is not a dialectical form of analysis because it does not understand how contradictory interactions or antagonisms rebuild the greater whole and prevent effective reforms / fundamental aspects of a society cannot simply be removed one at a time ... racism cannot be legislated out of capitalism [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> perfectly on the mark. this is what you tell them. 
the one thing you have to look out for, though: schizoanalysts trying to claim that because they included every contradictory minority at once that they've created a model which is 'actually dialectical'.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The human mind cannot become fully conscious of itself until bourgeois society is abolished, which ultimately stamps all non-proletarian philosophy as metaphysical and unscientific (Untermann 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen (Leigh 2024) [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}second-order anarchism -> the motif of someone who finds almost all forms of anarchism actually observed in the real world too specific and divisive to unite people and rebels against anarchism in order to achieve the greater goal of breaking everybody out of competing factions such as Communism versus anarchism and unifying them. this is the only kind of anarchism you could ever get me to believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}If you achieve degrowth through people of different industries periodically fighting each other and destroying each other's machines, then you've achieved degrowth {{YouTube|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> my objection to this isn't a moral one, because I don't believe morality or ethics is real. but I have an aversion to things that don't make any coherent sense. what about this makes sense? when does society know that the goal has been achieved? at what point does the process stop? is it possible for this process to extend into more abstract industries like academia or the arts, and somehow just, end up with people doing everything they can to suppress a paper or something, I don't know? what would people do to suppress pharmaceutical companies over-prescribing drugs? from what I know about anarchists, they draw the line at actually keeping people from receiving anti-depressants and hormones, so they can't stop drug production, even though it's the thing that's sold for money.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}turtles all the way down (motif)

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}botched neopets TTRPG {{YouTube|lirIV57wI34}} {{YouTube|TIxaATMBnvk}} {{YouTube|iYjUzlyEtkw}} -> it often feels like dumb headlines like these give you more insight into what kinds of class structures exist than an actual economics textbook. 
neopets exists. neopets scouts out contractor corporation. contractor corporation hires further contractors that are new at the task. there are no stable structures here; it's turtles all the way down.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Empire is always regenerating / Primitive accumulation keeps happening / Primitive accumulation is always happening -> otherwise it's hard to explain the Cold War and the way the overall concept has continued on and on more like a freezer that first set itself up and then continually circulated heat out.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ethics is the shovel dream of primitive accumulation -> think about it. most 'fitting actions' anarchists want you to do require people to have wealth first, or privilege as a whole society over other societies. create pieces of a 'community' for fun? you have to have all the money and privilege to have learned to do it correctly so your output isn't trash, or everyone will make fun of you and maybe call you immoral, potentially including the anarchists. distribute goods to people of questionable origin? you have to be White so you don't get immediately shot, and somebody first had to besiege Third World countries and make them have exactly the right government and level of wealth to both produce well and pay nothing in order for there to be enough abundance to be at the level where anarchists can claim 'distributing it' is the only problem. 
ethics itself is colonial in that without the creation of an empire you can't go on the continuing journey of people becoming 'more and more' ethical. you have to have that slump first where a huge atrocity is committed and then people progressively learn about it and apologize. a world without atrocities genuinely might not need morality or ethics at all. it might be a wholly amoral world. and the fact people are even talking about ethics may signal either that they're defending something awful, or that they aren't as good of people as they believe they are. 
why is it that anarchists always want to imagine everything perfect but it never occurs to them that a world in an original perfect state might not even have ethics.

{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618}}Plato was the only Greek / Plato was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece (observation on {{film|Chip Chilla}}) {{YouTube|x6IZm3lf50s}} / Aristotle was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece -> good catch! it's rather remarkable how, there were particular classes within ancient Greek society that could be at least vaguely separated out by layer, and almost everybody loves to act like the upper classes were the only class to exist. in reality, it appears that the upper classes and lower classes had different positions on topics like whether Greek gods were real. there was more than one body of ideology in ancient Greece, at least along the division of how educated people were if nothing else, and we don't usually talk about the interactions between those {{em|different}} bodies of ideology.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I {{em|know}} the Asriel plot thread is not that good, but everyone likes it. am I wrong or is everybody else right {{YouTube|ECa4_RWtoHY}} -> I couldn't tell you the answer to the question but I do know this is an interesting motif

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}Japanese culture (essence) / Japanese culture as essence of Japaneseness -> I used to think this concept made some sort of sense before I was an adult but now I don't think it makes any sense.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}Distinguishing countries by "culture" others them (Marxism, Trotskyism)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black vice -> this is how.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black virtue -> this is more how a lot of characterizations of "Japanese culture" or "animist beliefs" work, casually implying that something can both inherently be of a particular "culture" and also be virtuous by having started from that.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}sugar, spice, and everything nice -> Idealism/essentialism in a fairy tale type context.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature — not in the unique sense which has gotten the label that exists within society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature, because it can only exist {{em|within}} sociality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty exists due to greater or lower social bonds
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism, because Idealism cannot change the process of which people are socially compatible and develop stronger social bonds creating high-ranking individuals and marginalized individuals

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}The sun must rise (astronomy) -> I wrote this one down vaguely within context of eucatastrophe and the arguments that it is "realistic".

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Never debate Item names / Do not argue about Item names, given that all Items can have multiple aliases or outward sense labels, and you can debate which concepts belong in each numbered entry within Talk pages

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}Job as Communist antihero / Job as Communist hero -> think about it. he is told to do something and then he turns away from it and bad things keep happening and he keeps getting these reminders of the thing he was supposed to do, that bad things keep happening if he doesn't start doing. begins to remind me of Trotskyists repeatedly talking about crises and despite the claims the crises will lead to something being a little laughable correctly pointing out that none of it will get better if people do nothing. 
Q51,31 Job sounds like job + Christian devotional about Ted = Job as Communist antihero. 
Job sounds like job + Trotskyists obsessing about crises = Job as Communist antihero.

{{li|I=M3/MX/LR|Q=618}}What action taken by cops would be bad enough to actually get society to abolish them? / cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos ([[E:12,1,09|generic]]) -> I was thinking about qualified immunity and how absurdly it's been pushed to include cops getting to do anything that has no precedent and then after my brain churned a bit I was like... wait, {{em|anything}}? so if I pointed to a really messed up video of an anthro cat removing somebody's eyeballs, like, is it true that absolute serial killer shit wouldn't get us to abolish the police, and our society really thinks anything you do behind a cop's badge is okay. 
what if people signed up to a police department and became cops and then they burned down a billionaire's building? would they even get fired? what if a cop assassinated the president? would everything still go on the same as it was? what if a cop went to an immigrant prison and busted the place open and let them out? what if a cop distributed a bunch of illegal copies of a movie? what if a cop hid in a mascot costume and killed several kids at a pizza restaurant? what if a cop killed every single other cop in the state? what if a cop lied under oath? what if a cop shredded every single election ballot, and when there was another attempt to have an election, it happened again? what if a cop cut power to a hospital? what if a cop disrupted the mail? what if a cop somehow confiscated people's tax money and spent it so the government couldn't have it? what if a cop made a statement glorifying Vladimir Putin and Russia invading Ukraine? what if a police department went on strike for Palestine? is that literally the only thing a cop can get fired for? if every cop everywhere went on strike for Palestine would the United States have to abolish the police? 
I bet at least half of the weird scenarios I could think of absolutely wouldn't change anything no matter how strange or how horrific the thing that happened actually was. 
I really, genuinely wonder what it would take to end qualified immunity, and how outrageous the action taken by the cop would actually have to be. 
qualified immunity (United States) + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}failed attempt at anti-essentialism / failed attempt to apply anti-essentialism -> I get really tired of the Ideals + anti-essentialism model of reality because I totally know it is not actually modeling what's real and there are going to be a lot of cases where it simply fails that nobody bothers to talk about. 
this + ?? = Not All Men.
{{li|I=S1/LR/ML|Q=618}}successful application of anti-essentialism denied by Liberal-republicans -> there's this category of statements too.

{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not every house cat is an obligate carnivore -> example where going against an overgeneralization could be harmful.
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone will learn tolerance from media representation -> sad but probably true.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Not every country should practice Liberal-republicanism -> it'll make everyone mad but that alone doesn't make it false.
{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone should vote for Joe Biden (2020) -> hypothetically possible but will make people mad.

{{li|I=F2/HAS|Q=618}}My dog is the only one / My dog is the only dog ever / My dog is the only thing that anyone calls a dog [https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/psych/glossary/undergeneralization/] -> example given to illustrate children failing to learn to generalize words beyond specific examples. one attested use of the term "undergeneralization".

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood 
When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization ... + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes represent international war / Superheroes largely started as a vague depiction of international war -> see: Superman punching Hitler, [https://screenrant.com/superman-first-hero-to-beat-up-hitler-not-captain-america/] Ultraman as representation of Soviet occupations
{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes appear spontaneously and unpredictably because they are a representation of the anhierarchic conditions of large-scale international politics in which war can never truly be regulated and whenever war begins the only thing that can counter it is war completing itself from the other side 
Superheroes represent international war + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If there are no grand narratives that stretch across the world, then it is impossible to tell Alexander Dugin that Russians can't just go kill Ukrainians because that's what they want to do that week and it makes them happy -> without Marxism, the statement that the world shouldn't have international wars or that countries should be "orderly" is nothing more than a narrative, so everyone is free to reject it. ethics is just a narrative. "international law" is just a narrative. suddenly the notion that narratives can't possibly reach around the world and become universal isn't sounding so good any more, is it?

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}In 1949, [[E:the real Chinese people|the real Chinese people]] were the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (Mao) [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm] 
China's conditions are exceptional + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}China's conditions are exceptional / Chinese exceptionalism (history) / China's history is exceptional / China's historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value -> this proposition has a very interesting relationship with the concept of country characteristics. many people will falsely go claiming that this {{em|is}} what country characteristics are, although in many cases it will simply not be true.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}U.S. conditions are exceptional / American exceptionalism (history) / The United States' historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Stalin intentionally created strawberry capitalism in order to get more allies in countries without a fully-developed capitalism [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peoples-republic] -> so in a way Trotskyists are accusing Stalin of having invented the primary phase of development / primary phase of "socialism". 
you know, having a "socialism" constructed over the top of your country for international geopolitical reasons and then living in that for years having to make sense of it is one of the few reasons it would make logical sense for China to bend over backwards to justify strawberry capitalism as "definitely socialism, actually". 
edit: the bot [[redlink - ICFI prompts|told me]] this theory was bogus. which really makes me wonder which party wrote this glossary, because apparently it was not the ICFI.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}bracketing in meta-Marxism / downreductionism in meta-Marxism / reductionism in meta-Marxism (referring to a process that does not remove outgoing interactions and antagonisms) / meta-Marxism and bracketing smaller areas of a larger system of interacting parts to better understand the outgoing interactions and antagonisms of a particular piece
upreductionism in meta-Marxism / meta-Marxism and reconstruction of larger systems or events by combining smaller parts into a whole

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}finding Marxism in {{film|Bee Movie}} {{YouTube|q_agS0hDMvc}} -> yeah, this {{em|is}} inherently funny due to the example fictional work already having meme status. but that doesn't make the concept bad. 
there's nothing wrong with people trying to do Marxist breakdowns of the elements or themes that make up popular media. not even if the popular work is superficial "slop". and you know why? the more popular something is the cheaper it gets to buy after a few years once people start donating it to thrift stores. if you manage to take a really popular work, however bad, and turn it into a teaching tool with a well known meaning, you've created really cheap propaganda that you don't need party organizers to distribute, that will keep getting spread around no matter how many party members get caught, and that will be harder to ban because the bourgeoisie created it and it wasn't created by a group of people easy to strategically label as "an invading foreign country". of all the things Western Marxists do, this is actually one of the smartest ones. because if Gramscians go into academia or movie studios and [[E:|take up job slots]], it doesn't make that big an impact on who can actually make decisions in industries or who can strike, but if you manage to change the use of an existing product then you've somewhat undone the ability of the corporations that made it to make decisions about what will be produced and what everyone is and isn't allowed to think before everybody else can.

{{li|I=S1/MX/ML|Q=618}}revolutionary lattice period / permanent revolution (meta-Marxism onto Stalin's Marxism) -> the motif of a historical era of physical events where people are linking horizontally to get through a battle against an initial bourgeois class rule or at the very least linking into a Lattice to form a nationwide party which will create a workers' state. the revolutionary lattice period ends when a workers' state is created, and it's significant because it allows for a very concrete mathematical definition of "Leninism" using graph theory. approximately synonymous with "permanent revolution", assuming you are not a Trotskyist. Trotskyists could still use this model to describe the creation of an orange party, but for them this is not permanent revolution at all because "[[E:international permanent revolution|permanent revolution]]" is the long setup period for creating a powerful Communist International that would in theory be able to stop imperialism and international wars.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Careers hold no life lessons / {{TTS|Careers*|Careers|title=* Specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training}} cannot teach life lessons / Because all specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training are incapable of seeing anything outside the system they operate in, no statement about "life in general for the human Subject" which a person put together as a statement as a guide to doing their career in the process of doing their career should be held up as The Truth; this includes the careers of David Graeber, Rebecca Sugar, Slavoj Žižek, Carl Sagan, Dinesh D'Souza, and Donald Trump, and it includes the careers of Stalin and Trotsky -> I don't really have to include Mao in that because he came from the peasantry and had a bunch of statements about not 'worshiping' books or theorists (those seem to multiply every time there's a new Marxist republic although nobody heeds them.) so I think he's in the clear, but Stalin and Trotsky on the other hand had cast all sorts of aspersions on each other about being bureaucrats, leading everybody outside the Soviet Union to believe they both were.

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}spontaneous explanation for Trotskyism / contingent explanation for Trotskyism / group-psychological explanation for Trotskyism -> a "spontaneous" explanation for Trotskyism is an attempt to explain the history of Trotskyism which focuses on the causes of individual events and why people might have formed into these events on the day they happened, in the moment. 
these might include: Trotskyists getting expelled from the CPSU was psychologically traumatic or at least not predicted by their theoretical models, people continue to found Trotskyist parties because they identify with the psychological trauma of early Trotskyism and pick it up and advocate about it as a sort of generational trauma they feel is unresolved and waiting for justice, incompatibility between Trotskyist factions and mainstream Marxist-Leninist factions for various reasons created and still creates physical antagonisms between the parties leading them to want to form separate "countries" or civilizations (that last one is easily phrased in terms of dialectical materialism and has no need for a single 'inciting incident').

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}theoretical explanation for Trotskyism / explanation for Trotskyism based on analysis of internal theoretical models used by Trotskyist groups and exactly what historical processes and class interactions or horizontal antagonisms are being claimed inside said theories -> for the longest time I had a hard time finding any of these because of how so much of what Trotskyists say is just lies. I found it a lot easier to analyze their claims once they came out with an LLM and like, I was finally able to make that thing behave like the only Trotskyist that didn't lie for a few minutes at a time (before it started blatantly lying again and going on about 'the Stalinist bureaucracy').

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why invade Cuba? (2026) / If Cuba is not an exclusive republic, why is the United States so dead-set on creating a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over it?

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Cuba to Trump: warning, war causes war [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419]

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump's demands for Cuba (2026) / these included a two-week deadline to release high-profile political prisoners, implement sweeping market reforms, expand the private sector and attract foreign investment [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/21/mgaz-a21.html] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419] -> I'd mark this brown except that these are the most capitalist demands I've seen in a while

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Alabama redistricting ruling (2026) [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-order-requiring-majority-black-district-in-alabama-6024323] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/democrats-ask-us-supreme-court-to-stay-virginia-supreme-court-ruling-invalidating-voter-approved-election-map-6024209]

{{li|I=S2/MX/JC/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung got help from other countries / Kim Il-sung got help from Communist youth organizations in Manchuria and educators in the Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet army [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kim-Il-Sung] -> that is a shocking revelation. if you know much about North Korea and what its values are now you never expect that the story of North Korea would start with this. 
why have I never heard Trotskyists saying this. it's like, the thing they should be pointing out about North Korea. I think it's always the existence of the Soviet army that bothers them. which is so odd and ironic when Trotsky is one of the figureheads of "orange Leninism" and where did he start out? gosh, to live in a world where Trotsky had been every bit as effective at holding down the Second World as Kim Il-sung. with this information that analogy only gets better.

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}How will the Communist Party prevent {{book|Animal Farm}}? -> a question that's annoying but worth answering.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}} / You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}}, because secular animism gives you an imperative to protect the animals from getting eaten, while {{book|Animal Farm}} implies that it doesn't matter what happens to them if they have an inferior culture containing [[E:inherently dominating idea (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideas]] -> there is a particular history of people forgetting {{book|Animal Farm}} had anything to do with Communism and taking it literally because they didn't read the book; in particular, this "interpretation" emerged out of the shadows and became famous when it was used to market capitalist products. {{book|Animal Farm}} being co-opted by vegetarians might seem a little obnoxious at first, but honestly? I think these people could become heroes. and here's why. {{book|Animal Farm}}, being an allegory, was meant to be read as a bit of a metaphor, but vegetarians with no knowledge of Communism took what they knew of the book and interpreted it literally. compared with a lot of methods used in the humanities (in particular in the arts; the situation could be a little better in fields like anthropology), taking things literally is inherently closer to Materialism and thus inherently closer to Marxism. if one were to deliberately analyze {{book|Animal Farm}} as if the animals were literally animals and not the Soviet Union, it would come across as the terribly inhumane and un-humanitarian narrative it really is. I mean, just think about it. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to kill a house cat a lot of people would find that concept disturbing. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to take self-determination away from a group of animals trying to save themselves from quite literally being chopped up and eaten if a population of people had power over them, that concept should be equally disturbing — if somebody wanted to cook and eat Russians just for being Russian almost everybody would consider that a severe human rights violation. and the ending for the Soviet Union was vastly worse than the ending of {{book|Animal Farm}}. the book was way too generous, when the reality was that things went back to the way they were before — if what had been going on before was Russians getting eaten, well, that would be happening again. if that were the universe we lived in you couldn't really blame Russians for going a little crazy and launching wars on neighboring countries; if that is the only way for them to have power and the United States not to have power which is "permitted", of course they're going to take the option where they don't get eaten, no matter how evil that option is. 
Animals kill others to survive. most animals in nature don't experience their survival being threatened constantly; in a normal situation the predator or rival patriarch or matriarch usually walks away at some point if they stand their ground long enough. but nation-states are very different because there's never anywhere to run off to permanently. if a conflict begins and the aggressor has no actual incentive to stop it's going to keep going until somebody starts killing people. it's just going to keep going until wars cull enough people (potentially millions and millions) that "the space to run away in" is at some semblance of being restored. because a society is just a lot of Animals standing together like they were one Animal, and societies threaten each other as wholes, but when a threat refuses to go away, Animals kill. anarchists cannot get away from this. they keep trying to assert that a world with too many people in it having wars "isn't necessary" and "there's no need to apply Malthusianism" but no matter what, their theories cannot [[E:existential materialism|explain what generates]] the actual observed behavior of Russians. the longer anarchists try to assert that indigenous ways of life 'were kinder on the earth' and 'were less violent', the longer real-world populations will attempt to kill millions and millions of people until the world literally has the maximum number of human individuals it did when human populations were mostly tribes. the actual material transition to a world where everyone is predisposed to believe secular animism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's rational for Russians to start wars and kill people if they will never be granted self-determination on the basis of a system where they try to help every Ukrainian and not start wars -> to correctly parse this proposition you have to understand that what is rational and what is ethical are not the same thing, contrary to what Kant says. 
this also doesn't mean that you can assert that 'getting rid of reason' will solve the problem, given that things that are 'rational' in this sense are rational precisely in the sense that they contain a specific [[E:causal logic (logical model of material causation)|sequence of causations]] and happen whether you want them to or not. 
Imperialism is the actual end of history + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Native Americans are capable of genocide / Inasmuch as indigenous populations are human, they are hypothetically capable of coming up with and practicing [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideologies]] that lead to large populational-scale numbers of people dying because other particular groups of people decide that they should die -> we really need to wake people up to the fact that a genocide can consist of five billion people equally drawn from all ethnic groups as opposed to a billion people of one specific ethnic group or nationality, in terms of whether a particular person's ideology can be ""inherently dominating"" enough to inherently lead to killing ten million people. if anybody in the world gets to keep calling a famine in Ukraine a genocide, then there are scenarios where advocating secular animism could itself be advocating for genocide, because it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than that. if everybody would stop saying that about Ukraine, I might consider dropping this.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Stalin's government committed genocide in Ukraine {{em|because}} they killed people using [[E:hierarchy (anarchism)|hierarchy]], and whenever a form of hierarchy is used that leads to a lot of people dying, that form of hierarchy is an [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideology]], and it is morally wrong to allow people to construct that form of hierarchy to any extent and morally right to tear it apart at every scale possible however small as soon as possible -> the best argument I can think of that the famine in Ukraine {{em|was}} a genocide. no, it's {{em|not}} very good. but at least it's logical enough to start analyzing, unlike a lot of things anarchists say. 
this.... is how a lot of people conceptualize the French Revolution, I think. ...oh god, that explains a lot. it even kind of explains where [[E:Menshevism (1900s)|Menshevism]] came from. the logic behind Menshevism is basically one that inherently dominating ideas merely need to be stopped. all Idealism is somewhat similar and there is a big overlap in Idealism between anarchism, Menshevism, Yaroshenkoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Western-Marxism. while mainstream Marxism-Leninism is nearly the only philosophy ever to state that people don't actually decide what ideas to believe, and that they are always simply handed ideas at the populational scale rather than a population actually having a mind of its own and actually being able to think. that's the sense in which BlackPantherism is quite respectable, to say that Black people among other ethnicities get ideas from their current conditions {{em|is}} a Materialist philosophy. one remaining question is whether Trotskyism falls into the trap of Idealist revolution or whether it genuinely is a Materialist revolution. I've always analyzed Trotskyism by taking individual Trotskyists or groups and modeling them through Materialist concepts of revolution, but my conclusions often don't sound much like their conclusions. they always talk like Stalin could have chosen not to do "Stalinism" so I don't know. 
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy + Stalin's government killed Ukrainian farmers = this.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A, DX, LR, ES|Q=618}}Idealist revolution / destroy the idea that ... (generic; popular-culture expression of an Idealist campaign to slay [[E:inherently dominating ideology (anarchism)|dominating ideas]]) -> it took me a long time to put this concept into words, but yeah, I think the real problem with anarchism is that it is defining the concept of revolution based on Idealism. there seems to be a whole concept of an Idealist revolution where people think that if you can slay an "inherently dominating idea" that drives a population on a conceptual level, you can change one historical period into another historical period. now, to use some technical language, this is some unscientific SCP-report plotline {{censor|bullshit}}.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=|Q=618}}thoughtcrime (anarchism) -> the motif of anarchists banning ideas in order to prevent harmful forms of society from being created whether those forms of society are really actually harmful or not, and punishing people for spreading what are actually neutral ideas. 
you can't deny it, in actually asserting that all bad behavior starts at ideas and all change starts at prohibiting ideas, anarchism comes way closer to doing this than Communism.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy / The act of handing money to someone is in and of itself a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|spatial slot hierarchy]] because it is an act of deciding whether someone is good enough to do a task -> this claim would probably sound much stupider if it was coming out of an anarchist, but fortunately "hierarchy" isn't a big hang-up for me as much as a prosaic statement describing what kind of process is happening. 
that said, this is the thing you need to toss at anarchists who claim that hierarchy and expertise are different things. they really aren't. since the start of Liberal-republicanism expertise has generally been the source of almost all hierarchy. 
I feel like anarchists have shifted to saying "domination" largely so that when they mention "hierarchy" they don't sound as stupid. of course, it doesn't really help given that it's become so abstract that it's unclear what on earth it's even referring to.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}X and X's brother / X and X's sister / Trotsky and Trotsky's brother (Animal Farm) / Rock and Rock's brother (Megaman exe) -> the motif of fictional stories taking a historical figure or previous fictional character in another continuity and creating a narrative parallel to them but then unexpectedly adding a sibling who actually does something and changes the story even if in a small way.

{{li|I=S1/HAS/Fy|Q=618}}gender roles in fairy tales -> I just started thinking about this suddenly today because I was trying to think if the concepts of "brother" and "sister" have different connotations in folklore, and then I started thinking about how weirdly often all the more negative characters in fairy tales are female. the wicked stepmother, the witch, maybe the wicked step{{em|sisters}}. but the male characters are often more neutral. kings and princes and medieval artisan type people all just have kind of a neutral presence or sometimes positive. there are some exceptions like 'the fairy godmother' that will be a positive influence. 
I.... don't know what the scope of this entry is because I'm not an expert in the humanities. I think it covers European fairy tales and probably through Eastern Europe into the rest of Asia but I don't really know what the division between "a fairy tale" and "a folktale" is, to me they're kind of the same thing. some people consider "Aladdin" to be broadly in the scope of fairy tales because there is a magic artifact or magic servant character that isn't so different from the fairy godmother. but that extends the geographical range of fairy tales quite a bit. what's the difference between a fairy tale and just a legend that people don't necessarily think is true? I think there's a clear difference between a fairy tale and a "myth" in that myths are religious stories from an ancient time of local gods, and fairy tales are about 'smaller' magical things that sort of just hide themselves in tiny places and cause mischief — "fae" sums up the concept of where fairy tales get their fantastical elements pretty well, you're thinking of a character that is usually pretty small and missable but can also be very powerful, could be the fairy godmother, could be a leprechaun. but I'm pretty confused on the difference between a fairy tale, a folktale, and a legend, because legends can have dragons in them; they don't have to be "historical".

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}belief (utilization) / believing in (utilizing) / I believe in solving math problems with lambda calculus / I believe in pomodoro timers -> a definition of "belief" which is one of the very few sensible ways to define the phrase "believing in Marxism". 
I think it's arguable that this definition doesn't apply to ideologies like Christianity, or even to a lot of secular systems of ethics; ethics is a potentially wrong descriptive model of reality pretending to be a technique. but, on the bright side, this motif does provide a lot of context for why people like to claim Communism "doesn't work". you could easily say "pomodoro timers don't work!" but if you aren't versed in how people actually use them and the exact conditions where people claim they do work versus what specific kinds of conditions lead them to fail, then you wouldn't necessarily be making a true accusation. at the same time, if you {{em|did}} claim "Pomodoro timers work!" without knowing how to use them, you also might not be making a true claim. that's why the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism has been so hard to resolve. out of the very limited number of people in the world who knew how to use Marxism at the time, or that do now, not all of those people genuinely understand how it's currently being used. and it's all downhill from there, because as you get further away from them, ordinary people only know less and less. 
you really do learn a lot more about Marxism itself by examining Trotskyist attacks on Marxism than you do by examining a lot of attacks on Marxism inside Liberal-republicanism. and in that, I think they actually have a counter-intuitive effect on consciousness in the grand scheme of things where depending on the specific issue them making errors may be less harmful than them not being there. not {{em|better}} precisely, yet definitely {{em|less bad}}.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}so mr. errors wants me to correct my errors -> what the early history of Trotskyism always feels like 
now to be perfectly fair to them, there are reasons this can {{em|apparently}} happen without being an actual mistake — Marxists speak of new forms of structure coming in and getting rid of old contradictions but bringing in new ones. I think this is how a lot of things they say happen to function.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}tall, dark, and handsome [https://usdictionary.com/idioms/tall-dark-and-handsome/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3x6bco/in_the_phrase_tall_dark_and_handsome_what_exactly/] / tenebrous (attractive) -> I have seen this explained either as the person literally having dark hair or the person being mysterious (tenebrous). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ténébreux] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrae#Latin] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrous#English] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrize#English] for the purposes of analyzing the word "dark" I'm going to take the latter 
sidenote: the pictures you get when you search {{i|ténébreux}} are so funny, you get like a dude with a cloak, you get {{censor|fucking}} Ezio or Boromir. fantasy stories are very good at portraying this concept apparently. one of the only "modern" stories I can think of off the top of my head that goes there is when Ace Attorney introduced Godot. whether anyone thinks he's attractive I have no idea but he absolutely is trying way too hard to have a mysterious overcast disposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Goku is a bourgeois distortion / Goku is a bourgeois distortion of Buddhism / Goku's character concept is centered around the notion that finding or seeking enlightenment makes you more physically powerful; in the original {{book|Journey to the West}} narrative, this was supposed to be the monkey king's vulgar misunderstanding of Buddhism which ultimately got him sealed under a mountain; within {{book|Dragon Ball}} Goku can be said to represent crude bourgeois materialism as seen in Feuerbach — the major theme quickly established in {{book|Dragon Ball}} is that the world is physical and does what it wants as opposed to what you want it to do, but that this is partly because the world is in some abstract way "modern", and dotted with cities and corporations and most notably the influence of scientific insight and technology; in this sense, Goku is not the {{book|Journey to the West}} character Sun Wukong because while Sun Wukong represents ancient empires, he represents the rise of early capitalism and the ways in which capitalism both correctly and wrongly substituted morality for power going into the hands of those who desire change the hardest and become materially powerful enough to take power and [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic|fight off]] the people they wish would change -> 
this sounds weirdly like I'm on the side of Buddhism over early capitalism. I'm not. I'm just very tired of capitalism acting like it's fully justified to keep power over everything and prevent anything else that would happen after it from forming just because it's better than ancient imperial monarchies. 
if Hegel had known what an "end of history" was, he would have believed that monarchy and feudal orders were the end of history. and now Fukuyama thinks he's not as wrong as Hegel when he does the same thing. honestly... right down to even that thing where you claim a bunch of abstract ideas led to a material system yet were the only possible train of conclusions. capitalist theorists and Kantians are almost exactly just the Hegel of capitalism.

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}Daniel Snowberg, the perfect whistleblower [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/whistleblowers-dont-need-elite-credentials-help-protect-us-government-overreach] -> so, there had been this other blog where I think someone was calling out Ed Snowden for having 'done things wrong' and made up this fake story about Daniel Snowberg to show how he should have done it correctly. and the EFF wasn't having any of it because they knew the realities of real movements don't necessarily look like what you want them to be. 
also... funny story, when messing around with writing fiction and trying to throw Snowberg into a dystopia this had caused Valenoern to accidentally reinvent Trotskyism. but that takes a while to explain, and is a story for another day. to keep things short, they really did not know anything about the history of socialism or what Menshevism or Bolshevism were, they just sort of, created a character in the vein of "Emmanuel Goldstein" (that's just an example) from abstract concepts but didn't know that in the case of 1984 that was Trotsky, and so they reinvented Trotskyism. we've had a lot of fun with anticommunist fables and finding Trotsky in them since then.

{{li|I=S1/MX/MD|class=field_mdem field_14quarters|Q=618}}vermilion international / scarlet international / vermilion Marxism (as Communist International) -> the motif of a Communist international that combines mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism to ultimately form some kind of single global era of socialism. Trotskyists think this can't exist, and have said so rather clearly — what they generally want is to smash all crimson Communist parties and replace them with orange ones.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Videos are the new leaflets (booklets; pamphlets; etc) {{YouTube|bKq-iip4LXs}} / Videos have replaced leaflets -> I remember this coming up in videos on multiple YouTube channels but I don't remember which videos right now 
I wouldn't disagree with this, although... I think there are a few interesting things to note about it. for one, the environment of online videos gives Trotskyists a bizarrely huge advantage because they can all post videos from different countries and make it look like Trotskyism is a lot more omnipresent in any particular country than it really is, as well as like it's a long-standing philosophical tradition (technically not false) which is as rich as mainstream Marxism-Leninism is. online videos make it weirdly easy to "astroturf" the appearance of movements happening more intensely or widely than they actually are.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality; news outlets sell the service of empirical encounters with material reality -> this is the only satisfactory explanation I can find for the way United States people will utterly deny things as a possibility {{caps|until}} they show up in a news article and then suddenly they're "real" and omnipresent and worrying and perhaps scary.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Free Software movement needs a theory of state businesses if it is ever to succeed; it needs a theory of how it is that products and production structures become part of public space and become impossible for individuals to control or 'retract' as opposed to saying that individuals just 'ought to' continually choose to put things in the public space within the space of individual choices and interactions 
methodological individualism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}I'm not here to educate you / It's not my job to educate you (statement that minority groups do not have to explain oppression) -> I don't think you can treat this statement as generally true. funny story, I've been picking up books on Native American history when I go to used book sales, and like, these claim to be educational, but you open them up, and the last one I was reading was treating the tribe in question as very mystical. it was trying to be positive and imply there was nothing wrong with people having a different culture but it overall still ended up presenting things like Rolling Thunder (he was the main topic of the book) had a fundamentally magical way of thinking, that he's almost some kind of wizard with magic occult powers in the way he thinks as opposed to his culture being something that can ever be "normal". I think the book was from 1976 if I remember right, not recently. 
so like, telling people to go educate themselves and implying they can't talk to actual people to learn what their problems are could be very harmful. I suspect that it's old books like these that a lot of anarchists are learning about other groups of people from and effectively where they're getting their anarchism. or that even if that's not literally the case, that you can still study that example to learn about the problems with the thing anarchists are actually doing. 
I think there is like.... a nuance that's totally lost on anarchists about the interaction of individuals or populations. if there's somebody that goes around talking like Rolling Thunder, you can't really just take what he says and present it to other people as his fundamental way of thinking. people in industrial populations are going to take it negatively. there might be one or two people who literally take it as 'backward' and say mean things, but that's not what you need to watch for, the most likely harm you need to keep an eye out for is people softly deciding that tribal populations can't understand modern science and that the way of thinking they have presented is part of their fundamental essence that 'blocks' them from absorbing the understandings people have in industrial society. this is racist, because it puts you into the same rhetorical position as the people who were recently arguing that Black South Africans 'didn't want the farmland taken by Afrikaners because of their culture' and {{em|therefore}} it was okay for European apartheid states to descend in and take whatever they want. I think there's a decent argument to be made that claiming someone like Rolling Thunder has a fundamentally different way of thinking 'than European science' is flat out supporting colonialism and is The Colonizer Attitude, because, just look at its results. 
this leaves open the rather broad question of how exactly you can merge tribal populations' ways of thinking with modern science and the findings of industrial societies. we know it's not optional to do that. we know it's necessary to do it to not essentialize people and treat indigenous people as stupid. we know that anarchists trying to present older and more mystical ways of thinking as 'the natural way of thinking' is not okay because it what it effectively does is allow White people to appropriate indigenous culture for their own benefit but still deny that culture to the actual indigenous people and hand all the power of people to determine themselves, to be able to talk about all topics intelligently as the adults in the room and make sophisticated decisions on various topics and involving several different philosophies, to Europeans. putting yourself in a position where other people will essentialize you to one particular level of ideological development is dangerous. I think it's the anarchists that need to be told this more than the tribal populations; they've been through a lot and I think to some extent they know this. anarchists, on the other hand... I feel like it's vaguely possible that some day in the future, people will talk about anarchists as inherently mystical people and weirdly racialize all anarchists {{em|exactly}} the way they've done with tribes in North or South America.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{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/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{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 {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> 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/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/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=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/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=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=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

</ol><noinclude>

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-06-16T08:21:27Z

Reversedragon: Toontown runs on Menshevism

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

{{li|I=S2/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}Toontown runs on Menshevism / As evidenced by the layout of the interactable game world and the daily use of jellybeans as currency, the Toons that live in Toontown live in a [[E:agorism|market-based society]] built on small businesses which willingly provides houses -> note: come back and add Toontown to 'related' on 9k page for Growing Around, along with childism

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Ted Kaczynski was not an anarchist [https://www.thetedkarchive.com/special/about-this-project] -> I have never heard of this man but okay. there are a lot of anarchist-sounding philosophies that aren't very good so even without much information I believe it's possible.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Teamsters obstructed worker organization (2018) / The Teamsters are a group of bureaucrats that negotiate with workers to achieve corporations' demands; this is to imply that workers should consider forming their own internal organizations across bigger sectors of industry instead of trusting them (California, 2018) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/20/upam-a20.html]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Kropotkinism leads to populations of people who produce about $5 an hour and end up getting classified as contractors who have to put all their other revenue into expenses -> anarchists like to complain about how Communism and Liberal capitalism 'overwork people for nothing' while anarchism is about finishing work and doing something enjoyable. but.... I have to wonder. what would happen if Kropotkinism actually kicked off? wouldn't you just have a population of people that earns tiny amounts, has huge expenses, and basically lives just like gig workers? what if the reason anarchism hasn't been more successful is Amazon beat anarchists to creating 'easy work' of the kind anarchists want but just not in the conditions they want? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/19/jxer-f19.html] it seems to me like anarchism moves really slow and capitalism moves fast, owning entire market-boxes and communities while anarchists are only talking about those things and before they can meaningfully create them.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Community is a hyperstructure -> the claim that "community", mostly as a materialist version of the anarchist model of what "communities" are, is a system that encourages itself to expand further through parts of the system contributing to the overall system. 
I think the description is really apt because you see this perfect 'blockchain quality' where community looks like a shiny wonderful thing you could only want more and more of, but when you get any particular instance of community, such as a newsfeed platform like YouTube or Twitter, the more people add to it the worse it seems to get and the more it turns into this vector for individual capitalists to own an entire "agora" and exploit the whole concept of an economy existing and make money off that, and the more it feels like community itself was a scam from the start. 
Community is a hyperstructure + Hyperstructures are usually harmful = Community is a cancer.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Hyperstructures are usually harmful -> this is an anarchist or agorist claim more than it is my claim but I wouldn't totally oppose it.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|tradition=|Q=618}}hyperstructure (snowballing system) [https://medium.com/@onjas_buidl/hyperstructures-in-human-history-5a27f31c28df] -> blockchain fanatics' attempt to describe a generalized kind of system which rewards people for contributing to a cumulative pie in a constructive way. 
honestly? if getting people to comprehend "hyperstructures" could get rid of blockchains themselves then I'd be all for it 
I feel like this concept is almost more of a cautionary tale than a desirable thing to have though. one of their examples is the general concept of money because of course they have to explain how bitcoin is similar to money. but like, the expansion of money through creating more products and the central government giving loans to corporations to speed up the process isn't necessarily a good thing, it often leads to the destruction of the environment as it's consumed to create materials and factories, or the destruction of culture as products obsolete other products just to chase money and get more money added. this is so bad that when they present language as the second example I'm like.... okay, is language secretly a bad thing that is destroying the world and I just didn't know it was? I have to say though, the advent of large language models really vindicates the concept of hyperstructures, if in a bad way. the more AI that people create the more different AIs can train on each other to the extent they can generate any meaningful inferences or conversation data that human testers approve, and then there will be more AI. so, yeah. the concept of hyperstructures was very successful. it was successful at describing something, but it seems like basically everything it describes is an existential threat to humanity, including The Economy, capitalism, blockchain, AI, and possibly language (??). 
this might be one of the clearest pieces of evidence that anarchism is inherently dangerous because it doesn't actually build into itself the capability to model societies spending a while building something and then leveling off in a neat S-curve because they moved on to entirely different things without redoing the same things over and over again such as repeatedly reinventing game consoles or phones. (a thing Marxism could do with some effort because it inherently understands the concept of historical periods and shifts from one period to another.) despite all the surface rhetoric about "infinite growth" recently it only really understands infinite growth because of its core values of always making everything about "community" and "inclusivity" and never saying no to anybody. so naturally a system of modeling growth itself is one of the first things to pop out of it, which claims to have a limit but in practice when it hits the limit just divides in two and continues to make more and more.

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}storing properties of chemical reactions in power sets composed out of smaller sets [https://chemrxiv.org/doi/pdf/10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-368pz] -> um. I don't understand any of this but it's very cool.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Stalin's government putting up positive posters in schools is "a lie", then how do you know that solarpunk is true? -> I won't fault you for making the former claim, but the reason the CPSU would be wrong there is that it's letting people be Idealist instead of understanding the terrifying truth that they might not succeed. so.... if the CPSU posters are wrong, and putting up hopeful slogans is bad because it allows the people spreading the potentially incorrect slogans to gain power over you, then how exactly is solarpunk correct?

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Idealism is invincible / Materialist movements are inherently weaker than Idealist movements in that Idealist movements live forever as long as human beings don't believe in burning books, but Materialist movements die as soon as actual physical organizations are broken up -> there's only one real solution to correct this discrepancy. promote "hypothetical materialism", the new category of philosophies which are spread as disembodied ideas but internally contain only Material Ideas and Materialism. [https://chatonsky.net/ideomaterialism/]

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=|Q=618}}Marxist analysis of non-Marxisms / Marxist analysis of non-Marxist philosophies or movements / infra-Marxism (Marxist analysis which is done either wholly inside a specific formulation of Marxism, or wholly inside that specific Marxism while critiquing non-Marxist philosophies, but where the Marxism does not actually give a proper analysis of either itself or other Marxisms; meta-Marxism) -> a large part of the original stated purpose of Marxism before the Trotskyite conspiracy happened.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The Diggers were a proto-Marxist movement because they began with displaced peasants or allied local houses sensing the impending expansion of estates, and sought to build a community without commodity exchange, loosely and metaphorically compared to Eden (Christopher Hill) / {{book|The World Turned Upside Down}} (Hill 1988; generic) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> ok, in my mind, I can't remember the difference between this description and the Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Narodniks; this doesn't sound like a movement with a very detailed plan behind it. but this {{em|is}} a very juicy and entertaining claim, so I'll code it. I wouldn't really mind someone calling a cottager movement 'Socialists' or 'anarchists'. but, what is the difference between the Diggers and Peter Kropotkin? can you answer that question? I think you need to go into at least that much depth to properly answer whether they can be "communists".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The faithful are duty bound to obey God alone / Because rulers are sinful creatures like us and will have a propensity to do the wrong thing, they will tend to tyranny, decreeing ungodly laws ... in these cases, the faithful are duty bound to obey God alone (Calvin ??/2009) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> that is one killer quote. it's not surprising, given all the {{em|stuff}} in the bible about "powers and principalities" that sounds just like this. but it's definitely mysterious to look at the bible and realize, hey wait, what's all this stuff about never trusting rulers? God doesn't exist, God is one big rationalization. so is Christianity really an anarchism?? I'd argue it is. I'd argue that at least as soon as New Testament Christianity appeared the whole thing was really about pushing the concept that seemed nonsensical at that time of getting rid of all rulers and creating a society based only in social bonds connecting people into a society ("love", "brotherhood", "neighbors"), and Christians had to dress up that concept inside the concept of a worldwide empire just to get anybody to believe it when otherwise it would have seemed unbelievable. 
I'd also argue that by capitulating to the class imagery of their time Christians doomed Christianity and turned it into a tool of empire itself as empire noticed that an ideology about empire was better suited to literally arguing one empire was superior to other empires and deserved to be the one to conquer the world. there's not a lot of difference between Christians and Democrats. Christians: we are all united together as under The King. Romans promptly turn the king into Caesar and argue Christianity promotes somewhat-racist empires that take other nations as slaves. Democrats: we are all united together by voting and a list of civil rights. Capitalists promptly make it mandatory for every minority listed in a civil rights act to support Israel and destroy Palestine, and support products made in Cuba while refusing Cuban products on pain of arrest.

{{li|I=S2/P4|tradition=|Q=618}}An international war will surely clear away all internal contradictions / If there be bad blood in a nation, an honourable foreign war will vent it out (Bacon 1622) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> god, he's the 1600s Dugin. that or Dugin's ideas are as old as dirt. you know, one or the other.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}the revolution betrayed betrayed betrayed -> the motif of Trotskyism getting "betrayed" by the creation of socialism in one country, which then got betrayed by Trotskyism as payback, which then got betrayed by anarchism and critical theory turning the previous two events into evidence against all Marxism.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}I'll question to the death the reason you said it / I don't agree with what you're defending and I'll question to the death the reasons for anyone ever saying that / I don't agree with what you're defending people saying and I'll question to the death the underlying material reasons for anyone ever saying that -> this isn't meaning to imply the statement absolutely should be suppressed or shouldn't be said as much as purely that there is a big elephant being ignored of asking why it is people say things and what will be gained by defending the statement 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + meta-theory = this. 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + demographic Marxist / sectarianism = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani would have done more for the world if he'd bought an illegal Cuban product, showed it off, and gotten arrested than he did by attempting to speak about Israel -> I'm so sick of this new trend of all social contradictions happening in courtrooms between two individuals. I really am. but this would be one way to make the best of it

{{li|I=F2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}They can't arrest all of us -> one of those anarchist sayings that deeply bothers me because of how it's just not true. a country can bring down the law on as many people as it wants to. when it can't arrest everybody, that's when it brings out the tanks and helicopters and just starts shooting them. you should know this. it's already a pretty common talking point to say U.S. people don't revolt against the U.S. because of "the military". if China can bring out the army when there's not enough time for jury trials, and it's already common for cops to shoot petty criminals, what stops the United States from starting an open season on everybody who isn't committed to following all its laws? a bit of Cold War propaganda? do you really think the Great Terror happened for any other reason than that republics are based on laws and when people stop following laws and getting scared by cops they do anything to protect themselves??

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Nations are bodies of law / Nations are legal codes / A nationality is defined by how well people follow a population's current set of laws, and the less people follow the law, the less they are part of that nationality; this is to imply but not state that the moment people intend to follow no laws at all they are not part of a particular nationality any more -> 
this is one of the only models that can explain either separate wing of Liberal-republicanism and Stalin's Marxism and even a Trotskyist republic equally well: the model that republics begin with written laws and laws are the fundamental Ideas that create "nations of ideas". Tories don't follow center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. center-Liberals skirt around Tory laws, Tories call treason. Communists don't respect center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. anarchists or right-Liberals defy Soviet laws, Stalin's government calls treason. Stalin's government defies Trotskyists' desired body of laws, Trotskyists call treason. 
it's all about laws. laws are made by classes, and that's what distinguishes the fundamental character of a body of laws, but actually, all geopolitical conflicts and demographic conflicts deep inside countries start at whether separate groups of people are following each other's internal laws. it's all one big squabble about laws and what laws are inherently good or bad, while that will never have an objective answer because different areas of people hate other people's laws and don't want them. 
this is part of what makes critical-theory so frustrating. as of late it's been picking up talking points that the United States government is totally capable of granting North American tribes rights. but in order to get those "rights" they had to first send people to assimilate to White towns and consent to the overall body of United States laws and agree not to violate any of them, while some of those laws banned the tribal societies they would have been fighting for. it's a bit paradoxical. within the system that boasts all the time about giving people human rights (and also lies to everyone claiming the rights are from birth or 'god-given' despite the fact God doesn't give them to you in Cuba and Cuba requires an invasion to defeat The Regime that's apparently stronger than God himself)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Dengism can defeat God (power scaling) / Deng Xiaoping states are stronger than God / If human rights are granted to people by God when they are born, but the United States needs to invade Cuba to ensure that people have God-given rights, then the Cuban government is strong enough to stop God himself; this is to imply that the United States is proportionally stronger than God by two [[E:feat (power scaling)|feats]] because the United States is stronger than the thing that defeated God but is not God / The U.S. can defeat God (sense)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}There is no difference between morality and "manufacturing consent"; they are the same continuous thing; "manufacturing consent" is precisely an instance of either morality or natural law, and is an example of how Liberal-republicanism abuses these incorrect models of reality to gain power over people that were previously outside its control

{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Return to the Land (White supremacist movement) {{YouTube|e1iSMbzx_Hg}} -> I have.... a bit of a mild "conspiracy theory". I'm not sure Liberal-republicans are actually opposing this thing for the right reasons. sure, the people inside it sound like fairly bad people, and it doesn't sound like a good place to live. but I feel like this thing is being used as leverage to promote things people otherwise wouldn't support. to show that otherwise-bad things are "necessary". like, compounds full of racists are the new 9/11 — or the old one that probably existed decades before it happened. 
(it really doesn't help that the commentator identified the White supremacist compounds as "terrorist cells". that's a pretty heavy-handed rhetorical term when it comes to giving a particular national government great military power over any city within the entire rest of the world. like, anybody who says the word "terrorist" may as well already be king. Marxist parties are the only halfway exception. but it's still bad.) 
I feel like what's happening is something like, critical theory was one big scam by Liberal-republicanism to convince anarchists to turn against other forms of anarchism — granted, some of which were somewhat harmful, making the deal sound weirdly enticing — so Liberal-republicanism could then turn around and eradicate all anarchism and then be free to take over other countries and conquer the world. just like in those civilization games where you can just build one giant republican country and nuclear war never destroys the world first.

{{li|I=F2/LR|tradition=LR, HM|Q=618}}The purpose of Liberal-republicanism is to transition the world out of racism -> this seems to be the hypothesis advanced by critical theory. that republics actually exist in order to force ethnic groups to be friends. no matter what they've done to each other. this explains how Native American movements have been going mainstream: Liberal-republicanism is having trouble getting people to consent to it any more, so it needs to recruit minorities to advance its agenda of expanding itself over people and telling them what to do under the guise that it's making the world better for minorities. 
...this has to be false, doesn't it? the actual function of the United States has been dividing into two anarchisms that are mortal enemies. no matter how much critical theory says that forcing people to interact and integrate should change consciousness it doesn't seem to happen, and to some degree it only seems to make people more and more resentful and more inclined to kill each other. why it happens is less the presence of ethnic groups together in particular and more the presence of multiple populations that could be politically independent being ruled by "external" political factions that feel like foreign countries. like, it would really seem that Deng Xiaoping Thought has been way more successful than Liberal-republicanism, because having a single unified government actually seems to unify people rather than generating this worsening and worsening cycle of hatred. 
critical theory may be ideology generated directly out of Liberal-republicanism in the most insidious way possible. maybe this is what it's always done. maybe the real foundation of Liberal-republicanism is precisely holding up a set of laws, claiming they're inherently moral, and forcing everyone around, even people who aren't part of the country yet, to obey them or else. that is one of the only good explanations for why Liberal-republicanism has been so eager to back Israel. it doesn't even actually run on morality or care about morality. all it cares about is whether as many people as possible across the world are following an arbitrary set of laws. so the more people think Palestine "isn't following the law", {{em|as it is written}}, the easier it is to justify eliminating Palestine. 
you know. queer rights are a sham. they only exist because people have proved gay people are legal. on this weird metaphysical level where laws already exist before laws actually exist. and that's how laws come to be laws. but it isn't gay people that are oppressed by this Kantian interpretation of laws. it's Palestinians. believing that laws inherently exist and they only need to be approved just legitimizes the structure that makes this illusion possible to believe — global empire. this conception of things shouldn't be true, but when your empire is big enough to bully Cuba it's big enough to make almost anything come true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If history can ever be static, then Donald Trump cannot be the slightest bit Good or Bad / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable, including all outcomes in politics, without the recognition that history is always in motion from one state to another and it is always mandatory to make decisions on what it will change to / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable without the recognition history is always in motion -> you cannot say history has ended. not even with a narrow meaning that modes of production have ended. because there is no meaningful distinction between change existing in the form of a change between mode of production and change existing in the form of a country reverting to a global empire that wants to kill people for more land. both are the same kind of change, but reversion to empire cannot be stopped, which is to say that neither kind of change can actually be stopped. the original claim is false because in setting down its basic assumptions it really actually makes a false claim about what change is, which is dangerously false.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}All business owners are terrorists -> abolish copyright and I'll take it back.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Until 2020 Marxism has been unable to create genuinely accurate models of Idealist factions or civilizations because of the way their material interests and the processes that create their behavior are inherently separated; Marxist models start in a form of Materialism that basically assumes that everybody already lives in a Materialist civilization similar to Bolshevism where any particular assembled group of people belonging to a class is aware it has class interests as opposed to the people in a faction being completely unaware of that and acting together for completely different reasons; this has made Marxism inherently well suited to turning around and betraying itself with Marxisms attacking other Marxisms, and inherently badly suited to actually understanding the development over time of Liberal-republicanism and anarchism well enough to be able to defeat them

{{li|I=S1/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}TV times including "central" / 2:30-3:30 central / 9pm-8pm central [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1mgil6/if_there_are_four_time_zones_why_do_national_tv/] / my daughter asked me to pick her up at 2:30-3:30 central -> I keenly remember this idea being printed in some kind of issue of {{book|Reader's Digest}} or something but I do not remember where I first saw it. a joke about the idea that it's really weird that U.S. TV shows tell you two time zones at once and it would be strange if everyone went around saying that. that's really changed in the age of online streaming where YouTube will just kind of tell you what time something happens in your time zone and a stream might be on at a weird time but you don't have to do any calculations. but for various reasons it's still worth remembering the age of "2:30/3:30 central".

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}How will you obtain unicorn horns? / Anarchists presuppose that envisioning a different future separate from the material elements, structures, and processes of society that already exist is meaningful in and of itself, but if this is the case, they seemingly have no way to actually change anything; if the United States changes the day you find unicorn horns on the ground, but there are none of them in the entire land area of the United States, and you cannot fabricate them, and you cannot teleport them in from another place given that nobody in the United States knows how to do that, how can you possibly find them fast enough for your entire party of people to not simply be driven out of the United States to where the unicorn horns actually are — what do you do? -> trying to get anarchists to think harder about the concept of productive forces and the fact that you always need graph connections between people to actually achieve anything

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian / Despite nearly everyone in the United States who is not a member of the Libertarian movement claiming capital-L Libertarian parties to be different and distinct from them, the Libertarian movement in fact describes the founding principles of {{em|all}} political parties in the United States — agorism — and every other Liberal-republican political party in the United States is in fact a variation of Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian movement, including some political movements which are not organized into official parties; United States civil rights movements are a Libertarianism because they are defined as the sum of all non-aggressive activities, the Democratic-Republican party of 1791 was a Libertarianism because it opposed the Federalist party of large monolithic businesses clustered around a central government, the Democratic Party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the concept of people voluntarily joining in non-aggression to continuously vote for a party to supposedly fix their problems and absolutely all political parties that don't directly commit aggression getting to continue existing, the Republican party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the belief that all small, medium-size, and large corporations can form a locus of non-aggression that is being attacked by other loci of non-aggression; the actual center position in the United States that should be in the middle of a political compass is Libertarianism-agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party] -> 
before I found about agorism nothing about Liberal-republicanism made sense, and it all makes a lot more coherent material sense now down to the thing of getting obsessed with finding "the middle" and distinguishing all deviations into new parties as "directional" from the middle or as Extremes, but the more I learn, the more all the inner logic of LiberalRepublicanism-Libertarianism-agorism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Wario believes in Liberal-republicanism then he must be a Libertarian -> I made it simple for you. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-greatest-thread-in-the-history-of-forums-locked-by-a-moderator-after-12239-pages-of-heated-debate]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Ag|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Agorism is a segregation machine / Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them; 
the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation'; 
in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs; 
loci of non-aggression include: towns, families that have not experienced violent child abuse or the murder of a spouse, clusters of employees and owners that haven't committed horrible abuses against each other yet, clusters of tenants the landlord hasn't [[E:landlord rape incidents|literally committed crimes]] against, individual churches, segregated White towns without any gangs, Black towns without any racists, towns without any homeless camps, tiny satellite cities that produce nothing but are not "menaced" by big cities or taxes, individual local-states that come to accurately or falsely believe they've reduced themselves to one Liberal-republican party and no longer worry about the other, clusters of minority subpopulations, the US Bill of Rights, clusters of religions that believe they only have freedom of religion because they all exist together and none of them stopped existing, the overall US empire as it exists in a state of not having wars on its immediate borders, clusters of First World countries that are friendly toward each other but get together to oppress Third-World countries and even more so any Second-World countries that exist as "aggressives" 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this. escape routes (schizoanalysis) + republic based on transition = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Moral vanguard theory is covering up the observation that, as it currently exists inside Liberal-republicanism, agorism is founded on the assumption that all bigotry is fundamentally normal and natural until the day clusters of people end up being compatible with each other rather than toxic to each other and then only after that spontaneously decide hating each other is not okay 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If it's bad to want a utopia then why is anybody allowed to desire an afterlife? -> really think about it. it's very common to criticize utopias in fiction and think "all of them are dystopias"; charcoal anarchists are some of the only people who don't think this way. so why doesn't everyone think that way about the bible? why doesn't everybody realize that if wanting a utopia is "wanting to get something the easy way" or "wanting to get something for nothing" then wanting a god to grant you heaven is literally exactly the same thing? you just have to believe and then you get something for nothing.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more upsetting than {{film|Drawn Together}} / The news is more upsetting than {{film|South Park}} -> today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em|choose}} to do, or does it not?

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618}}Stalin transitioned the {{TTS|USSR|Soviet Union}} backward / Stalin transitioned the Soviet Union backward from Trotskyism to Stalin's Marxism / Stalin took the Soviet Union backward through the stages of history because he did not understand that the Soviet Union was an instance of Trotskyism, Trotskyism is a stage {{em|after}} Stalin's Marxism, and seeking to build Stalin's Marxism while standing on Trotskyism can only result in the reversion of an instance of Trotskyism to a prior physical historical period, destroying Trotskyism; this is to imply but not state that Stalin is a counter-revolutionary just because he failed to understand Trotskyism as a material object and destroyed it -> trying to state what Trotskyists' argument is {{em|clearly}} through the language of meta-Marxism. 
I wish Trotskyists would just admit that the Trotskyite conspiracy happened. because if they did, they could point to this, and they could say, it doesn't matter if Stalin was defending Stalin's Marxism, the problem is Stalin wrecked Trotskyism, and that's why it had to be defended at all costs. Trotsky wrecking Stalin's Marxism is immaterial if Stalin was trying to build a worse version of Marxism over a better version of Marxism. when Liberal-republicans do that, it's counter-revolutionary, so when Stalin does it, it's also counter-revolutionary, no need to even start arguing about The Bureaucracy yet. meta-Marxists, {{em|you}} go build Stalin's Marxism in another country so it doesn't wreck Trotskyism, not the other way around. and I would say, that's a good point actually. maybe Stalin {{em|did}} accidentally transplant a Marxism meant for much more undeveloped countries to the Soviet Union. and maybe it's technically true that Stalin's Marxism vulgarizes really quickly into Dengism if you aren't watching it closely. is Stalin actually a Maoist? are Stalin and Mao actually Dengists? sometimes I just don't know any more.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kōans are really lightbulb jokes / Kōans become lightbulb jokes / Any philosophical kōan can be turned into a lightbulb joke with the addition of ideological factions -> How many roads must a man walk down? If he's a Liberal-republican, infinite, some of them going in circles. If he's a Communist, a finite number because he knows where he's going.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}How many roads must a man walk down?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A debate about gun control is actually a debate over which weapon to use / A debate about gun control is actually a debate about which weapon everyday people should prefer: guns or cops

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}If ancient Greece was a small civilization where did the slaves come from? -> the Roman empire makes logical sense to me. there were territories at the edge of Rome, it conquered them, it put them into the empire, it took slaves. but Greece had slaves too and where did those come from?

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Industry divisions thwart Armageddon / When society is divided into Butcher and Bookbinder it cannot divide into Us and Them / If society is divided qualitatively into industries, none of the divisions of people can be Good or Evil, and it must be that they will come to understand each other on a level that is universal -> implied assumption in agorism, and Liberal-republicanism. I think this was solidly falsified the moment humans invented generative AI. there's been a pretty solid consensus building that generative AI just is Evil and when it exists as an industry some industries are Evil, if that didn't already happen with the oil industry. what anarchists really really don't want to understand is that this discovery has horrifying implications for the philosophical foundations of anarchism. if people can be Good or Evil solely based on what their talents are, you can never guarantee that 'the totality of all non-aggressive activities not forbidden by The State' will ever get along rather than fighting each other and erupting into hierarchy or domination purely because people are determined for one decision to be made rather than another decision and to call that decision Good and the other decision Evil. that is the root of a lot of hierarchy if you ask me. but it's also unavoidable, because who's going to persuade anarchists to just tolerate all the stuff that they feel oppresses them? I think it's more realistic to admit that anarchism can contain domination and hierarchy and the claims it doesn't were lies, and just define anarchism around some other concept than Good and Bad — that includes "domination", "hierarchy", "decency", "respect", "disruption", "empathy", morality, ethics, "enchantment" (which turns into ethics in a couple seconds), "prejudices", and "White culture". the one completely nebulous thing they say that I am genuinely unsure whether they can or can't have is Freedom, because that has hundreds of definitions and I'm still not sure I understand what it is. so, yeah, {{em|maybe}} you can get away with defining anarchism as Freedom-ism and basing it on these long treatises of exactly how Freedom works descriptively with no prescriptive statements about it. I might not like it but at least I can't immediately tell you it's a dead theory. 
Industry divisions thwart Armageddon + Pokémon type chart = Arceus.

{{li|I=S1/MX/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}oppressive membership -> the concept of membership in a relationship or group of people being itself an axis of oppression which operates in a somewhat [[E:atomic process (one-step process)|atomic]] way such that it is completely inseparable from concepts of "hierarchy" or "domination" and those things cannot simply be removed without the relationship itself dissolving. 
oppressive membership + anarchism = anarculture. oppressive membership + The Bureaucracy (Trotskyism) / Stalinism (corruption) = political revolution in the USSR (Trotskyism).

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}Anarchism applies to any situation / Anarchism is a series of moral principles that can be applied in any historical situation -> sounds fine on the surface as a descriptive appraisal of anarchism, but gets really interesting when you remember that the Soviet Union and the conflict between Stalin's party and Trotsky's faction is "any situation". 
Anarchism is acting as if you're already free + Machiavellianism (feudal orders) = Anarchism applies to any situation.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|tradition=|Q=618}}If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube / If Fisherism is true, then every non-politician in China should ignore Chinese politics and make as many videos about United States politics as possible -> this would be for two reasons. 1) people in China are mostly safe from the U.S. government, so they are less likely to face consequences than people in the United States 2) if "creating media" is really so important to changing societal consciousness then most of China's government and politics is in the United States, so they need to change consciousness in the United States to change their government

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.
{{li|I=S1/DFy/ML|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em|is}} inevitable.

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}"Male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are different / In terms of the arts, "male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same thing in all contexts except among the craziest groups of proto-fascist Tories <s>[I promise to revise that on the Ontology: page]</s>, but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are actually different things to a greater extent than "U.S. culture" versus "Japanese culture" or "U.S. culture" versus "British culture"; national population does not affect culture products as greatly as the new and special forms of interaction and description of selves and world that take place within the particular kinds of semi-countable social groups that take part in "queer culture"; this is to imply but not state that "queer culture" carries its own worldview and political faction distinct from Liberal-republican politics -> 
male culture: Digimon Adventure. female culture: MLP gen 4. it's quite obvious what is what with kids' media when you have networks wanting to aim products at apparent differences between boys and girls to try to get more consistent sales, but even when you can point out a 'show for girls' and a 'show for boys' they are not actually that different if they're any good. hence all the bronies, hence that awkward space of women watching anime and trying to ignore the grossly exaggerated female silhouettes because nothing else about the show or game is especially bad. I think you also see this with things aimed at adults but it would be hard to think of an example where you get such a 'nice' region of awkward crossover. {{book|Dragonriders of Pern}} can be argued to be female culture I guess, but it's easy to forget that. then there's like, an argument to be made that {{book|Harry Potter}} is so misogynistic that it's male culture coming out of a woman — if it wasn't enough of an insult to accuse it of being such an 'uncool' book series as to be read by more moms and dads than kids — but it's also just within the range of 'teenage' enough that teenage girls can get obsessed with the male characters. 
so, male culture and female culture are very similar on basic levels. but "queer culture" is something different from either of them. you can really start to identify it the moment you see a furry visual novel with a plot that's "weirdly straight" — where some of the characters are stereotypes, or where the writing is okay but all the characters have totally depressing problems that make you wonder why you're reading a book right now and not just talking to the people around you that are the human equivalent of Twitter feeds, here assuming you also don't like Twitter. when these kinds of things are made "correctly", they have a very different feel. you see people being... idealistic? living in their own world, but not really in an upsetting way. they stop thinking about the outside world where everybody isn't of the same finite cluster of LGBT+ people and the atmosphere becomes very... specific to the people who are there. I want to say "insular" but that's more negative than what I actually mean. 
I think part of what I am saying is that LGBT+ circles tend to generate this consciousness of being a teeny village of people just because they are inherently limited to having only tiny clusters of people available, and because of this they sometimes also start believing that they inherently constitute some kind of "anarchist tribe" that must transition to anarchism because it will never contain enough people to spawn a Liberal-republican nation-state. the way different subpopulations in the United States get so separated really seems to mess with people's heads and cause people to see themselves as entirely separate stateless "nation-states" with separate histories, right down to subconsciously imagining whole trajectories of transition only for their own cluster of people of a particular identity and based on the exact number of people that are in it at the moment. it's funny how identities will take the notion of forms of society comically literally to the point a Marxist would scold them for reading historical materialism too closely, but then they will not even know they're doing it and try to deny that forms of society and social transitions are a thing and just try to tell you everybody needs to transition to anarchism because gay people exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Orange terrain is solid / Orange terrain is stable / Trotskyism is composed of fine-scale structures that are distinguished by their ability to stop parts of society from being overtaken and taken advantage of by The Bureaucracy; these structures may be referred to as "orange structures", although this only labels one specific function of the structures or process they contribute to and is not meant to be exclusive with the category of them being crimson structures / The dictatorship of the proletariat is an unbroken terrain of connected orange structures -> 
so apparently it's only when you look deep into what Trotskyists are claiming The Bureaucracy is that you finally start to understand what it is they're trying to create. they want one basic thing within any particular region, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat; the concept of international permanent revolution can actually be conceptualized as being emergent from this, because anything that keeps continuously defending outwardly red or orange countries from turning strawberry or blue and does appear in multiple nearby countries can link across the country regions so they can defend each other from encroaching bourgeois factions and form a Second World. this makes a lot more sense. the very first few times I read about Trotskyism I took it as this vaguely Idealist proclamation that things [[E:"I believe that everybody" statement|should have happened]] in other countries [[E:Monty Hall problem|that didn't happen]] and there "just should have" been international permanent revolution. but I now see it was more complicated than that. it's less that Trotskyists were upset Trotsky couldn't go to Germany and turn it orange and more that they were upset that the Third International seemingly refused to create a correct model of what happened in Germany, so they thought they had to tirelessly protect any region that really did have the potential to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, wherever it was, to keep The Bureaucracy from getting into it because the parties allied with Stalin were not safe from getting 'infiltrated' and slowly turning strawberry. the aim of trying to hold down a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat and prevent strawberry Marxisms from forming is respectable, given how many strange things strawberry Marxisms do on their best days ('corporations are productive forces', 'socialism is getting rid of poverty', party-approved listicles) and the few actually-awful things they do on their worst days (pre-emptively thinking rude people are reactionaries just because they're rude, battle between strawberry cops and Maoists buried inside resistances). historically speaking strawberry Marxisms are very similar to blue factions in that they slowly restore this dynamic of the most powerful people generating more power and keeping down the weakest people. I wouldn't blame anyone for acting like strawberry Marxisms simply aren't something to be messed with and are more something you want to stop at the root. as long as the people saying that are at least as Marxist as Stalin; anarchists really need to shut up and read enough stuff to learn how to do violet analysis before say anything on the topic of 'power multiplying'. if anarchists knew as much Marxism as the [[E:International Committee of the Fourth International|ICFI]] I would not be anywhere near as mad at them as I am and I would be more tolerant of proposals to create charcoal terrains that are supposed to serve the same function as orange terrains. I was in the beginning, but.... oh boy when anarchism only seems to generate more stupidity every day without ever getting better you quickly get tired of it

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Historically, Trotskyism has always been a "poly-" Marxism and there has never been a molecularized definition of Trotskyism (or any definition) which does not expect {{em|the process inside}} a particular country region to spill to the edge of the country effectively enough to end up creating connected blocs or federations of countries; the process of abolishing "owned country territories" and ruling classes along country borders and the process of defeating other versions of Marxism are not necessarily the direct causes of the "poly-" shape as much as consequences of it, and in fact, Trotskyism having a "poly-" shape is easily explained by processes inside each country region individually, namely a molecularized process of forming a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat which if successful joins multiple countries into a single potentially contiguous Second World region

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=LR, ES, A|Q=618}}Mothers have the power to abolish entire nationalities / When national populations do not base their strategy for development on government welfare programs they inherently treat households as an exploitable resource by making stay-at-home mothers or fathers or other relatives generate and perfect workers that will be exploited by cities to build modernity, therefore if rural parents were to stand up against society they could weaken the power of the oppressive apparatus inside nation-states and all its justifications for either it or a nation-state existing; this is to imply that nation-states are not entitled to calling households citizens just because people do daily activities inside their borders, but also that households are entitled to money from other households in the pool of people a nation-state has assigned them to almost as an apology for having to be part of a nation-state {{YouTube|eotvnm_UDek}} -> this came from an analysis I saw on China. it's clearly from a very Liberal-republican framework, considering the weird fixation on everyone in a country being entitled to all social programs that exist even if the limits on social programs are actually meant to stop urban poverty and stuff like U.S. cities full of homeless camps that ultimately result after too many people move to cities too fast. but the more you look at this statement the weirder it gets. Liberal-republicans will most of the time act like a particular republic existing is only natural and dismantling it would be craziness but at other times they'll act like the entire existence of nationalities is a game to them and everyone can just stop being Chinese at any time if they get tired of it. there is this weird anarchist undercurrent to all Liberal-republicanism which you see vaguely come up in theorists like Rousseau. but when you try to point out that it's there, Liberal-republicanism will generally try to deny it and act like all the people that say taxes are arbitrary constructs or they're 'sovereign citizens' are foreign material and weren't created by glitches in Liberal-republican theory itself. the one time people get bold about it and it becomes the most socially acceptable is when it's applied to other countries than the one people are currently in. tell people that the United States is a made-up game and they get upset and try to argue at you for hours that civil rights court cases that will get repealed tomorrow are objective truth, tell people China is a made-up game that can be broken up or remade from scratch and they'll simply nod.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES onto DX|Q=618}}China designing Deng Xiaoping Thought to suit the United States is pick-me behavior, and the true anti-pick-me move is for China to go back to Bolshevism -> I am so sick of the terrible contradiction between everyone in the United States saying that 'you shouldn't just be what society wants you to be to be convenient to them' and also acting like the pressure on entire Third World countries to be exactly what First World countries want is okay and normal. either people eventually become obligated to mask for others at some point {{em|as a matter of being ethical}}, or telling China it has to have a socioeconomic structure that the United States stamps as okay is "pick-me behavior", and there is no in-between on that question.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}China exporting too many products is exacerbating global tensions [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/21/qkaj-f21.html] -> why? why do you believe that? do you think you'll be able to get the people who made China structure itself based on exports because it was their 'free market right' to stop? you're waging a fight between United States capitalists that want to exploit Third World labor and United States capitalists that want to sell products, and for some reason you're waging it in China as if China had anything to do with it. China did what it was told. so at this point you may as well set up a ballot box for Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump in China and make the president of the United States partly based on what the people of China vote for. because it would make fully as much sense as this.

{{li|I=S2/DX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Jiang Zemin's "theory of three represents" declared that the business elite and emerging middle classes were the most advanced representatives of society, and were as much allies of the CPC as workers (ICFI) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/chin-d30.html]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}The French first republic lasted until the declaration of the first empire [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic] -> that is such an interesting sentence by itself, because it'd make you think that capitalism in France just erupted directly into global empire. I don't think it was that much of a straight line though.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Saying Jewish people outside Israel are obligated to support Israel is the real antisemitism -> Jewish people are one thing. Israelis are another. Germans are one thing. Nazis are another. this is not difficult. but for some reason the United States and all of its messaging and paid ads are determined to make this more difficult than it needs to be

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The major effect of spreading {{book|Settlers}} was to get people very upset about localized Black struggles that immediately affected them but to change nearly nobody's position on Palestine or attempting to use voting to save Palestine

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There are two major forms of imperialism: annexation (conquest) and primitive accumulation (frontier wars, apartheid states, "settler-colonialism", large-scale chunk competition)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ordinary people are confused by the fact that different groups of billionaires can believe entirely different things -> on one hand this is a good thing because people are vaguely understanding that being a billionaire pushes people toward particular forms of ideology. but on the other, it isn't good because people aren't understanding the [[E:material idea|concept]] of [[E:material contradiction|material contradictions]].

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}AI can be a threat, but it can't be useless / Billionaires will casually spread warnings about "the threat" of AI but they will not accept AI being referred to as "slop" -> actually good insight

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Identifying Edgeworth's dialectic identifies who you should vote for / So you would vote for the more neo lib candidate instead of the guy who changed his ways? (Liberal-republicanism)

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty / If you crudely define Socialism as an increasing exercise of "society-ism", then the correct action is to look at poor countries and decide that everyone who isn't currently provided for needs to defect to a different country as fast as possible, which is to say, needs to beg to be actively colonized by the border of a rich country in order to hopefully receive food; the people of Cuba absolutely need to be ruled by the Democratic Party per se, not even their own center-Liberal party / ({{9k|-0Vk8B3cNH8}}) -> it's funny how utterly insane the cluster of commonly-held beliefs U.S. people hold about the overall world sounds if you just say them out loud and combine them into one statement instead of compartmentalizing statements about each part of the world separately.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece -> I'm slightly afraid of what propositions would lead here. 
this proposition is a joke. I do not endorse it. 
A poor country means a bad, fake historical period that must be overthrown + debt in Greece = To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece. 
If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty + debt in Greece = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Political factions and communities are the same thing — all communities become political factions when the situation demands it, and all political factions are communities
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All communities are political factions / All countable cultures or socially-linked groups of people can function as Social-Philosophical Systems given the right situation -> I believed this because it neatly explains why Tories exist. by now, I'm not as eager to believe it, but it's still one of the sharpest replies to Bellegarrigue and easiest ways to start disproving him, so I can't quite let it go. all plurality brought on by social connections, culture, or identity has the potential to become political plurality if one group of people forces itself on another, thus there is no actual distinction between plural communities and plural formal governments. there can be physically plural anarchisms, and they can even have civil wars against each other. the concept of simply getting rid of plurality and getting rid of violence created by plurality by getting rid of The State is impossible.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All political factions are communities / All Social-Philosophical Systems are countable cultures

{{li|I=Z0/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Black defendant with all-White jury -> there are going to be some interesting combinations out of this one. generally combinations that make Liberal-republicanism look very bad. 
this + Liberal-republicanism is government by the people = Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is government by the people
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, A|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=|Q=618|submitter=StackExchange}}If gravity is zero at the center of the earth, then how did iron get there? [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-i] -> the answer says that part of the "error" here is that gravity is not a flat integer zero, it's a fence of 9.8 m/s^2 vectors pointing to all hemispheres of the planet. so iron can get in but it can't get out. some minerals drift down into the core if heavy elements are not bonded to other elements, but it's not as easy for minerals to drift back up. without being part of one big tectonic plate motion or something I guess.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition|Q=618}}Anarchism is everybody ruling everyone all the time {{YouTube|L68a6mIP09E}} -> this is.... not wrong. it came out of somebody who clearly doesn't understand anything but like, it isn't wrong. it's seemingly how a lot of recent anarchism has worked. it's backhandedly true.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition|Q=618}}Hierarchy is weak {{YouTube|CZ-FRyUZ3ok}} -> okay, but what happens when you break it open leaving an empty gap? is war strong? it must be, because it's completely unreasonable on any terms but its own and pretty hard for a small group of anarchists to stop. anarchists love reaction. they love letting anything that's too violent or dangerous for them to defeat just exist. just read Rothenberg's book where 'fascism' is treated as the only real problem but also practically raised to the level of human nature. but they'll turn around and attack things that are too weak to defend themselves against anarchism in an instant just because those things did a couple things they didn't like. this is my question: what will anarchism to do if something {{em|is anarchism}} but does something anarchism doesn't like? attack it and destroy it like anything else? how can you actually be sure that anarchism is a peaceful philosophy and not just one that will end up fighting itself for the rest of time?

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}The United States military is a neutral force within the world because it changes consciousness (anarchism) {{YouTube|LZiT3FgFqA4}} {{YouTube|sMoTWFZjoYA}} / I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong {{YouTube|FCJxf9bq1IU}} -> this is the consequence of unchecked Western-Marxism and letting people think Marxism is about actions that ""change consciousness"" rather than digging through the 'consciousness process' to uncover what structures people can be part of to gain better consciousness and how the sharpest people can start arranging [[E:arrangement of proletarians (meta-Marxism)|empowering structures]] that can [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|create]] or [[E:revolutionary lattice period|defend]] those structures regardless of what other people already notice. the difference between Althusser and Stalin is that Althusser lets you go to imperialist war to learn a lesson purely to not be a Dictator and tell you what to think before you actually learn your lesson firsthand.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong -> my brain was searching trying to think of what this made me think of and then I suddenly realized what it was. it was the MLP song. "I used to wonder what friendship could be..." that's it. like, that show embodies how Liberal-republicanism thinks of "consciousness", and this is the ultimate result of that overall kind of thinking.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}There is nothing wrong with hierarchy -> one of those propositions that's here to be the shocking result of combinations of bad propositions. 
this proposition isn't {{em|obviously}} incorrect, it's somewhat complex actually, but there are enough situations where it's wrong that in this form it would be false.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto LR, IV onto HM|Q=618}}Habermasian history is not a dialectical form of analysis because it does not understand how contradictory interactions or antagonisms rebuild the greater whole and prevent effective reforms / fundamental aspects of a society cannot simply be removed one at a time ... racism cannot be legislated out of capitalism [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> perfectly on the mark. this is what you tell them. 
the one thing you have to look out for, though: schizoanalysts trying to claim that because they included every contradictory minority at once that they've created a model which is 'actually dialectical'.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The human mind cannot become fully conscious of itself until bourgeois society is abolished, which ultimately stamps all non-proletarian philosophy as metaphysical and unscientific (Untermann 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen (Leigh 2024) [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}second-order anarchism -> the motif of someone who finds almost all forms of anarchism actually observed in the real world too specific and divisive to unite people and rebels against anarchism in order to achieve the greater goal of breaking everybody out of competing factions such as Communism versus anarchism and unifying them. this is the only kind of anarchism you could ever get me to believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}If you achieve degrowth through people of different industries periodically fighting each other and destroying each other's machines, then you've achieved degrowth {{YouTube|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> my objection to this isn't a moral one, because I don't believe morality or ethics is real. but I have an aversion to things that don't make any coherent sense. what about this makes sense? when does society know that the goal has been achieved? at what point does the process stop? is it possible for this process to extend into more abstract industries like academia or the arts, and somehow just, end up with people doing everything they can to suppress a paper or something, I don't know? what would people do to suppress pharmaceutical companies over-prescribing drugs? from what I know about anarchists, they draw the line at actually keeping people from receiving anti-depressants and hormones, so they can't stop drug production, even though it's the thing that's sold for money.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}turtles all the way down (motif)

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}botched neopets TTRPG {{YouTube|lirIV57wI34}} {{YouTube|TIxaATMBnvk}} {{YouTube|iYjUzlyEtkw}} -> it often feels like dumb headlines like these give you more insight into what kinds of class structures exist than an actual economics textbook. 
neopets exists. neopets scouts out contractor corporation. contractor corporation hires further contractors that are new at the task. there are no stable structures here; it's turtles all the way down.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Empire is always regenerating / Primitive accumulation keeps happening / Primitive accumulation is always happening -> otherwise it's hard to explain the Cold War and the way the overall concept has continued on and on more like a freezer that first set itself up and then continually circulated heat out.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ethics is the shovel dream of primitive accumulation -> think about it. most 'fitting actions' anarchists want you to do require people to have wealth first, or privilege as a whole society over other societies. create pieces of a 'community' for fun? you have to have all the money and privilege to have learned to do it correctly so your output isn't trash, or everyone will make fun of you and maybe call you immoral, potentially including the anarchists. distribute goods to people of questionable origin? you have to be White so you don't get immediately shot, and somebody first had to besiege Third World countries and make them have exactly the right government and level of wealth to both produce well and pay nothing in order for there to be enough abundance to be at the level where anarchists can claim 'distributing it' is the only problem. 
ethics itself is colonial in that without the creation of an empire you can't go on the continuing journey of people becoming 'more and more' ethical. you have to have that slump first where a huge atrocity is committed and then people progressively learn about it and apologize. a world without atrocities genuinely might not need morality or ethics at all. it might be a wholly amoral world. and the fact people are even talking about ethics may signal either that they're defending something awful, or that they aren't as good of people as they believe they are. 
why is it that anarchists always want to imagine everything perfect but it never occurs to them that a world in an original perfect state might not even have ethics.

{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618}}Plato was the only Greek / Plato was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece (observation on {{film|Chip Chilla}}) {{YouTube|x6IZm3lf50s}} / Aristotle was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece -> good catch! it's rather remarkable how, there were particular classes within ancient Greek society that could be at least vaguely separated out by layer, and almost everybody loves to act like the upper classes were the only class to exist. in reality, it appears that the upper classes and lower classes had different positions on topics like whether Greek gods were real. there was more than one body of ideology in ancient Greece, at least along the division of how educated people were if nothing else, and we don't usually talk about the interactions between those {{em|different}} bodies of ideology.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I {{em|know}} the Asriel plot thread is not that good, but everyone likes it. am I wrong or is everybody else right {{YouTube|ECa4_RWtoHY}} -> I couldn't tell you the answer to the question but I do know this is an interesting motif

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}Japanese culture (essence) / Japanese culture as essence of Japaneseness -> I used to think this concept made some sort of sense before I was an adult but now I don't think it makes any sense.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}Distinguishing countries by "culture" others them (Marxism, Trotskyism)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black vice -> this is how.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black virtue -> this is more how a lot of characterizations of "Japanese culture" or "animist beliefs" work, casually implying that something can both inherently be of a particular "culture" and also be virtuous by having started from that.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}sugar, spice, and everything nice -> Idealism/essentialism in a fairy tale type context.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature — not in the unique sense which has gotten the label that exists within society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature, because it can only exist {{em|within}} sociality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty exists due to greater or lower social bonds
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism, because Idealism cannot change the process of which people are socially compatible and develop stronger social bonds creating high-ranking individuals and marginalized individuals

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}The sun must rise (astronomy) -> I wrote this one down vaguely within context of eucatastrophe and the arguments that it is "realistic".

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Never debate Item names / Do not argue about Item names, given that all Items can have multiple aliases or outward sense labels, and you can debate which concepts belong in each numbered entry within Talk pages

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}Job as Communist antihero / Job as Communist hero -> think about it. he is told to do something and then he turns away from it and bad things keep happening and he keeps getting these reminders of the thing he was supposed to do, that bad things keep happening if he doesn't start doing. begins to remind me of Trotskyists repeatedly talking about crises and despite the claims the crises will lead to something being a little laughable correctly pointing out that none of it will get better if people do nothing. 
Q51,31 Job sounds like job + Christian devotional about Ted = Job as Communist antihero. 
Job sounds like job + Trotskyists obsessing about crises = Job as Communist antihero.

{{li|I=M3/MX/LR|Q=618}}What action taken by cops would be bad enough to actually get society to abolish them? / cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos ([[E:12,1,09|generic]]) -> I was thinking about qualified immunity and how absurdly it's been pushed to include cops getting to do anything that has no precedent and then after my brain churned a bit I was like... wait, {{em|anything}}? so if I pointed to a really messed up video of an anthro cat removing somebody's eyeballs, like, is it true that absolute serial killer shit wouldn't get us to abolish the police, and our society really thinks anything you do behind a cop's badge is okay. 
what if people signed up to a police department and became cops and then they burned down a billionaire's building? would they even get fired? what if a cop assassinated the president? would everything still go on the same as it was? what if a cop went to an immigrant prison and busted the place open and let them out? what if a cop distributed a bunch of illegal copies of a movie? what if a cop hid in a mascot costume and killed several kids at a pizza restaurant? what if a cop killed every single other cop in the state? what if a cop lied under oath? what if a cop shredded every single election ballot, and when there was another attempt to have an election, it happened again? what if a cop cut power to a hospital? what if a cop disrupted the mail? what if a cop somehow confiscated people's tax money and spent it so the government couldn't have it? what if a cop made a statement glorifying Vladimir Putin and Russia invading Ukraine? what if a police department went on strike for Palestine? is that literally the only thing a cop can get fired for? if every cop everywhere went on strike for Palestine would the United States have to abolish the police? 
I bet at least half of the weird scenarios I could think of absolutely wouldn't change anything no matter how strange or how horrific the thing that happened actually was. 
I really, genuinely wonder what it would take to end qualified immunity, and how outrageous the action taken by the cop would actually have to be. 
qualified immunity (United States) + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}failed attempt at anti-essentialism / failed attempt to apply anti-essentialism -> I get really tired of the Ideals + anti-essentialism model of reality because I totally know it is not actually modeling what's real and there are going to be a lot of cases where it simply fails that nobody bothers to talk about. 
this + ?? = Not All Men.
{{li|I=S1/LR/ML|Q=618}}successful application of anti-essentialism denied by Liberal-republicans -> there's this category of statements too.

{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not every house cat is an obligate carnivore -> example where going against an overgeneralization could be harmful.
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone will learn tolerance from media representation -> sad but probably true.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Not every country should practice Liberal-republicanism -> it'll make everyone mad but that alone doesn't make it false.
{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone should vote for Joe Biden (2020) -> hypothetically possible but will make people mad.

{{li|I=F2/HAS|Q=618}}My dog is the only one / My dog is the only dog ever / My dog is the only thing that anyone calls a dog [https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/psych/glossary/undergeneralization/] -> example given to illustrate children failing to learn to generalize words beyond specific examples. one attested use of the term "undergeneralization".

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood 
When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization ... + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes represent international war / Superheroes largely started as a vague depiction of international war -> see: Superman punching Hitler, [https://screenrant.com/superman-first-hero-to-beat-up-hitler-not-captain-america/] Ultraman as representation of Soviet occupations
{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes appear spontaneously and unpredictably because they are a representation of the anhierarchic conditions of large-scale international politics in which war can never truly be regulated and whenever war begins the only thing that can counter it is war completing itself from the other side 
Superheroes represent international war + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If there are no grand narratives that stretch across the world, then it is impossible to tell Alexander Dugin that Russians can't just go kill Ukrainians because that's what they want to do that week and it makes them happy -> without Marxism, the statement that the world shouldn't have international wars or that countries should be "orderly" is nothing more than a narrative, so everyone is free to reject it. ethics is just a narrative. "international law" is just a narrative. suddenly the notion that narratives can't possibly reach around the world and become universal isn't sounding so good any more, is it?

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}In 1949, [[E:the real Chinese people|the real Chinese people]] were the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (Mao) [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm] 
China's conditions are exceptional + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}China's conditions are exceptional / Chinese exceptionalism (history) / China's history is exceptional / China's historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value -> this proposition has a very interesting relationship with the concept of country characteristics. many people will falsely go claiming that this {{em|is}} what country characteristics are, although in many cases it will simply not be true.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}U.S. conditions are exceptional / American exceptionalism (history) / The United States' historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Stalin intentionally created strawberry capitalism in order to get more allies in countries without a fully-developed capitalism [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peoples-republic] -> so in a way Trotskyists are accusing Stalin of having invented the primary phase of development / primary phase of "socialism". 
you know, having a "socialism" constructed over the top of your country for international geopolitical reasons and then living in that for years having to make sense of it is one of the few reasons it would make logical sense for China to bend over backwards to justify strawberry capitalism as "definitely socialism, actually". 
edit: the bot [[redlink - ICFI prompts|told me]] this theory was bogus. which really makes me wonder which party wrote this glossary, because apparently it was not the ICFI.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}bracketing in meta-Marxism / downreductionism in meta-Marxism / reductionism in meta-Marxism (referring to a process that does not remove outgoing interactions and antagonisms) / meta-Marxism and bracketing smaller areas of a larger system of interacting parts to better understand the outgoing interactions and antagonisms of a particular piece
upreductionism in meta-Marxism / meta-Marxism and reconstruction of larger systems or events by combining smaller parts into a whole

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}finding Marxism in {{film|Bee Movie}} {{YouTube|q_agS0hDMvc}} -> yeah, this {{em|is}} inherently funny due to the example fictional work already having meme status. but that doesn't make the concept bad. 
there's nothing wrong with people trying to do Marxist breakdowns of the elements or themes that make up popular media. not even if the popular work is superficial "slop". and you know why? the more popular something is the cheaper it gets to buy after a few years once people start donating it to thrift stores. if you manage to take a really popular work, however bad, and turn it into a teaching tool with a well known meaning, you've created really cheap propaganda that you don't need party organizers to distribute, that will keep getting spread around no matter how many party members get caught, and that will be harder to ban because the bourgeoisie created it and it wasn't created by a group of people easy to strategically label as "an invading foreign country". of all the things Western Marxists do, this is actually one of the smartest ones. because if Gramscians go into academia or movie studios and [[E:|take up job slots]], it doesn't make that big an impact on who can actually make decisions in industries or who can strike, but if you manage to change the use of an existing product then you've somewhat undone the ability of the corporations that made it to make decisions about what will be produced and what everyone is and isn't allowed to think before everybody else can.

{{li|I=S1/MX/ML|Q=618}}revolutionary lattice period / permanent revolution (meta-Marxism onto Stalin's Marxism) -> the motif of a historical era of physical events where people are linking horizontally to get through a battle against an initial bourgeois class rule or at the very least linking into a Lattice to form a nationwide party which will create a workers' state. the revolutionary lattice period ends when a workers' state is created, and it's significant because it allows for a very concrete mathematical definition of "Leninism" using graph theory. approximately synonymous with "permanent revolution", assuming you are not a Trotskyist. Trotskyists could still use this model to describe the creation of an orange party, but for them this is not permanent revolution at all because "[[E:international permanent revolution|permanent revolution]]" is the long setup period for creating a powerful Communist International that would in theory be able to stop imperialism and international wars.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Careers hold no life lessons / {{TTS|Careers*|Careers|title=* Specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training}} cannot teach life lessons / Because all specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training are incapable of seeing anything outside the system they operate in, no statement about "life in general for the human Subject" which a person put together as a statement as a guide to doing their career in the process of doing their career should be held up as The Truth; this includes the careers of David Graeber, Rebecca Sugar, Slavoj Žižek, Carl Sagan, Dinesh D'Souza, and Donald Trump, and it includes the careers of Stalin and Trotsky -> I don't really have to include Mao in that because he came from the peasantry and had a bunch of statements about not 'worshiping' books or theorists (those seem to multiply every time there's a new Marxist republic although nobody heeds them.) so I think he's in the clear, but Stalin and Trotsky on the other hand had cast all sorts of aspersions on each other about being bureaucrats, leading everybody outside the Soviet Union to believe they both were.

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}spontaneous explanation for Trotskyism / contingent explanation for Trotskyism / group-psychological explanation for Trotskyism -> a "spontaneous" explanation for Trotskyism is an attempt to explain the history of Trotskyism which focuses on the causes of individual events and why people might have formed into these events on the day they happened, in the moment. 
these might include: Trotskyists getting expelled from the CPSU was psychologically traumatic or at least not predicted by their theoretical models, people continue to found Trotskyist parties because they identify with the psychological trauma of early Trotskyism and pick it up and advocate about it as a sort of generational trauma they feel is unresolved and waiting for justice, incompatibility between Trotskyist factions and mainstream Marxist-Leninist factions for various reasons created and still creates physical antagonisms between the parties leading them to want to form separate "countries" or civilizations (that last one is easily phrased in terms of dialectical materialism and has no need for a single 'inciting incident').

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}theoretical explanation for Trotskyism / explanation for Trotskyism based on analysis of internal theoretical models used by Trotskyist groups and exactly what historical processes and class interactions or horizontal antagonisms are being claimed inside said theories -> for the longest time I had a hard time finding any of these because of how so much of what Trotskyists say is just lies. I found it a lot easier to analyze their claims once they came out with an LLM and like, I was finally able to make that thing behave like the only Trotskyist that didn't lie for a few minutes at a time (before it started blatantly lying again and going on about 'the Stalinist bureaucracy').

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why invade Cuba? (2026) / If Cuba is not an exclusive republic, why is the United States so dead-set on creating a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over it?

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Cuba to Trump: warning, war causes war [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419]

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump's demands for Cuba (2026) / these included a two-week deadline to release high-profile political prisoners, implement sweeping market reforms, expand the private sector and attract foreign investment [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/21/mgaz-a21.html] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419] -> I'd mark this brown except that these are the most capitalist demands I've seen in a while

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Alabama redistricting ruling (2026) [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-order-requiring-majority-black-district-in-alabama-6024323] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/democrats-ask-us-supreme-court-to-stay-virginia-supreme-court-ruling-invalidating-voter-approved-election-map-6024209]

{{li|I=S2/MX/JC/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung got help from other countries / Kim Il-sung got help from Communist youth organizations in Manchuria and educators in the Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet army [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kim-Il-Sung] -> that is a shocking revelation. if you know much about North Korea and what its values are now you never expect that the story of North Korea would start with this. 
why have I never heard Trotskyists saying this. it's like, the thing they should be pointing out about North Korea. I think it's always the existence of the Soviet army that bothers them. which is so odd and ironic when Trotsky is one of the figureheads of "orange Leninism" and where did he start out? gosh, to live in a world where Trotsky had been every bit as effective at holding down the Second World as Kim Il-sung. with this information that analogy only gets better.

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}How will the Communist Party prevent {{book|Animal Farm}}? -> a question that's annoying but worth answering.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}} / You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}}, because secular animism gives you an imperative to protect the animals from getting eaten, while {{book|Animal Farm}} implies that it doesn't matter what happens to them if they have an inferior culture containing [[E:inherently dominating idea (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideas]] -> there is a particular history of people forgetting {{book|Animal Farm}} had anything to do with Communism and taking it literally because they didn't read the book; in particular, this "interpretation" emerged out of the shadows and became famous when it was used to market capitalist products. {{book|Animal Farm}} being co-opted by vegetarians might seem a little obnoxious at first, but honestly? I think these people could become heroes. and here's why. {{book|Animal Farm}}, being an allegory, was meant to be read as a bit of a metaphor, but vegetarians with no knowledge of Communism took what they knew of the book and interpreted it literally. compared with a lot of methods used in the humanities (in particular in the arts; the situation could be a little better in fields like anthropology), taking things literally is inherently closer to Materialism and thus inherently closer to Marxism. if one were to deliberately analyze {{book|Animal Farm}} as if the animals were literally animals and not the Soviet Union, it would come across as the terribly inhumane and un-humanitarian narrative it really is. I mean, just think about it. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to kill a house cat a lot of people would find that concept disturbing. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to take self-determination away from a group of animals trying to save themselves from quite literally being chopped up and eaten if a population of people had power over them, that concept should be equally disturbing — if somebody wanted to cook and eat Russians just for being Russian almost everybody would consider that a severe human rights violation. and the ending for the Soviet Union was vastly worse than the ending of {{book|Animal Farm}}. the book was way too generous, when the reality was that things went back to the way they were before — if what had been going on before was Russians getting eaten, well, that would be happening again. if that were the universe we lived in you couldn't really blame Russians for going a little crazy and launching wars on neighboring countries; if that is the only way for them to have power and the United States not to have power which is "permitted", of course they're going to take the option where they don't get eaten, no matter how evil that option is. 
Animals kill others to survive. most animals in nature don't experience their survival being threatened constantly; in a normal situation the predator or rival patriarch or matriarch usually walks away at some point if they stand their ground long enough. but nation-states are very different because there's never anywhere to run off to permanently. if a conflict begins and the aggressor has no actual incentive to stop it's going to keep going until somebody starts killing people. it's just going to keep going until wars cull enough people (potentially millions and millions) that "the space to run away in" is at some semblance of being restored. because a society is just a lot of Animals standing together like they were one Animal, and societies threaten each other as wholes, but when a threat refuses to go away, Animals kill. anarchists cannot get away from this. they keep trying to assert that a world with too many people in it having wars "isn't necessary" and "there's no need to apply Malthusianism" but no matter what, their theories cannot [[E:existential materialism|explain what generates]] the actual observed behavior of Russians. the longer anarchists try to assert that indigenous ways of life 'were kinder on the earth' and 'were less violent', the longer real-world populations will attempt to kill millions and millions of people until the world literally has the maximum number of human individuals it did when human populations were mostly tribes. the actual material transition to a world where everyone is predisposed to believe secular animism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's rational for Russians to start wars and kill people if they will never be granted self-determination on the basis of a system where they try to help every Ukrainian and not start wars -> to correctly parse this proposition you have to understand that what is rational and what is ethical are not the same thing, contrary to what Kant says. 
this also doesn't mean that you can assert that 'getting rid of reason' will solve the problem, given that things that are 'rational' in this sense are rational precisely in the sense that they contain a specific [[E:causal logic (logical model of material causation)|sequence of causations]] and happen whether you want them to or not. 
Imperialism is the actual end of history + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Native Americans are capable of genocide / Inasmuch as indigenous populations are human, they are hypothetically capable of coming up with and practicing [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideologies]] that lead to large populational-scale numbers of people dying because other particular groups of people decide that they should die -> we really need to wake people up to the fact that a genocide can consist of five billion people equally drawn from all ethnic groups as opposed to a billion people of one specific ethnic group or nationality, in terms of whether a particular person's ideology can be ""inherently dominating"" enough to inherently lead to killing ten million people. if anybody in the world gets to keep calling a famine in Ukraine a genocide, then there are scenarios where advocating secular animism could itself be advocating for genocide, because it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than that. if everybody would stop saying that about Ukraine, I might consider dropping this.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Stalin's government committed genocide in Ukraine {{em|because}} they killed people using [[E:hierarchy (anarchism)|hierarchy]], and whenever a form of hierarchy is used that leads to a lot of people dying, that form of hierarchy is an [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideology]], and it is morally wrong to allow people to construct that form of hierarchy to any extent and morally right to tear it apart at every scale possible however small as soon as possible -> the best argument I can think of that the famine in Ukraine {{em|was}} a genocide. no, it's {{em|not}} very good. but at least it's logical enough to start analyzing, unlike a lot of things anarchists say. 
this.... is how a lot of people conceptualize the French Revolution, I think. ...oh god, that explains a lot. it even kind of explains where [[E:Menshevism (1900s)|Menshevism]] came from. the logic behind Menshevism is basically one that inherently dominating ideas merely need to be stopped. all Idealism is somewhat similar and there is a big overlap in Idealism between anarchism, Menshevism, Yaroshenkoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Western-Marxism. while mainstream Marxism-Leninism is nearly the only philosophy ever to state that people don't actually decide what ideas to believe, and that they are always simply handed ideas at the populational scale rather than a population actually having a mind of its own and actually being able to think. that's the sense in which BlackPantherism is quite respectable, to say that Black people among other ethnicities get ideas from their current conditions {{em|is}} a Materialist philosophy. one remaining question is whether Trotskyism falls into the trap of Idealist revolution or whether it genuinely is a Materialist revolution. I've always analyzed Trotskyism by taking individual Trotskyists or groups and modeling them through Materialist concepts of revolution, but my conclusions often don't sound much like their conclusions. they always talk like Stalin could have chosen not to do "Stalinism" so I don't know. 
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy + Stalin's government killed Ukrainian farmers = this.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A, DX, LR, ES|Q=618}}Idealist revolution / destroy the idea that ... (generic; popular-culture expression of an Idealist campaign to slay [[E:inherently dominating ideology (anarchism)|dominating ideas]]) -> it took me a long time to put this concept into words, but yeah, I think the real problem with anarchism is that it is defining the concept of revolution based on Idealism. there seems to be a whole concept of an Idealist revolution where people think that if you can slay an "inherently dominating idea" that drives a population on a conceptual level, you can change one historical period into another historical period. now, to use some technical language, this is some unscientific SCP-report plotline {{censor|bullshit}}.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=|Q=618}}thoughtcrime (anarchism) -> the motif of anarchists banning ideas in order to prevent harmful forms of society from being created whether those forms of society are really actually harmful or not, and punishing people for spreading what are actually neutral ideas. 
you can't deny it, in actually asserting that all bad behavior starts at ideas and all change starts at prohibiting ideas, anarchism comes way closer to doing this than Communism.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy / The act of handing money to someone is in and of itself a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|spatial slot hierarchy]] because it is an act of deciding whether someone is good enough to do a task -> this claim would probably sound much stupider if it was coming out of an anarchist, but fortunately "hierarchy" isn't a big hang-up for me as much as a prosaic statement describing what kind of process is happening. 
that said, this is the thing you need to toss at anarchists who claim that hierarchy and expertise are different things. they really aren't. since the start of Liberal-republicanism expertise has generally been the source of almost all hierarchy. 
I feel like anarchists have shifted to saying "domination" largely so that when they mention "hierarchy" they don't sound as stupid. of course, it doesn't really help given that it's become so abstract that it's unclear what on earth it's even referring to.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}X and X's brother / X and X's sister / Trotsky and Trotsky's brother (Animal Farm) / Rock and Rock's brother (Megaman exe) -> the motif of fictional stories taking a historical figure or previous fictional character in another continuity and creating a narrative parallel to them but then unexpectedly adding a sibling who actually does something and changes the story even if in a small way.

{{li|I=S1/HAS/Fy|Q=618}}gender roles in fairy tales -> I just started thinking about this suddenly today because I was trying to think if the concepts of "brother" and "sister" have different connotations in folklore, and then I started thinking about how weirdly often all the more negative characters in fairy tales are female. the wicked stepmother, the witch, maybe the wicked step{{em|sisters}}. but the male characters are often more neutral. kings and princes and medieval artisan type people all just have kind of a neutral presence or sometimes positive. there are some exceptions like 'the fairy godmother' that will be a positive influence. 
I.... don't know what the scope of this entry is because I'm not an expert in the humanities. I think it covers European fairy tales and probably through Eastern Europe into the rest of Asia but I don't really know what the division between "a fairy tale" and "a folktale" is, to me they're kind of the same thing. some people consider "Aladdin" to be broadly in the scope of fairy tales because there is a magic artifact or magic servant character that isn't so different from the fairy godmother. but that extends the geographical range of fairy tales quite a bit. what's the difference between a fairy tale and just a legend that people don't necessarily think is true? I think there's a clear difference between a fairy tale and a "myth" in that myths are religious stories from an ancient time of local gods, and fairy tales are about 'smaller' magical things that sort of just hide themselves in tiny places and cause mischief — "fae" sums up the concept of where fairy tales get their fantastical elements pretty well, you're thinking of a character that is usually pretty small and missable but can also be very powerful, could be the fairy godmother, could be a leprechaun. but I'm pretty confused on the difference between a fairy tale, a folktale, and a legend, because legends can have dragons in them; they don't have to be "historical".

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}belief (utilization) / believing in (utilizing) / I believe in solving math problems with lambda calculus / I believe in pomodoro timers -> a definition of "belief" which is one of the very few sensible ways to define the phrase "believing in Marxism". 
I think it's arguable that this definition doesn't apply to ideologies like Christianity, or even to a lot of secular systems of ethics; ethics is a potentially wrong descriptive model of reality pretending to be a technique. but, on the bright side, this motif does provide a lot of context for why people like to claim Communism "doesn't work". you could easily say "pomodoro timers don't work!" but if you aren't versed in how people actually use them and the exact conditions where people claim they do work versus what specific kinds of conditions lead them to fail, then you wouldn't necessarily be making a true accusation. at the same time, if you {{em|did}} claim "Pomodoro timers work!" without knowing how to use them, you also might not be making a true claim. that's why the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism has been so hard to resolve. out of the very limited number of people in the world who knew how to use Marxism at the time, or that do now, not all of those people genuinely understand how it's currently being used. and it's all downhill from there, because as you get further away from them, ordinary people only know less and less. 
you really do learn a lot more about Marxism itself by examining Trotskyist attacks on Marxism than you do by examining a lot of attacks on Marxism inside Liberal-republicanism. and in that, I think they actually have a counter-intuitive effect on consciousness in the grand scheme of things where depending on the specific issue them making errors may be less harmful than them not being there. not {{em|better}} precisely, yet definitely {{em|less bad}}.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}so mr. errors wants me to correct my errors -> what the early history of Trotskyism always feels like 
now to be perfectly fair to them, there are reasons this can {{em|apparently}} happen without being an actual mistake — Marxists speak of new forms of structure coming in and getting rid of old contradictions but bringing in new ones. I think this is how a lot of things they say happen to function.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}tall, dark, and handsome [https://usdictionary.com/idioms/tall-dark-and-handsome/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3x6bco/in_the_phrase_tall_dark_and_handsome_what_exactly/] / tenebrous (attractive) -> I have seen this explained either as the person literally having dark hair or the person being mysterious (tenebrous). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ténébreux] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrae#Latin] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrous#English] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrize#English] for the purposes of analyzing the word "dark" I'm going to take the latter 
sidenote: the pictures you get when you search {{i|ténébreux}} are so funny, you get like a dude with a cloak, you get {{censor|fucking}} Ezio or Boromir. fantasy stories are very good at portraying this concept apparently. one of the only "modern" stories I can think of off the top of my head that goes there is when Ace Attorney introduced Godot. whether anyone thinks he's attractive I have no idea but he absolutely is trying way too hard to have a mysterious overcast disposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Goku is a bourgeois distortion / Goku is a bourgeois distortion of Buddhism / Goku's character concept is centered around the notion that finding or seeking enlightenment makes you more physically powerful; in the original {{book|Journey to the West}} narrative, this was supposed to be the monkey king's vulgar misunderstanding of Buddhism which ultimately got him sealed under a mountain; within {{book|Dragon Ball}} Goku can be said to represent crude bourgeois materialism as seen in Feuerbach — the major theme quickly established in {{book|Dragon Ball}} is that the world is physical and does what it wants as opposed to what you want it to do, but that this is partly because the world is in some abstract way "modern", and dotted with cities and corporations and most notably the influence of scientific insight and technology; in this sense, Goku is not the {{book|Journey to the West}} character Sun Wukong because while Sun Wukong represents ancient empires, he represents the rise of early capitalism and the ways in which capitalism both correctly and wrongly substituted morality for power going into the hands of those who desire change the hardest and become materially powerful enough to take power and [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic|fight off]] the people they wish would change -> 
this sounds weirdly like I'm on the side of Buddhism over early capitalism. I'm not. I'm just very tired of capitalism acting like it's fully justified to keep power over everything and prevent anything else that would happen after it from forming just because it's better than ancient imperial monarchies. 
if Hegel had known what an "end of history" was, he would have believed that monarchy and feudal orders were the end of history. and now Fukuyama thinks he's not as wrong as Hegel when he does the same thing. honestly... right down to even that thing where you claim a bunch of abstract ideas led to a material system yet were the only possible train of conclusions. capitalist theorists and Kantians are almost exactly just the Hegel of capitalism.

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}Daniel Snowberg, the perfect whistleblower [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/whistleblowers-dont-need-elite-credentials-help-protect-us-government-overreach] -> so, there had been this other blog where I think someone was calling out Ed Snowden for having 'done things wrong' and made up this fake story about Daniel Snowberg to show how he should have done it correctly. and the EFF wasn't having any of it because they knew the realities of real movements don't necessarily look like what you want them to be. 
also... funny story, when messing around with writing fiction and trying to throw Snowberg into a dystopia this had caused Valenoern to accidentally reinvent Trotskyism. but that takes a while to explain, and is a story for another day. to keep things short, they really did not know anything about the history of socialism or what Menshevism or Bolshevism were, they just sort of, created a character in the vein of "Emmanuel Goldstein" (that's just an example) from abstract concepts but didn't know that in the case of 1984 that was Trotsky, and so they reinvented Trotskyism. we've had a lot of fun with anticommunist fables and finding Trotsky in them since then.

{{li|I=S1/MX/MD|class=field_mdem field_14quarters|Q=618}}vermilion international / scarlet international / vermilion Marxism (as Communist International) -> the motif of a Communist international that combines mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism to ultimately form some kind of single global era of socialism. Trotskyists think this can't exist, and have said so rather clearly — what they generally want is to smash all crimson Communist parties and replace them with orange ones.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Videos are the new leaflets (booklets; pamphlets; etc) {{YouTube|bKq-iip4LXs}} / Videos have replaced leaflets -> I remember this coming up in videos on multiple YouTube channels but I don't remember which videos right now 
I wouldn't disagree with this, although... I think there are a few interesting things to note about it. for one, the environment of online videos gives Trotskyists a bizarrely huge advantage because they can all post videos from different countries and make it look like Trotskyism is a lot more omnipresent in any particular country than it really is, as well as like it's a long-standing philosophical tradition (technically not false) which is as rich as mainstream Marxism-Leninism is. online videos make it weirdly easy to "astroturf" the appearance of movements happening more intensely or widely than they actually are.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality; news outlets sell the service of empirical encounters with material reality -> this is the only satisfactory explanation I can find for the way United States people will utterly deny things as a possibility {{caps|until}} they show up in a news article and then suddenly they're "real" and omnipresent and worrying and perhaps scary.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Free Software movement needs a theory of state businesses if it is ever to succeed; it needs a theory of how it is that products and production structures become part of public space and become impossible for individuals to control or 'retract' as opposed to saying that individuals just 'ought to' continually choose to put things in the public space within the space of individual choices and interactions 
methodological individualism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}I'm not here to educate you / It's not my job to educate you (statement that minority groups do not have to explain oppression) -> I don't think you can treat this statement as generally true. funny story, I've been picking up books on Native American history when I go to used book sales, and like, these claim to be educational, but you open them up, and the last one I was reading was treating the tribe in question as very mystical. it was trying to be positive and imply there was nothing wrong with people having a different culture but it overall still ended up presenting things like Rolling Thunder (he was the main topic of the book) had a fundamentally magical way of thinking, that he's almost some kind of wizard with magic occult powers in the way he thinks as opposed to his culture being something that can ever be "normal". I think the book was from 1976 if I remember right, not recently. 
so like, telling people to go educate themselves and implying they can't talk to actual people to learn what their problems are could be very harmful. I suspect that it's old books like these that a lot of anarchists are learning about other groups of people from and effectively where they're getting their anarchism. or that even if that's not literally the case, that you can still study that example to learn about the problems with the thing anarchists are actually doing. 
I think there is like.... a nuance that's totally lost on anarchists about the interaction of individuals or populations. if there's somebody that goes around talking like Rolling Thunder, you can't really just take what he says and present it to other people as his fundamental way of thinking. people in industrial populations are going to take it negatively. there might be one or two people who literally take it as 'backward' and say mean things, but that's not what you need to watch for, the most likely harm you need to keep an eye out for is people softly deciding that tribal populations can't understand modern science and that the way of thinking they have presented is part of their fundamental essence that 'blocks' them from absorbing the understandings people have in industrial society. this is racist, because it puts you into the same rhetorical position as the people who were recently arguing that Black South Africans 'didn't want the farmland taken by Afrikaners because of their culture' and {{em|therefore}} it was okay for European apartheid states to descend in and take whatever they want. I think there's a decent argument to be made that claiming someone like Rolling Thunder has a fundamentally different way of thinking 'than European science' is flat out supporting colonialism and is The Colonizer Attitude, because, just look at its results. 
this leaves open the rather broad question of how exactly you can merge tribal populations' ways of thinking with modern science and the findings of industrial societies. we know it's not optional to do that. we know it's necessary to do it to not essentialize people and treat indigenous people as stupid. we know that anarchists trying to present older and more mystical ways of thinking as 'the natural way of thinking' is not okay because it what it effectively does is allow White people to appropriate indigenous culture for their own benefit but still deny that culture to the actual indigenous people and hand all the power of people to determine themselves, to be able to talk about all topics intelligently as the adults in the room and make sophisticated decisions on various topics and involving several different philosophies, to Europeans. putting yourself in a position where other people will essentialize you to one particular level of ideological development is dangerous. I think it's the anarchists that need to be told this more than the tribal populations; they've been through a lot and I think to some extent they know this. anarchists, on the other hand... I feel like it's vaguely possible that some day in the future, people will talk about anarchists as inherently mystical people and weirdly racialize all anarchists {{em|exactly}} the way they've done with tribes in North or South America.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{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/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{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 {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> 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/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/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=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/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=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=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

</ol><noinclude>

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12992

2026-06-16T08:18:29Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12992 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,9,92: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

#REDIRECT [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,9,92]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,9,92

2026-06-16T08:18:29Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12992 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,9,92: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=color swatch system|User=RD|E=Q12,9,92|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,90|Q2=12990}}{{int:sitename}} philosophy classification systems / philosophy tag / philosophy code / ideology code / ideology tag / philosophy tag or ideology code for "non-partisan" field of academic study

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}{{int:sitename}} color swatch system -> an entry which will formally lay out the rules for what puts things in each color swatch one by one. this entry really is focused only on the swatches, not the 2-3 letter philosophy tags which are used in contexts that resemble black-and-white publications.

</li></ol>

== Basic rules ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-1 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the "mandatory" set of swatch assignment rules that likely will not change.

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=12,9,84|Q2=12984|h4= Stalin's Marxism must be crimson }} / The crimson swatch color must be used for Stalin's Marxism ({{TTS|ML}}) to reflect that this is the most common meaning of "Communism" and "Reds" in most Liberal-republican countries regardless of the ideological faction people are on when they use the term; this includes Stalin's party and Hoxhaism but does not explicitly include Maoism -> note that "crimson" is a [[E:Roses are cardinal, violets are sunbird, colors are groupings that have been numbered|signifier that groups things]], and what real actual color it will be rendered in on the screen is an entirely separate thing. colorblind or monochrome stylesheets are completely respected on this project.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=12,9,75|Q2=12975|h4= Anarchism is charcoal }} / Anarchism must be charcoal / The black swatch color must be used for anarchism (the totality of philosophies claiming to be both "against capitalism" in a Marxist sense and "anarchism"; philosophy tag {{TTS|A|'A'}}), to reflect that this has been the traditional symbol used within anarchist movements for over a century; although this swatch color is black in concept, it may be rendered in a charcoal-gray color in contexts such as stylesheets if that looks more visually appealing

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,88|Q2=12988|h4= European fascism is brown }} / European fascism must be brown / The khaki brown swatch color must be used for classical European fascisms, including: Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Imperial Japan

</li></ol>

== Level-2 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-2 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the second set of basic rules that is relatively well-decided-on but is not as "strictly mandatory". these rules have slightly less firm justification but are also fairly unlikely to change.

{{li|I=S2/MX/MX|Q=12,92,0|Q2=12920|h4= meta-Marxism is violet }} / The violet swatch color will be used for [[EC:9k/RD/Q92|meta-Marxism]] — a body of methods internally given a boundary by particular rules, in which whole Marxist movements taking place in a particular country or region are analyzed as developing material objects which might be in conflict with each other and get into heated material contradictions despite both attempting to be versions of Marxism and both claiming to be able to create a new historical period which will involve workers' government and socialist transition; this violet swatch color is an intermediate violet which is not specified to be either red-violet or blue-violet, and these colors are left open as options for specialized swatch colors that may be assigned to specific philosophy tags later

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,89|Q2=12989|h4= Duginism is brown }} / Alexander Dugin's so-called "fourth" political ideology ({{TTS|P4}}) and The European New Right are similar enough to classical European fascism to be brown

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,87|Q2=12987|h4= Toryism is brown }} / Tory parties ({{TTS|PT}}) such as the US Republican Party and UK Conservative Party are similar enough to Duginism (not Nazi Germany, not World War II) to be brown -> one question that might come up in the minds of any experienced Marxists who find this project is, why distinguish Toryism as its own ideology separate from Liberal-republicanism (= capitalist government, capitalist ideology) as a whole? and the answer is, the United States is so politically bankrupt that absolutely every progressive movement that has ever existed from unions to the civil rights movement to anarchism and schizoanalysis to just {{em|everything}} has defined itself in opposition or in relation to Toryism (the Free Software movement has referenced Toryism in two different directions, either saying 'I'm [[E:Nina Paley|anti-trans]] just like the Tories' or 'the Tories are being [[E:Mike Masnick|too stingy]] with their business territories'). so, without knowing in detail what Toryism is and simply letting people label bad things they want to oppose "Toryism" it's somewhat literally impossible to create even a single organization anywhere in the United States. everyone who lives in the US knows that if you simply let people classify and name ideologies however they want, they'll try to tell you that all conservative parties are indistinguishable from European fascism, and then Tories will argue in different words that they're Tories and not fascists, and the progressives will lose the argument that fascism already exists or is forming and it'll get really ugly. 
I choose to use this knowledge to claim that Liberal-republicans are very very slowly learning meta-Marxist color swatch analysis, and it {{em|might}} be possible to use people's back and forth contradiction against Toryism to actually teach them what ideologies are, how many total ideologies exist besides just center-Liberalism and Toryism, and how all of them relate to historical materialism, historical periods, and historical transitions. I don't think there are any guarantees on that. but it does make it easier to talk about US, UK, and Australian politics without dismissing all of it and throwing it all in the trash.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=12,9,76|Q2=12976|h4= Liberal-republicanism is usually blue }} / The sky-blue swatch color will be used for Liberal-republican philosophies ({{TTS|LR}}) which are not clearly identifiable as Toryism; this includes the US Democratic Party and the British Labor Party, as well as traditional Enlightenment-era authors now associated with Liberal-republicanism such as Kant / The sky-blue swatch color ({{TTS|html=code|.field_exstruct|field ex-struct}}) will be used for center-Liberalism and most of Liberal-republicanism

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The humanities are blue }} / The sky blue swatch will be used for topics in the humanities, arts, or social sciences (philosophy tag {{TTS|HAS|Hass}}) whenever they are too general to fit into other swatches

{{li|I=S2/MX/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Fictional works are green }} / Fiction is green / The bright green swatch will be used for fictional works, arbitrarily constructed board games, and topics within the arts which strongly resemble these topics / Fandoms are green

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The sciences are earth }} / The earth green or chlorophyll green swatch will be used for subjects within science, technology, engineering or math -> in early drafts of the color swatch system the science and mathematics swatch was cyan because I thought that was a fairly "computerized" color, but then when the optional humanities swatch color was created I had to change it because I realized that putting the humanities neatly in between language and literature per-se was a lot more logical. wanting the sciences to still have an appealing and recognizable color, I changed it to a foliage or chlorophyll color

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974|h4= Trotskyism is orange }} / The flame-orange swatch color will be used for Trotskyism (the totality of attempts to form a Fourth International; philosophy tag {{TTS|IV|'Fourth'}}) to reflect its deep and ongoing material conflict with Stalin's Marxism ({{TTS|ML}}) from circa 1904 through 2026; their neatly symmetric, back-and-forth "civil war" with each other in which they have [[E:unity of opposites (Marxism)|defined and changed each other]] through [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|sustained resistance to each other]] arguably makes them entirely separate movements that at some unclear point in history (or fuzzy range of time) divided off and put a gap between each other instead of remaining two wings of one movement

{{li|I=S2/MX/DX|Q=12,9,85|Q2=12985|h4= Eclectic Marxism is strawberry }} / Eclectic versions of Marxism that contain some amount of Marxism yet improperly mix in Idealism, religion, conflating peasants and employees, or other particular forms of bourgeois ideology that cause problems for understanding Marxism will be marked with the pale-red "strawberry" swatch color -> this is one of the shakiest "basic rules" — I think the distinction between Materialism ({{TTS|ML}}) and eclectic Materialism (philosophy tags {{TTS|W, DX|West, DX}}) is solid, but I am not entirely sure if the strawberry swatch should be divided into more swatches when it comes to identifying social structures which are particularly at fault for generating strawberry ideology.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT|Q=618|h4= Woman is not an ideology }} / Muslim is not a political party / Taoism is not a historical period — though Maoism is / African-American is not a mode of production / Italian is not an international government / There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

</li></ol>

== Level-3 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-3 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> this is where the rules often start devolving into intuitions that I then have to investigate and check several times.

{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943}}Psychoanalysis is blue / The sky blue color swatch will be used for Freudian psychoanalysis (philosophy tag {{TTS|Aa|A-A}}) because it is frequently used to promote anticommunism and people bursting out of Marxist states to become various skilled trades including novelists and playwrights, or psychoanalysts themselves; Jungian psychoanalysis is used to condemn psychological repression and conformity and try to paint as criminal (as violently dangerous and undesirable) any bordered group of people that does not base itself specifically on the perceived freedom, happiness, and lack-of-regulation of each individual; Lacanian psychoanalysis is used to claim that Toryism exists because Tories are psychologically stunted individuals and if they are only forced to develop into Real Humans by ignoring them long enough then the form of government every Real Human naturally desires to come together and create, Liberal-republicanism, will be fine

{{li|I=S2/MX/ES|Q=12,9,42|Q2=12942}}Existence-philosophy is blue / Early existentialism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for the [[E:Q42|existentialist]] period of philosophy ({{TTS|ES|E-S}}) because it uses similar forms of reasoning to psychoanalysis

{{li|I=S2/YR|Q=618|Q2=618}}Yaroshenkoism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for Idealist economics, such as [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|Yaroshenko]] believing that a Marxist party existing meant that government had total control over the economy and there was no need for actual Materialist descriptions of economic transitions happening on their own scale (philosophy tag {{TTS|YR|Yarrow|title=YaRho, ЯР — Yaroshenkoism}}); in the overall substance of its causal theories of society, this is similar enough to ordinary Liberal-republican parties claiming to offer social-democratic programs in order to "care about people" that it is functionally the same thing

{{li|I=S2/MX/Ag|Q=618|Q2=618}}Agorism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for agorism (philosophy tag {{TTS|Ag}}), which is here taken to be the general space of ideologies based on a group of people clustering together to resist existing parties or states while united around "the totality of non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason", whether that locus of non-aggression is explicitly defined as a cluster of non-aggressive {{em|businesses}} or more vaguely defined as a broad cluster of demographic identities and single-issue movements that are not in favor of Third World countries having Bolshevism but are "against domination"

{{li|I=S2/MX/W/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}Gramscianism is red (sense) / The crimson swatch will be used for the process of a population transitioning into Bolshevism (Leninist revolution) according to Antonio Gramsci, if and when he is describing a process that is based specifically on material arrangements of people, that process is largely concerned with employees or potential employees who do not own businesses getting into some kind of arrangement, and that process is not primarily based in "changing people's mentality" or "controlling ideas"; if Gramsci describes workers filling up corporations or institutions, that might qualify, but if he specifically describes intellectuals filling up an institution and it is not considered peripheral to the tasks of the workers then it does not qualify under this proposition -> I genuinely think Gramscianism is at least two different colors depending on who's doing it.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|Q=618|Q2=618}}Gramscianism is strawberry / The strawberry swatch will be used for methods described by Antonio Gramsci which involve non-proletarian classes attempting to occupy parts of society over short or long periods to protect it from "fascism", violent Tories, capitalist resistance to anti-capitalist movements, and so forth; this may range from simple entryism up to larger-scale events that slowly begin to resemble permanent revolution yet involve a strangely large number of non-proletarian activists -> as of June 2026, I am starting to think I maybe actually had agorism confused with Gramscianism, given how on the ground everything is so secret and unlabeled and fractured and disorganized and I feel like most of the people who are actually trying to do 'wars of position' actually have nearly no idea what they're doing. 
my thoughts now are... if a "Marxism" doesn't contain any Communist theorists, is it even an eclectic Marxism? or is it just something entirely different? I'm starting to think that there are a vast number of ideologies that are separable and in conflict and yet all blue. that is a headache to try to keep track of using swatches. I guess I will just have to mark out a ridiculous number of shades of blue under the {{TTS|html=code|.field_exstruct|field ex-struct}} range in the stylesheet so they can be used on the pages where different agorisms are fighting each other. I could have made Toryism blue if I'd done that early; oh well. maybe I will make a specialized swatch only to be used on pages that are really down in the weeds of US politics so the Republicans, Democrats, and Federalist Party are all blue.

</li></ol>

== Level-4 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML field_exstruct field_horror field_GNU field_relativity field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/Ag|Q=618|Q2=618}}All agorisms are blue; any apparent "charcoal anarchisms" that are agorisms are not to be considered charcoal anarchisms, and are to be considered blue anarchisms

</li></ol>

== Level-5 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML field_exstruct field_horror field_GNU field_relativity field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-5 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the final level of rules, whatever number of levels it will be, is the most arbitrary stuff that's subject to change at any time. 
note that below here are a lot of "optional swatches" where you have to switch them on for them to show up instead of the more generic swatches.

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=12,9,84|Q2=12984}}Stalin's Marxism is crimson

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974}}Trotskyism is orange

{{li|I=S2/MX/MD|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Early Bolshevism is vermilion }} / The vermilion swatch color, neatly in-between the crimson and flame-orange swatches, will be used to represent real or hypothetical versions of Marxism that combine both Trotskyist theorists and "Stalinist" theorists; this swatch refers to very few concrete things that have already happened, but may or may not include Lenin himself, and includes the hypothetical situation of crimson parties (not strawberry parties) and orange parties attempting to form a Communist International in order to settle onto one version of Marxism / The vermilion swatch color ({{TTS|html=code|.field_14quarters|field fourteen-quarters}}) will be used to represent alliances between "Stalinists" and Trotskyists, without intending to clearly imply these alliances are stable

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=12,9,76|Q2=12976}}Liberal-republicanism is blue -> for this swatch, I really just wanted it to be "sky blue, a second time".

{{li|I=S2/DG|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Schizoanalysis is shadow }} / The blue-black swatch color will be used for schizoanalysis, in reference to its position between Liberal-republicanism or agorism (blue) and anarchism (charcoal); this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943|h4= Psychoanalysis is abyssal }} (sense) / The ocean-abyss-blue swatch color will be used for psychoanalysis, in reference to Jung comparing the mind to the depths of an ocean; this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Linguistics is blue

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The humanities are blue-green }} / The blue-green swatch color will be used for the humanities to reflect their position in between linguistics (blue) and fiction (bright green)

{{li|I=S2/MX/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Fictional works are green

{{li|I=S2/MX/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Dark stories are forest }} / The dark green or forest green swatch color will be used for concepts within the scope of the bright green swatch color which involve "dark" events, which at different times may include horror works, tragedy works, dark-fantasy works, conceptual swaths of things identified as elemental antagonisms within fiction (for instance, the consistent dichotomy of Good versus Prosecutors in the {{game|Ace Attorney}} games), villains, or evil empires; the dark green swatch color is a direct variation on the bright green swatch color -> this swatch mostly exists to break up really long lines of green, so that discussing fiction doesn't make the swatch system pointless.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}The sciences are earth -> I had to make this a vaguely "yucky" green so it would be distinguishable from the fiction swatches at least when they were side by side. at this time, the "horror" swatch is lumped into the bright green swatch unless you specifically activate it, so that makes it easier for pages with both fiction and science on them to not become confusing.

{{li|I=S2/MX/GR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Relativity is aurora }} / The space-void green or aurora green swatch color will be used for claims closely related to Einsteinian relativity, either special or general (philosophy tag {{TTS|GR|G.R.}}; note that it's common for tags to be abbreviations from "different fields"); this is a specialized variant within the earth swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=12,9,75|Q2=12975}}Anarchism is charcoal

{{li|I=S2/FS|Q=618|Q2=618}}The Free Software and Free Culture movements will receive a penguin-colored swatch patterned after Emperor Penguins and icebergs; this is a specialized variant of either the sky blue or charcoal swatch color which is a direct variation of the charcoal swatch color

{{li|I=S2/ES/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Queer studies are rainbow }} / The LGBT+ tradition in either the arts or social philosophy will have its own swatch which is either lavender or rainbow; this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is {{em|not}} a direct variation on it
{{li|I=S2/IV/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Queer studies are rainbow / The LGBT+ swatch will combine with other swatch colors to show a range of different background colors -> this works best when you enable the gadget to actually show a gradient on the Item swatch, but even without that it still {{em|happens}}
{{li|I=S2/Fy/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Queer studies are rainbow -> (example third color)

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974}}Trotskyism is orange / Trotskyism is fire-red -> I'd say you shouldn't phrase it like that but the Pokémon on the cover of FireRed is Charizard, and Charizard is orange. there is a very weird joke trying to pop out of this statement involving the Trotskyist swatch and Charizard

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* MX / meta-Marxism


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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,9,92

2026-06-16T08:17:49Z

Reversedragon: All agorisms are blue

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=color swatch system|User=RD|E=Q12,9,92|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,90|Q2=12990}}{{int:sitename}} philosophy classification systems / philosophy tag / philosophy code / ideology code / ideology tag / philosophy tag or ideology code for "non-partisan" field of academic study

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}{{int:sitename}} color swatch system -> an entry which will formally lay out the rules for what puts things in each color swatch one by one. this entry really is focused only on the swatches, not the 2-3 letter philosophy tags which are used in contexts that resemble black-and-white publications.

</li></ol>

== Basic rules ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-1 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the "mandatory" set of swatch assignment rules that likely will not change.

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=12,9,84|Q2=12984|h4= Stalin's Marxism must be crimson }} / The crimson swatch color must be used for Stalin's Marxism ({{TTS|ML}}) to reflect that this is the most common meaning of "Communism" and "Reds" in most Liberal-republican countries regardless of the ideological faction people are on when they use the term; this includes Stalin's party and Hoxhaism but does not explicitly include Maoism -> note that "crimson" is a [[E:Roses are cardinal, violets are sunbird, colors are groupings that have been numbered|signifier that groups things]], and what real actual color it will be rendered in on the screen is an entirely separate thing. colorblind or monochrome stylesheets are completely respected on this project.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=12,9,75|Q2=12975|h4= Anarchism is charcoal }} / Anarchism must be charcoal / The black swatch color must be used for anarchism (the totality of philosophies claiming to be both "against capitalism" in a Marxist sense and "anarchism"; philosophy tag {{TTS|A|'A'}}), to reflect that this has been the traditional symbol used within anarchist movements for over a century; although this swatch color is black in concept, it may be rendered in a charcoal-gray color in contexts such as stylesheets if that looks more visually appealing

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,88|Q2=12988|h4= European fascism is brown }} / European fascism must be brown / The khaki brown swatch color must be used for classical European fascisms, including: Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Imperial Japan

</li></ol>

== Level-2 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-2 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the second set of basic rules that is relatively well-decided-on but is not as "strictly mandatory". these rules have slightly less firm justification but are also fairly unlikely to change.

{{li|I=S2/MX/MX|Q=12,92,0|Q2=12920|h4= meta-Marxism is violet }} / The violet swatch color will be used for [[EC:9k/RD/Q92|meta-Marxism]] — a body of methods internally given a boundary by particular rules, in which whole Marxist movements taking place in a particular country or region are analyzed as developing material objects which might be in conflict with each other and get into heated material contradictions despite both attempting to be versions of Marxism and both claiming to be able to create a new historical period which will involve workers' government and socialist transition; this violet swatch color is an intermediate violet which is not specified to be either red-violet or blue-violet, and these colors are left open as options for specialized swatch colors that may be assigned to specific philosophy tags later

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,89|Q2=12989|h4= Duginism is brown }} / Alexander Dugin's so-called "fourth" political ideology ({{TTS|P4}}) and The European New Right are similar enough to classical European fascism to be brown

{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,87|Q2=12987|h4= Toryism is brown }} / Tory parties ({{TTS|PT}}) such as the US Republican Party and UK Conservative Party are similar enough to Duginism (not Nazi Germany, not World War II) to be brown -> one question that might come up in the minds of any experienced Marxists who find this project is, why distinguish Toryism as its own ideology separate from Liberal-republicanism (= capitalist government, capitalist ideology) as a whole? and the answer is, the United States is so politically bankrupt that absolutely every progressive movement that has ever existed from unions to the civil rights movement to anarchism and schizoanalysis to just {{em|everything}} has defined itself in opposition or in relation to Toryism (the Free Software movement has referenced Toryism in two different directions, either saying 'I'm [[E:Nina Paley|anti-trans]] just like the Tories' or 'the Tories are being [[E:Mike Masnick|too stingy]] with their business territories'). so, without knowing in detail what Toryism is and simply letting people label bad things they want to oppose "Toryism" it's somewhat literally impossible to create even a single organization anywhere in the United States. everyone who lives in the US knows that if you simply let people classify and name ideologies however they want, they'll try to tell you that all conservative parties are indistinguishable from European fascism, and then Tories will argue in different words that they're Tories and not fascists, and the progressives will lose the argument that fascism already exists or is forming and it'll get really ugly. 
I choose to use this knowledge to claim that Liberal-republicans are very very slowly learning meta-Marxist color swatch analysis, and it {{em|might}} be possible to use people's back and forth contradiction against Toryism to actually teach them what ideologies are, how many total ideologies exist besides just center-Liberalism and Toryism, and how all of them relate to historical materialism, historical periods, and historical transitions. I don't think there are any guarantees on that. but it does make it easier to talk about US, UK, and Australian politics without dismissing all of it and throwing it all in the trash.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=12,9,76|Q2=12976|h4= Liberal-republicanism is usually blue }} / The sky-blue swatch color will be used for Liberal-republican philosophies ({{TTS|LR}}) which are not clearly identifiable as Toryism; this includes the US Democratic Party and the British Labor Party, as well as traditional Enlightenment-era authors now associated with Liberal-republicanism such as Kant / The sky-blue swatch color ({{TTS|html=code|.field_exstruct|field ex-struct}}) will be used for center-Liberalism and most of Liberal-republicanism

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The humanities are blue }} / The sky blue swatch will be used for topics in the humanities, arts, or social sciences (philosophy tag {{TTS|HAS|Hass}}) whenever they are too general to fit into other swatches

{{li|I=S2/MX/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Fictional works are green }} / Fiction is green / The bright green swatch will be used for fictional works, arbitrarily constructed board games, and topics within the arts which strongly resemble these topics / Fandoms are green

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The sciences are earth }} / The earth green or chlorophyll green swatch will be used for subjects within science, technology, engineering or math -> in early drafts of the color swatch system the science and mathematics swatch was cyan because I thought that was a fairly "computerized" color, but then when the optional humanities swatch color was created I had to change it because I realized that putting the humanities neatly in between language and literature per-se was a lot more logical. wanting the sciences to still have an appealing and recognizable color, I changed it to a foliage or chlorophyll color

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974|h4= Trotskyism is orange }} / The flame-orange swatch color will be used for Trotskyism (the totality of attempts to form a Fourth International; philosophy tag {{TTS|IV|'Fourth'}}) to reflect its deep and ongoing material conflict with Stalin's Marxism ({{TTS|ML}}) from circa 1904 through 2026; their neatly symmetric, back-and-forth "civil war" with each other in which they have [[E:unity of opposites (Marxism)|defined and changed each other]] through [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|sustained resistance to each other]] arguably makes them entirely separate movements that at some unclear point in history (or fuzzy range of time) divided off and put a gap between each other instead of remaining two wings of one movement

{{li|I=S2/MX/DX|Q=12,9,85|Q2=12985|h4= Eclectic Marxism is strawberry }} / Eclectic versions of Marxism that contain some amount of Marxism yet improperly mix in Idealism, religion, conflating peasants and employees, or other particular forms of bourgeois ideology that cause problems for understanding Marxism will be marked with the pale-red "strawberry" swatch color -> this is one of the shakiest "basic rules" — I think the distinction between Materialism ({{TTS|ML}}) and eclectic Materialism (philosophy tags {{TTS|W, DX|West, DX}}) is solid, but I am not entirely sure if the strawberry swatch should be divided into more swatches when it comes to identifying social structures which are particularly at fault for generating strawberry ideology.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT|Q=618|h4= Woman is not an ideology }} / Muslim is not a political party / Taoism is not a historical period — though Maoism is / African-American is not a mode of production / Italian is not an international government / There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

</li></ol>

== Level-3 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-3 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> this is where the rules often start devolving into intuitions that I then have to investigate and check several times.

{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943}}Psychoanalysis is blue / The sky blue color swatch will be used for Freudian psychoanalysis (philosophy tag {{TTS|Aa|A-A}}) because it is frequently used to promote anticommunism and people bursting out of Marxist states to become various skilled trades including novelists and playwrights, or psychoanalysts themselves; Jungian psychoanalysis is used to condemn psychological repression and conformity and try to paint as criminal (as violently dangerous and undesirable) any bordered group of people that does not base itself specifically on the perceived freedom, happiness, and lack-of-regulation of each individual; Lacanian psychoanalysis is used to claim that Toryism exists because Tories are psychologically stunted individuals and if they are only forced to develop into Real Humans by ignoring them long enough then the form of government every Real Human naturally desires to come together and create, Liberal-republicanism, will be fine

{{li|I=S2/MX/ES|Q=12,9,42|Q2=12942}}Existence-philosophy is blue / Early existentialism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for the [[E:Q42|existentialist]] period of philosophy ({{TTS|ES|E-S}}) because it uses similar forms of reasoning to psychoanalysis

{{li|I=S2/YR|Q=618|Q2=618}}Yaroshenkoism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for Idealist economics, such as [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|Yaroshenko]] believing that a Marxist party existing meant that government had total control over the economy and there was no need for actual Materialist descriptions of economic transitions happening on their own scale (philosophy tag {{TTS|YR|Yarrow|title=YaRho, ЯР — Yaroshenkoism}}); in the overall substance of its causal theories of society, this is similar enough to ordinary Liberal-republican parties claiming to offer social-democratic programs in order to "care about people" that it is functionally the same thing

{{li|I=S2/MX/Ag|Q=618|Q2=618}}Agorism is blue / The sky blue swatch will be used for agorism (philosophy tag {{TTS|Ag}}), which is here taken to be the general space of ideologies based on a group of people clustering together to resist existing parties or states while united around "the totality of non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason", whether that locus of non-aggression is explicitly defined as a cluster of non-aggressive {{em|businesses}} or more vaguely defined as a broad cluster of demographic identities and single-issue movements that are not in favor of Third World countries having Bolshevism but are "against domination"

{{li|I=S2/MX/W/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}Gramscianism is red (sense) / The crimson swatch will be used for the process of a population transitioning into Bolshevism (Leninist revolution) according to Antonio Gramsci, if and when he is describing a process that is based specifically on material arrangements of people, that process is largely concerned with employees or potential employees who do not own businesses getting into some kind of arrangement, and that process is not primarily based in "changing people's mentality" or "controlling ideas"; if Gramsci describes workers filling up corporations or institutions, that might qualify, but if he specifically describes intellectuals filling up an institution and it is not considered peripheral to the tasks of the workers then it does not qualify under this proposition -> I genuinely think Gramscianism is at least two different colors depending on who's doing it.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|Q=618|Q2=618}}Gramscianism is strawberry / The strawberry swatch will be used for methods described by Antonio Gramsci which involve non-proletarian classes attempting to occupy parts of society over short or long periods to protect it from "fascism", violent Tories, capitalist resistance to anti-capitalist movements, and so forth; this may range from simple entryism up to larger-scale events that slowly begin to resemble permanent revolution yet involve a strangely large number of non-proletarian activists -> as of June 2026, I am starting to think I maybe actually had agorism confused with Gramscianism, given how on the ground everything is so secret and unlabeled and fractured and disorganized and I feel like most of the people who are actually trying to do 'wars of position' actually have nearly no idea what they're doing. 
my thoughts now are... if a "Marxism" doesn't contain any Communist theorists, is it even an eclectic Marxism? or is it just something entirely different? I'm starting to think that there are a vast number of ideologies that are separable and in conflict and yet all blue. that is a headache to try to keep track of using swatches. I guess I will just have to mark out a ridiculous number of shades of blue under the {{TTS|html=code|.field_exstruct|field ex-struct}} range in the stylesheet so they can be used on the pages where different agorisms are fighting each other. I could have made Toryism blue if I'd done that early; oh well. maybe I will make a specialized swatch only to be used on pages that are really down in the weeds of US politics so the Republicans, Democrats, and Federalist Party are all blue.

</li></ol>

== Level-4 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML field_exstruct field_horror field_GNU field_relativity field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/Ag|Q=618|Q2=618}}All agorisms are blue; any apparent "charcoal anarchisms" that are agorisms are not to be considered charcoal anarchisms, and are to be considered blue anarchisms

</li></ol>

== Level-5 rules ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML field_exstruct field_horror field_GNU field_relativity field_LGBT">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}level-5 rules ({{int:sitename}} color swatch system) -> the final level of rules, whatever number of levels it will be, is the most arbitrary stuff that's subject to change at any time. 
note that below here are a lot of "optional swatches" where you have to switch them on for them to show up instead of the more generic swatches.

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=12,9,84|Q2=12984}}Stalin's Marxism is crimson

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974}}Trotskyism is orange

{{li|I=S2/MX/MD|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Early Bolshevism is vermilion }} / The vermilion swatch color, neatly in-between the crimson and flame-orange swatches, will be used to represent real or hypothetical versions of Marxism that combine both Trotskyist theorists and "Stalinist" theorists; this swatch refers to very few concrete things that have already happened, but may or may not include Lenin himself, and includes the hypothetical situation of crimson parties (not strawberry parties) and orange parties attempting to form a Communist International in order to settle onto one version of Marxism / The vermilion swatch color ({{TTS|html=code|.field_14quarters|field fourteen-quarters}}) will be used to represent alliances between "Stalinists" and Trotskyists, without intending to clearly imply these alliances are stable

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=12,9,76|Q2=12976}}Liberal-republicanism is blue -> for this swatch, I really just wanted it to be "sky blue, a second time".

{{li|I=S2/DG|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Schizoanalysis is shadow }} / The blue-black swatch color will be used for schizoanalysis, in reference to its position between Liberal-republicanism or agorism (blue) and anarchism (charcoal); this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943|h4= Psychoanalysis is abyssal }} (sense) / The ocean-abyss-blue swatch color will be used for psychoanalysis, in reference to Jung comparing the mind to the depths of an ocean; this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Linguistics is blue

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= The humanities are blue-green }} / The blue-green swatch color will be used for the humanities to reflect their position in between linguistics (blue) and fiction (bright green)

{{li|I=S2/MX/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Fictional works are green

{{li|I=S2/MX/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Dark stories are forest }} / The dark green or forest green swatch color will be used for concepts within the scope of the bright green swatch color which involve "dark" events, which at different times may include horror works, tragedy works, dark-fantasy works, conceptual swaths of things identified as elemental antagonisms within fiction (for instance, the consistent dichotomy of Good versus Prosecutors in the {{game|Ace Attorney}} games), villains, or evil empires; the dark green swatch color is a direct variation on the bright green swatch color -> this swatch mostly exists to break up really long lines of green, so that discussing fiction doesn't make the swatch system pointless.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}The sciences are earth -> I had to make this a vaguely "yucky" green so it would be distinguishable from the fiction swatches at least when they were side by side. at this time, the "horror" swatch is lumped into the bright green swatch unless you specifically activate it, so that makes it easier for pages with both fiction and science on them to not become confusing.

{{li|I=S2/MX/GR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Relativity is aurora }} / The space-void green or aurora green swatch color will be used for claims closely related to Einsteinian relativity, either special or general (philosophy tag {{TTS|GR|G.R.}}; note that it's common for tags to be abbreviations from "different fields"); this is a specialized variant within the earth swatch color which is a direct variation on it

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=12,9,75|Q2=12975}}Anarchism is charcoal

{{li|I=S2/FS|Q=618|Q2=618}}The Free Software and Free Culture movements will receive a penguin-colored swatch patterned after Emperor Penguins and icebergs; this is a specialized variant of either the sky blue or charcoal swatch color which is a direct variation of the charcoal swatch color

{{li|I=S2/ES/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Queer studies are rainbow }} / The LGBT+ tradition in either the arts or social philosophy will have its own swatch which is either lavender or rainbow; this is a specialized variant within the sky blue swatch color which is {{em|not}} a direct variation on it
{{li|I=S2/IV/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Queer studies are rainbow / The LGBT+ swatch will combine with other swatch colors to show a range of different background colors -> this works best when you enable the gadget to actually show a gradient on the Item swatch, but even without that it still {{em|happens}}
{{li|I=S2/Fy/LGBT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Queer studies are rainbow -> (example third color)

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974}}Trotskyism is orange / Trotskyism is fire-red -> I'd say you shouldn't phrase it like that but the Pokémon on the cover of FireRed is Charizard, and Charizard is orange. there is a very weird joke trying to pop out of this statement involving the Trotskyist swatch and Charizard

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* MX / meta-Marxism


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

Ontology talk:9k/Q618-LawyersVersusAceAttorney

2026-06-16T05:26:54Z

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q17,55

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=lawyers react to Ace Attorney|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">
{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}lawyers react to Ace Attorney / real lawyer reacts to Ace Attorney -> a motif to contain various specific criticisms lawyers have made about the games.

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==
* (none)

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

Template:IS1/Fy/LR/class

2026-06-16T05:26:24Z

Reversedragon: Liberal-republicanism swatch

#redirect[[Template:IS1/LR/class]]
[[Category:I-Template classnames displaying swatch ES-LR]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-06-15T23:08:39Z

Reversedragon: "Ethical" AI is unethical

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Teamsters obstructed worker organization (2018) / The Teamsters are a group of bureaucrats that negotiate with workers to achieve corporations' demands; this is to imply that workers should consider forming their own internal organizations across bigger sectors of industry instead of trusting them (California, 2018) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/20/upam-a20.html]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Kropotkinism leads to populations of people who produce about $5 an hour and end up getting classified as contractors who have to put all their other revenue into expenses -> anarchists like to complain about how Communism and Liberal capitalism 'overwork people for nothing' while anarchism is about finishing work and doing something enjoyable. but.... I have to wonder. what would happen if Kropotkinism actually kicked off? wouldn't you just have a population of people that earns tiny amounts, has huge expenses, and basically lives just like gig workers? what if the reason anarchism hasn't been more successful is Amazon beat anarchists to creating 'easy work' of the kind anarchists want but just not in the conditions they want? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/19/jxer-f19.html] it seems to me like anarchism moves really slow and capitalism moves fast, owning entire market-boxes and communities while anarchists are only talking about those things and before they can meaningfully create them.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Community is a hyperstructure -> the claim that "community", mostly as a materialist version of the anarchist model of what "communities" are, is a system that encourages itself to expand further through parts of the system contributing to the overall system. 
I think the description is really apt because you see this perfect 'blockchain quality' where community looks like a shiny wonderful thing you could only want more and more of, but when you get any particular instance of community, such as a newsfeed platform like YouTube or Twitter, the more people add to it the worse it seems to get and the more it turns into this vector for individual capitalists to own an entire "agora" and exploit the whole concept of an economy existing and make money off that, and the more it feels like community itself was a scam from the start. 
Community is a hyperstructure + Hyperstructures are usually harmful = Community is a cancer.

{{li|I=S2/LLM/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Hyperstructures are usually harmful -> this is an anarchist or agorist claim more than it is my claim but I wouldn't totally oppose it.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|tradition=|Q=618}}hyperstructure (snowballing system) [https://medium.com/@onjas_buidl/hyperstructures-in-human-history-5a27f31c28df] -> blockchain fanatics' attempt to describe a generalized kind of system which rewards people for contributing to a cumulative pie in a constructive way. 
honestly? if getting people to comprehend "hyperstructures" could get rid of blockchains themselves then I'd be all for it 
I feel like this concept is almost more of a cautionary tale than a desirable thing to have though. one of their examples is the general concept of money because of course they have to explain how bitcoin is similar to money. but like, the expansion of money through creating more products and the central government giving loans to corporations to speed up the process isn't necessarily a good thing, it often leads to the destruction of the environment as it's consumed to create materials and factories, or the destruction of culture as products obsolete other products just to chase money and get more money added. this is so bad that when they present language as the second example I'm like.... okay, is language secretly a bad thing that is destroying the world and I just didn't know it was? I have to say though, the advent of large language models really vindicates the concept of hyperstructures, if in a bad way. the more AI that people create the more different AIs can train on each other to the extent they can generate any meaningful inferences or conversation data that human testers approve, and then there will be more AI. so, yeah. the concept of hyperstructures was very successful. it was successful at describing something, but it seems like basically everything it describes is an existential threat to humanity, including The Economy, capitalism, blockchain, AI, and possibly language (??). 
this might be one of the clearest pieces of evidence that anarchism is inherently dangerous because it doesn't actually build into itself the capability to model societies spending a while building something and then leveling off in a neat S-curve because they moved on to entirely different things without redoing the same things over and over again such as repeatedly reinventing game consoles or phones. (a thing Marxism could do with some effort because it inherently understands the concept of historical periods and shifts from one period to another.) despite all the surface rhetoric about "infinite growth" recently it only really understands infinite growth because of its core values of always making everything about "community" and "inclusivity" and never saying no to anybody. so naturally a system of modeling growth itself is one of the first things to pop out of it, which claims to have a limit but in practice when it hits the limit just divides in two and continues to make more and more.

{{li|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}storing properties of chemical reactions in power sets composed out of smaller sets [https://chemrxiv.org/doi/pdf/10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-368pz] -> um. I don't understand any of this but it's very cool.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Stalin's government putting up positive posters in schools is "a lie", then how do you know that solarpunk is true? -> I won't fault you for making the former claim, but the reason the CPSU would be wrong there is that it's letting people be Idealist instead of understanding the terrifying truth that they might not succeed. so.... if the CPSU posters are wrong, and putting up hopeful slogans is bad because it allows the people spreading the potentially incorrect slogans to gain power over you, then how exactly is solarpunk correct?

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}Idealism is invincible / Materialist movements are inherently weaker than Idealist movements in that Idealist movements live forever as long as human beings don't believe in burning books, but Materialist movements die as soon as actual physical organizations are broken up -> there's only one real solution to correct this discrepancy. promote "hypothetical materialism", the new category of philosophies which are spread as disembodied ideas but internally contain only Material Ideas and Materialism. [https://chatonsky.net/ideomaterialism/]

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=|Q=618}}Marxist analysis of non-Marxisms / Marxist analysis of non-Marxist philosophies or movements / infra-Marxism (Marxist analysis which is done either wholly inside a specific formulation of Marxism, or wholly inside that specific Marxism while critiquing non-Marxist philosophies, but where the Marxism does not actually give a proper analysis of either itself or other Marxisms; meta-Marxism) -> a large part of the original stated purpose of Marxism before the Trotskyite conspiracy happened.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The Diggers were a proto-Marxist movement because they began with displaced peasants or allied local houses sensing the impending expansion of estates, and sought to build a community without commodity exchange, loosely and metaphorically compared to Eden (Christopher Hill) / {{book|The World Turned Upside Down}} (Hill 1988; generic) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> ok, in my mind, I can't remember the difference between this description and the Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Narodniks; this doesn't sound like a movement with a very detailed plan behind it. but this {{em|is}} a very juicy and entertaining claim, so I'll code it. I wouldn't really mind someone calling a cottager movement 'Socialists' or 'anarchists'. but, what is the difference between the Diggers and Peter Kropotkin? can you answer that question? I think you need to go into at least that much depth to properly answer whether they can be "communists".

{{li|I=S2/HAS/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}The faithful are duty bound to obey God alone / Because rulers are sinful creatures like us and will have a propensity to do the wrong thing, they will tend to tyranny, decreeing ungodly laws ... in these cases, the faithful are duty bound to obey God alone (Calvin ??/2009) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> that is one killer quote. it's not surprising, given all the {{em|stuff}} in the bible about "powers and principalities" that sounds just like this. but it's definitely mysterious to look at the bible and realize, hey wait, what's all this stuff about never trusting rulers? God doesn't exist, God is one big rationalization. so is Christianity really an anarchism?? I'd argue it is. I'd argue that at least as soon as New Testament Christianity appeared the whole thing was really about pushing the concept that seemed nonsensical at that time of getting rid of all rulers and creating a society based only in social bonds connecting people into a society ("love", "brotherhood", "neighbors"), and Christians had to dress up that concept inside the concept of a worldwide empire just to get anybody to believe it when otherwise it would have seemed unbelievable. 
I'd also argue that by capitulating to the class imagery of their time Christians doomed Christianity and turned it into a tool of empire itself as empire noticed that an ideology about empire was better suited to literally arguing one empire was superior to other empires and deserved to be the one to conquer the world. there's not a lot of difference between Christians and Democrats. Christians: we are all united together as under The King. Romans promptly turn the king into Caesar and argue Christianity promotes somewhat-racist empires that take other nations as slaves. Democrats: we are all united together by voting and a list of civil rights. Capitalists promptly make it mandatory for every minority listed in a civil rights act to support Israel and destroy Palestine, and support products made in Cuba while refusing Cuban products on pain of arrest.

{{li|I=S2/P4|tradition=|Q=618}}An international war will surely clear away all internal contradictions / If there be bad blood in a nation, an honourable foreign war will vent it out (Bacon 1622) [https://abiezercoppe.substack.com/p/john-calvin-a-contradictory-thinker] -> god, he's the 1600s Dugin. that or Dugin's ideas are as old as dirt. you know, one or the other.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}the revolution betrayed betrayed betrayed -> the motif of Trotskyism getting "betrayed" by the creation of socialism in one country, which then got betrayed by Trotskyism as payback, which then got betrayed by anarchism and critical theory turning the previous two events into evidence against all Marxism.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}I'll question to the death the reason you said it / I don't agree with what you're defending and I'll question to the death the reasons for anyone ever saying that / I don't agree with what you're defending people saying and I'll question to the death the underlying material reasons for anyone ever saying that -> this isn't meaning to imply the statement absolutely should be suppressed or shouldn't be said as much as purely that there is a big elephant being ignored of asking why it is people say things and what will be gained by defending the statement 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + meta-theory = this. 
I'll defend to the death your right to say it + demographic Marxist / sectarianism = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani would have done more for the world if he'd bought an illegal Cuban product, showed it off, and gotten arrested than he did by attempting to speak about Israel -> I'm so sick of this new trend of all social contradictions happening in courtrooms between two individuals. I really am. but this would be one way to make the best of it

{{li|I=F2/A|tradition=|Q=618}}They can't arrest all of us -> one of those anarchist sayings that deeply bothers me because of how it's just not true. a country can bring down the law on as many people as it wants to. when it can't arrest everybody, that's when it brings out the tanks and helicopters and just starts shooting them. you should know this. it's already a pretty common talking point to say U.S. people don't revolt against the U.S. because of "the military". if China can bring out the army when there's not enough time for jury trials, and it's already common for cops to shoot petty criminals, what stops the United States from starting an open season on everybody who isn't committed to following all its laws? a bit of Cold War propaganda? do you really think the Great Terror happened for any other reason than that republics are based on laws and when people stop following laws and getting scared by cops they do anything to protect themselves??

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Nations are bodies of law / Nations are legal codes / A nationality is defined by how well people follow a population's current set of laws, and the less people follow the law, the less they are part of that nationality; this is to imply but not state that the moment people intend to follow no laws at all they are not part of a particular nationality any more -> 
this is one of the only models that can explain either separate wing of Liberal-republicanism and Stalin's Marxism and even a Trotskyist republic equally well: the model that republics begin with written laws and laws are the fundamental Ideas that create "nations of ideas". Tories don't follow center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. center-Liberals skirt around Tory laws, Tories call treason. Communists don't respect center-Liberal laws, center-Liberals call treason. anarchists or right-Liberals defy Soviet laws, Stalin's government calls treason. Stalin's government defies Trotskyists' desired body of laws, Trotskyists call treason. 
it's all about laws. laws are made by classes, and that's what distinguishes the fundamental character of a body of laws, but actually, all geopolitical conflicts and demographic conflicts deep inside countries start at whether separate groups of people are following each other's internal laws. it's all one big squabble about laws and what laws are inherently good or bad, while that will never have an objective answer because different areas of people hate other people's laws and don't want them. 
this is part of what makes critical-theory so frustrating. as of late it's been picking up talking points that the United States government is totally capable of granting North American tribes rights. but in order to get those "rights" they had to first send people to assimilate to White towns and consent to the overall body of United States laws and agree not to violate any of them, while some of those laws banned the tribal societies they would have been fighting for. it's a bit paradoxical. within the system that boasts all the time about giving people human rights (and also lies to everyone claiming the rights are from birth or 'god-given' despite the fact God doesn't give them to you in Cuba and Cuba requires an invasion to defeat The Regime that's apparently stronger than God himself)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Dengism can defeat God (power scaling) / Deng Xiaoping states are stronger than God / If human rights are granted to people by God when they are born, but the United States needs to invade Cuba to ensure that people have God-given rights, then the Cuban government is strong enough to stop God himself; this is to imply that the United States is proportionally stronger than God by two [[E:feat (power scaling)|feats]] because the United States is stronger than the thing that defeated God but is not God / The U.S. can defeat God (sense)

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}There is no difference between morality and "manufacturing consent"; they are the same continuous thing; "manufacturing consent" is precisely an instance of either morality or natural law, and is an example of how Liberal-republicanism abuses these incorrect models of reality to gain power over people that were previously outside its control

{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Return to the Land (White supremacist movement) {{YouTube|e1iSMbzx_Hg}} -> I have.... a bit of a mild "conspiracy theory". I'm not sure Liberal-republicans are actually opposing this thing for the right reasons. sure, the people inside it sound like fairly bad people, and it doesn't sound like a good place to live. but I feel like this thing is being used as leverage to promote things people otherwise wouldn't support. to show that otherwise-bad things are "necessary". like, compounds full of racists are the new 9/11 — or the old one that probably existed decades before it happened. 
(it really doesn't help that the commentator identified the White supremacist compounds as "terrorist cells". that's a pretty heavy-handed rhetorical term when it comes to giving a particular national government great military power over any city within the entire rest of the world. like, anybody who says the word "terrorist" may as well already be king. Marxist parties are the only halfway exception. but it's still bad.) 
I feel like what's happening is something like, critical theory was one big scam by Liberal-republicanism to convince anarchists to turn against other forms of anarchism — granted, some of which were somewhat harmful, making the deal sound weirdly enticing — so Liberal-republicanism could then turn around and eradicate all anarchism and then be free to take over other countries and conquer the world. just like in those civilization games where you can just build one giant republican country and nuclear war never destroys the world first.

{{li|I=F2/LR|tradition=LR, HM|Q=618}}The purpose of Liberal-republicanism is to transition the world out of racism -> this seems to be the hypothesis advanced by critical theory. that republics actually exist in order to force ethnic groups to be friends. no matter what they've done to each other. this explains how Native American movements have been going mainstream: Liberal-republicanism is having trouble getting people to consent to it any more, so it needs to recruit minorities to advance its agenda of expanding itself over people and telling them what to do under the guise that it's making the world better for minorities. 
...this has to be false, doesn't it? the actual function of the United States has been dividing into two anarchisms that are mortal enemies. no matter how much critical theory says that forcing people to interact and integrate should change consciousness it doesn't seem to happen, and to some degree it only seems to make people more and more resentful and more inclined to kill each other. why it happens is less the presence of ethnic groups together in particular and more the presence of multiple populations that could be politically independent being ruled by "external" political factions that feel like foreign countries. like, it would really seem that Deng Xiaoping Thought has been way more successful than Liberal-republicanism, because having a single unified government actually seems to unify people rather than generating this worsening and worsening cycle of hatred. 
critical theory may be ideology generated directly out of Liberal-republicanism in the most insidious way possible. maybe this is what it's always done. maybe the real foundation of Liberal-republicanism is precisely holding up a set of laws, claiming they're inherently moral, and forcing everyone around, even people who aren't part of the country yet, to obey them or else. that is one of the only good explanations for why Liberal-republicanism has been so eager to back Israel. it doesn't even actually run on morality or care about morality. all it cares about is whether as many people as possible across the world are following an arbitrary set of laws. so the more people think Palestine "isn't following the law", {{em|as it is written}}, the easier it is to justify eliminating Palestine. 
you know. queer rights are a sham. they only exist because people have proved gay people are legal. on this weird metaphysical level where laws already exist before laws actually exist. and that's how laws come to be laws. but it isn't gay people that are oppressed by this Kantian interpretation of laws. it's Palestinians. believing that laws inherently exist and they only need to be approved just legitimizes the structure that makes this illusion possible to believe — global empire. this conception of things shouldn't be true, but when your empire is big enough to bully Cuba it's big enough to make almost anything come true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If history can ever be static, then Donald Trump cannot be the slightest bit Good or Bad / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable, including all outcomes in politics, without the recognition that history is always in motion from one state to another and it is always mandatory to make decisions on what it will change to / It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable without the recognition history is always in motion -> you cannot say history has ended. not even with a narrow meaning that modes of production have ended. because there is no meaningful distinction between change existing in the form of a change between mode of production and change existing in the form of a country reverting to a global empire that wants to kill people for more land. both are the same kind of change, but reversion to empire cannot be stopped, which is to say that neither kind of change can actually be stopped. the original claim is false because in setting down its basic assumptions it really actually makes a false claim about what change is, which is dangerously false.

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|tradition=|Q=618}}All business owners are terrorists -> abolish copyright and I'll take it back.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Until 2020 Marxism has been unable to create genuinely accurate models of Idealist factions or civilizations because of the way their material interests and the processes that create their behavior are inherently separated; Marxist models start in a form of Materialism that basically assumes that everybody already lives in a Materialist civilization similar to Bolshevism where any particular assembled group of people belonging to a class is aware it has class interests as opposed to the people in a faction being completely unaware of that and acting together for completely different reasons; this has made Marxism inherently well suited to turning around and betraying itself with Marxisms attacking other Marxisms, and inherently badly suited to actually understanding the development over time of Liberal-republicanism and anarchism well enough to be able to defeat them

{{li|I=S1/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}TV times including "central" / 2:30-3:30 central / 9pm-8pm central [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1mgil6/if_there_are_four_time_zones_why_do_national_tv/] / my daughter asked me to pick her up at 2:30-3:30 central -> I keenly remember this idea being printed in some kind of issue of {{book|Reader's Digest}} or something but I do not remember where I first saw it. a joke about the idea that it's really weird that U.S. TV shows tell you two time zones at once and it would be strange if everyone went around saying that. that's really changed in the age of online streaming where YouTube will just kind of tell you what time something happens in your time zone and a stream might be on at a weird time but you don't have to do any calculations. but for various reasons it's still worth remembering the age of "2:30/3:30 central".

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}How will you obtain unicorn horns? / Anarchists presuppose that envisioning a different future separate from the material elements, structures, and processes of society that already exist is meaningful in and of itself, but if this is the case, they seemingly have no way to actually change anything; if the United States changes the day you find unicorn horns on the ground, but there are none of them in the entire land area of the United States, and you cannot fabricate them, and you cannot teleport them in from another place given that nobody in the United States knows how to do that, how can you possibly find them fast enough for your entire party of people to not simply be driven out of the United States to where the unicorn horns actually are — what do you do? -> trying to get anarchists to think harder about the concept of productive forces and the fact that you always need graph connections between people to actually achieve anything

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian / Despite nearly everyone in the United States who is not a member of the Libertarian movement claiming capital-L Libertarian parties to be different and distinct from them, the Libertarian movement in fact describes the founding principles of {{em|all}} political parties in the United States — agorism — and every other Liberal-republican political party in the United States is in fact a variation of Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian movement, including some political movements which are not organized into official parties; United States civil rights movements are a Libertarianism because they are defined as the sum of all non-aggressive activities, the Democratic-Republican party of 1791 was a Libertarianism because it opposed the Federalist party of large monolithic businesses clustered around a central government, the Democratic Party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the concept of people voluntarily joining in non-aggression to continuously vote for a party to supposedly fix their problems and absolutely all political parties that don't directly commit aggression getting to continue existing, the Republican party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the belief that all small, medium-size, and large corporations can form a locus of non-aggression that is being attacked by other loci of non-aggression; the actual center position in the United States that should be in the middle of a political compass is Libertarianism-agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party] -> 
before I found about agorism nothing about Liberal-republicanism made sense, and it all makes a lot more coherent material sense now down to the thing of getting obsessed with finding "the middle" and distinguishing all deviations into new parties as "directional" from the middle or as Extremes, but the more I learn, the more all the inner logic of LiberalRepublicanism-Libertarianism-agorism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}If Wario believes in Liberal-republicanism then he must be a Libertarian -> I made it simple for you. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-greatest-thread-in-the-history-of-forums-locked-by-a-moderator-after-12239-pages-of-heated-debate]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Ag|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Agorism is a segregation machine / Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them; 
the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation'; 
in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs; 
loci of non-aggression include: towns, families that have not experienced violent child abuse or the murder of a spouse, clusters of employees and owners that haven't committed horrible abuses against each other yet, clusters of tenants the landlord hasn't [[E:landlord rape incidents|literally committed crimes]] against, individual churches, segregated White towns without any gangs, Black towns without any racists, towns without any homeless camps, tiny satellite cities that produce nothing but are not "menaced" by big cities or taxes, individual local-states that come to accurately or falsely believe they've reduced themselves to one Liberal-republican party and no longer worry about the other, clusters of minority subpopulations, the US Bill of Rights, clusters of religions that believe they only have freedom of religion because they all exist together and none of them stopped existing, the overall US empire as it exists in a state of not having wars on its immediate borders, clusters of First World countries that are friendly toward each other but get together to oppress Third-World countries and even more so any Second-World countries that exist as "aggressives" 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this. escape routes (schizoanalysis) + republic based on transition = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Moral vanguard theory is covering up the observation that, as it currently exists inside Liberal-republicanism, agorism is founded on the assumption that all bigotry is fundamentally normal and natural until the day clusters of people end up being compatible with each other rather than toxic to each other and then only after that spontaneously decide hating each other is not okay 
You can't spell community without "out" + ?? = this.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If it's bad to want a utopia then why is anybody allowed to desire an afterlife? -> really think about it. it's very common to criticize utopias in fiction and think "all of them are dystopias"; charcoal anarchists are some of the only people who don't think this way. so why doesn't everyone think that way about the bible? why doesn't everybody realize that if wanting a utopia is "wanting to get something the easy way" or "wanting to get something for nothing" then wanting a god to grant you heaven is literally exactly the same thing? you just have to believe and then you get something for nothing.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more upsetting than {{film|Drawn Together}} / The news is more upsetting than {{film|South Park}} -> today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em|choose}} to do, or does it not?

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618}}Stalin transitioned the {{TTS|USSR|Soviet Union}} backward / Stalin transitioned the Soviet Union backward from Trotskyism to Stalin's Marxism / Stalin took the Soviet Union backward through the stages of history because he did not understand that the Soviet Union was an instance of Trotskyism, Trotskyism is a stage {{em|after}} Stalin's Marxism, and seeking to build Stalin's Marxism while standing on Trotskyism can only result in the reversion of an instance of Trotskyism to a prior physical historical period, destroying Trotskyism; this is to imply but not state that Stalin is a counter-revolutionary just because he failed to understand Trotskyism as a material object and destroyed it -> trying to state what Trotskyists' argument is {{em|clearly}} through the language of meta-Marxism. 
I wish Trotskyists would just admit that the Trotskyite conspiracy happened. because if they did, they could point to this, and they could say, it doesn't matter if Stalin was defending Stalin's Marxism, the problem is Stalin wrecked Trotskyism, and that's why it had to be defended at all costs. Trotsky wrecking Stalin's Marxism is immaterial if Stalin was trying to build a worse version of Marxism over a better version of Marxism. when Liberal-republicans do that, it's counter-revolutionary, so when Stalin does it, it's also counter-revolutionary, no need to even start arguing about The Bureaucracy yet. meta-Marxists, {{em|you}} go build Stalin's Marxism in another country so it doesn't wreck Trotskyism, not the other way around. and I would say, that's a good point actually. maybe Stalin {{em|did}} accidentally transplant a Marxism meant for much more undeveloped countries to the Soviet Union. and maybe it's technically true that Stalin's Marxism vulgarizes really quickly into Dengism if you aren't watching it closely. is Stalin actually a Maoist? are Stalin and Mao actually Dengists? sometimes I just don't know any more.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kōans are really lightbulb jokes / Kōans become lightbulb jokes / Any philosophical kōan can be turned into a lightbulb joke with the addition of ideological factions -> How many roads must a man walk down? If he's a Liberal-republican, infinite, some of them going in circles. If he's a Communist, a finite number because he knows where he's going.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}How many roads must a man walk down?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A debate about gun control is actually a debate over which weapon to use / A debate about gun control is actually a debate about which weapon everyday people should prefer: guns or cops

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}If ancient Greece was a small civilization where did the slaves come from? -> the Roman empire makes logical sense to me. there were territories at the edge of Rome, it conquered them, it put them into the empire, it took slaves. but Greece had slaves too and where did those come from?

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Industry divisions thwart Armageddon / When society is divided into Butcher and Bookbinder it cannot divide into Us and Them / If society is divided qualitatively into industries, none of the divisions of people can be Good or Evil, and it must be that they will come to understand each other on a level that is universal -> implied assumption in agorism, and Liberal-republicanism. I think this was solidly falsified the moment humans invented generative AI. there's been a pretty solid consensus building that generative AI just is Evil and when it exists as an industry some industries are Evil, if that didn't already happen with the oil industry. what anarchists really really don't want to understand is that this discovery has horrifying implications for the philosophical foundations of anarchism. if people can be Good or Evil solely based on what their talents are, you can never guarantee that 'the totality of all non-aggressive activities not forbidden by The State' will ever get along rather than fighting each other and erupting into hierarchy or domination purely because people are determined for one decision to be made rather than another decision and to call that decision Good and the other decision Evil. that is the root of a lot of hierarchy if you ask me. but it's also unavoidable, because who's going to persuade anarchists to just tolerate all the stuff that they feel oppresses them? I think it's more realistic to admit that anarchism can contain domination and hierarchy and the claims it doesn't were lies, and just define anarchism around some other concept than Good and Bad — that includes "domination", "hierarchy", "decency", "respect", "disruption", "empathy", morality, ethics, "enchantment" (which turns into ethics in a couple seconds), "prejudices", and "White culture". the one completely nebulous thing they say that I am genuinely unsure whether they can or can't have is Freedom, because that has hundreds of definitions and I'm still not sure I understand what it is. so, yeah, {{em|maybe}} you can get away with defining anarchism as Freedom-ism and basing it on these long treatises of exactly how Freedom works descriptively with no prescriptive statements about it. I might not like it but at least I can't immediately tell you it's a dead theory. 
Industry divisions thwart Armageddon + Pokémon type chart = Arceus.

{{li|I=S1/MX/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}oppressive membership -> the concept of membership in a relationship or group of people being itself an axis of oppression which operates in a somewhat [[E:atomic process (one-step process)|atomic]] way such that it is completely inseparable from concepts of "hierarchy" or "domination" and those things cannot simply be removed without the relationship itself dissolving. 
oppressive membership + anarchism = anarculture. oppressive membership + The Bureaucracy (Trotskyism) / Stalinism (corruption) = political revolution in the USSR (Trotskyism).

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}Anarchism applies to any situation / Anarchism is a series of moral principles that can be applied in any historical situation -> sounds fine on the surface as a descriptive appraisal of anarchism, but gets really interesting when you remember that the Soviet Union and the conflict between Stalin's party and Trotsky's faction is "any situation". 
Anarchism is acting as if you're already free + Machiavellianism (feudal orders) = Anarchism applies to any situation.

{{li|I=S2/MX/W|tradition=|Q=618}}If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube / If Fisherism is true, then every non-politician in China should ignore Chinese politics and make as many videos about United States politics as possible -> this would be for two reasons. 1) people in China are mostly safe from the U.S. government, so they are less likely to face consequences than people in the United States 2) if "creating media" is really so important to changing societal consciousness then most of China's government and politics is in the United States, so they need to change consciousness in the United States to change their government

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.
{{li|I=S1/DFy/ML|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em|is}} inevitable.

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=|Q=618}}"Male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are different / In terms of the arts, "male culture" and "female culture" are more or less the same thing in all contexts except among the craziest groups of proto-fascist Tories <s>[I promise to revise that on the Ontology: page]</s>, but "queer culture" and "non-queer culture" are actually different things to a greater extent than "U.S. culture" versus "Japanese culture" or "U.S. culture" versus "British culture"; national population does not affect culture products as greatly as the new and special forms of interaction and description of selves and world that take place within the particular kinds of semi-countable social groups that take part in "queer culture"; this is to imply but not state that "queer culture" carries its own worldview and political faction distinct from Liberal-republican politics -> 
male culture: Digimon Adventure. female culture: MLP gen 4. it's quite obvious what is what with kids' media when you have networks wanting to aim products at apparent differences between boys and girls to try to get more consistent sales, but even when you can point out a 'show for girls' and a 'show for boys' they are not actually that different if they're any good. hence all the bronies, hence that awkward space of women watching anime and trying to ignore the grossly exaggerated female silhouettes because nothing else about the show or game is especially bad. I think you also see this with things aimed at adults but it would be hard to think of an example where you get such a 'nice' region of awkward crossover. {{book|Dragonriders of Pern}} can be argued to be female culture I guess, but it's easy to forget that. then there's like, an argument to be made that {{book|Harry Potter}} is so misogynistic that it's male culture coming out of a woman — if it wasn't enough of an insult to accuse it of being such an 'uncool' book series as to be read by more moms and dads than kids — but it's also just within the range of 'teenage' enough that teenage girls can get obsessed with the male characters. 
so, male culture and female culture are very similar on basic levels. but "queer culture" is something different from either of them. you can really start to identify it the moment you see a furry visual novel with a plot that's "weirdly straight" — where some of the characters are stereotypes, or where the writing is okay but all the characters have totally depressing problems that make you wonder why you're reading a book right now and not just talking to the people around you that are the human equivalent of Twitter feeds, here assuming you also don't like Twitter. when these kinds of things are made "correctly", they have a very different feel. you see people being... idealistic? living in their own world, but not really in an upsetting way. they stop thinking about the outside world where everybody isn't of the same finite cluster of LGBT+ people and the atmosphere becomes very... specific to the people who are there. I want to say "insular" but that's more negative than what I actually mean. 
I think part of what I am saying is that LGBT+ circles tend to generate this consciousness of being a teeny village of people just because they are inherently limited to having only tiny clusters of people available, and because of this they sometimes also start believing that they inherently constitute some kind of "anarchist tribe" that must transition to anarchism because it will never contain enough people to spawn a Liberal-republican nation-state. the way different subpopulations in the United States get so separated really seems to mess with people's heads and cause people to see themselves as entirely separate stateless "nation-states" with separate histories, right down to subconsciously imagining whole trajectories of transition only for their own cluster of people of a particular identity and based on the exact number of people that are in it at the moment. it's funny how identities will take the notion of forms of society comically literally to the point a Marxist would scold them for reading historical materialism too closely, but then they will not even know they're doing it and try to deny that forms of society and social transitions are a thing and just try to tell you everybody needs to transition to anarchism because gay people exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Orange terrain is solid / Orange terrain is stable / Trotskyism is composed of fine-scale structures that are distinguished by their ability to stop parts of society from being overtaken and taken advantage of by The Bureaucracy; these structures may be referred to as "orange structures", although this only labels one specific function of the structures or process they contribute to and is not meant to be exclusive with the category of them being crimson structures / The dictatorship of the proletariat is an unbroken terrain of connected orange structures -> 
so apparently it's only when you look deep into what Trotskyists are claiming The Bureaucracy is that you finally start to understand what it is they're trying to create. they want one basic thing within any particular region, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat; the concept of international permanent revolution can actually be conceptualized as being emergent from this, because anything that keeps continuously defending outwardly red or orange countries from turning strawberry or blue and does appear in multiple nearby countries can link across the country regions so they can defend each other from encroaching bourgeois factions and form a Second World. this makes a lot more sense. the very first few times I read about Trotskyism I took it as this vaguely Idealist proclamation that things [[E:"I believe that everybody" statement|should have happened]] in other countries [[E:Monty Hall problem|that didn't happen]] and there "just should have" been international permanent revolution. but I now see it was more complicated than that. it's less that Trotskyists were upset Trotsky couldn't go to Germany and turn it orange and more that they were upset that the Third International seemingly refused to create a correct model of what happened in Germany, so they thought they had to tirelessly protect any region that really did have the potential to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, wherever it was, to keep The Bureaucracy from getting into it because the parties allied with Stalin were not safe from getting 'infiltrated' and slowly turning strawberry. the aim of trying to hold down a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat and prevent strawberry Marxisms from forming is respectable, given how many strange things strawberry Marxisms do on their best days ('corporations are productive forces', 'socialism is getting rid of poverty', party-approved listicles) and the few actually-awful things they do on their worst days (pre-emptively thinking rude people are reactionaries just because they're rude, battle between strawberry cops and Maoists buried inside resistances). historically speaking strawberry Marxisms are very similar to blue factions in that they slowly restore this dynamic of the most powerful people generating more power and keeping down the weakest people. I wouldn't blame anyone for acting like strawberry Marxisms simply aren't something to be messed with and are more something you want to stop at the root. as long as the people saying that are at least as Marxist as Stalin; anarchists really need to shut up and read enough stuff to learn how to do violet analysis before say anything on the topic of 'power multiplying'. if anarchists knew as much Marxism as the [[E:International Committee of the Fourth International|ICFI]] I would not be anywhere near as mad at them as I am and I would be more tolerant of proposals to create charcoal terrains that are supposed to serve the same function as orange terrains. I was in the beginning, but.... oh boy when anarchism only seems to generate more stupidity every day without ever getting better you quickly get tired of it

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Historically, Trotskyism has always been a "poly-" Marxism and there has never been a molecularized definition of Trotskyism (or any definition) which does not expect {{em|the process inside}} a particular country region to spill to the edge of the country effectively enough to end up creating connected blocs or federations of countries; the process of abolishing "owned country territories" and ruling classes along country borders and the process of defeating other versions of Marxism are not necessarily the direct causes of the "poly-" shape as much as consequences of it, and in fact, Trotskyism having a "poly-" shape is easily explained by processes inside each country region individually, namely a molecularized process of forming a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat which if successful joins multiple countries into a single potentially contiguous Second World region

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=LR, ES, A|Q=618}}Mothers have the power to abolish entire nationalities / When national populations do not base their strategy for development on government welfare programs they inherently treat households as an exploitable resource by making stay-at-home mothers or fathers or other relatives generate and perfect workers that will be exploited by cities to build modernity, therefore if rural parents were to stand up against society they could weaken the power of the oppressive apparatus inside nation-states and all its justifications for either it or a nation-state existing; this is to imply that nation-states are not entitled to calling households citizens just because people do daily activities inside their borders, but also that households are entitled to money from other households in the pool of people a nation-state has assigned them to almost as an apology for having to be part of a nation-state {{YouTube|eotvnm_UDek}} -> this came from an analysis I saw on China. it's clearly from a very Liberal-republican framework, considering the weird fixation on everyone in a country being entitled to all social programs that exist even if the limits on social programs are actually meant to stop urban poverty and stuff like U.S. cities full of homeless camps that ultimately result after too many people move to cities too fast. but the more you look at this statement the weirder it gets. Liberal-republicans will most of the time act like a particular republic existing is only natural and dismantling it would be craziness but at other times they'll act like the entire existence of nationalities is a game to them and everyone can just stop being Chinese at any time if they get tired of it. there is this weird anarchist undercurrent to all Liberal-republicanism which you see vaguely come up in theorists like Rousseau. but when you try to point out that it's there, Liberal-republicanism will generally try to deny it and act like all the people that say taxes are arbitrary constructs or they're 'sovereign citizens' are foreign material and weren't created by glitches in Liberal-republican theory itself. the one time people get bold about it and it becomes the most socially acceptable is when it's applied to other countries than the one people are currently in. tell people that the United States is a made-up game and they get upset and try to argue at you for hours that civil rights court cases that will get repealed tomorrow are objective truth, tell people China is a made-up game that can be broken up or remade from scratch and they'll simply nod.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES onto DX|Q=618}}China designing Deng Xiaoping Thought to suit the United States is pick-me behavior, and the true anti-pick-me move is for China to go back to Bolshevism -> I am so sick of the terrible contradiction between everyone in the United States saying that 'you shouldn't just be what society wants you to be to be convenient to them' and also acting like the pressure on entire Third World countries to be exactly what First World countries want is okay and normal. either people eventually become obligated to mask for others at some point {{em|as a matter of being ethical}}, or telling China it has to have a socioeconomic structure that the United States stamps as okay is "pick-me behavior", and there is no in-between on that question.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}China exporting too many products is exacerbating global tensions [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/02/21/qkaj-f21.html] -> why? why do you believe that? do you think you'll be able to get the people who made China structure itself based on exports because it was their 'free market right' to stop? you're waging a fight between United States capitalists that want to exploit Third World labor and United States capitalists that want to sell products, and for some reason you're waging it in China as if China had anything to do with it. China did what it was told. so at this point you may as well set up a ballot box for Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump in China and make the president of the United States partly based on what the people of China vote for. because it would make fully as much sense as this.

{{li|I=S2/DX/IV|tradition=|Q=618}}Jiang Zemin's "theory of three represents" declared that the business elite and emerging middle classes were the most advanced representatives of society, and were as much allies of the CPC as workers (ICFI) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/chin-d30.html]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}The French first republic lasted until the declaration of the first empire [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic] -> that is such an interesting sentence by itself, because it'd make you think that capitalism in France just erupted directly into global empire. I don't think it was that much of a straight line though.

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Saying Jewish people outside Israel are obligated to support Israel is the real antisemitism -> Jewish people are one thing. Israelis are another. Germans are one thing. Nazis are another. this is not difficult. but for some reason the United States and all of its messaging and paid ads are determined to make this more difficult than it needs to be

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The major effect of spreading {{book|Settlers}} was to get people very upset about localized Black struggles that immediately affected them but to change nearly nobody's position on Palestine or attempting to use voting to save Palestine

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There are two major forms of imperialism: annexation (conquest) and primitive accumulation (frontier wars, apartheid states, "settler-colonialism", large-scale chunk competition)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Ordinary people are confused by the fact that different groups of billionaires can believe entirely different things -> on one hand this is a good thing because people are vaguely understanding that being a billionaire pushes people toward particular forms of ideology. but on the other, it isn't good because people aren't understanding the [[E:material idea|concept]] of [[E:material contradiction|material contradictions]].

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}AI can be a threat, but it can't be useless / Billionaires will casually spread warnings about "the threat" of AI but they will not accept AI being referred to as "slop" -> actually good insight

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Identifying Edgeworth's dialectic identifies who you should vote for / So you would vote for the more neo lib candidate instead of the guy who changed his ways? (Liberal-republicanism)

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty / If you crudely define Socialism as an increasing exercise of "society-ism", then the correct action is to look at poor countries and decide that everyone who isn't currently provided for needs to defect to a different country as fast as possible, which is to say, needs to beg to be actively colonized by the border of a rich country in order to hopefully receive food; the people of Cuba absolutely need to be ruled by the Democratic Party per se, not even their own center-Liberal party / ({{9k|-0Vk8B3cNH8}}) -> it's funny how utterly insane the cluster of commonly-held beliefs U.S. people hold about the overall world sounds if you just say them out loud and combine them into one statement instead of compartmentalizing statements about each part of the world separately.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece -> I'm slightly afraid of what propositions would lead here. 
this proposition is a joke. I do not endorse it. 
A poor country means a bad, fake historical period that must be overthrown + debt in Greece = To get rid of poverty, the United States should annex Greece. 
If the Democratic Party was a global empire the world could solve poverty + debt in Greece = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Political factions and communities are the same thing — all communities become political factions when the situation demands it, and all political factions are communities
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All communities are political factions / All countable cultures or socially-linked groups of people can function as Social-Philosophical Systems given the right situation -> I believed this because it neatly explains why Tories exist. by now, I'm not as eager to believe it, but it's still one of the sharpest replies to Bellegarrigue and easiest ways to start disproving him, so I can't quite let it go. all plurality brought on by social connections, culture, or identity has the potential to become political plurality if one group of people forces itself on another, thus there is no actual distinction between plural communities and plural formal governments. there can be physically plural anarchisms, and they can even have civil wars against each other. the concept of simply getting rid of plurality and getting rid of violence created by plurality by getting rid of The State is impossible.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}All political factions are communities / All Social-Philosophical Systems are countable cultures

{{li|I=Z0/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}Black defendant with all-White jury -> there are going to be some interesting combinations out of this one. generally combinations that make Liberal-republicanism look very bad. 
this + Liberal-republicanism is government by the people = Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is government by the people
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, A|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not government by the people

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=|Q=618|submitter=StackExchange}}If gravity is zero at the center of the earth, then how did iron get there? [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-i] -> the answer says that part of the "error" here is that gravity is not a flat integer zero, it's a fence of 9.8 m/s^2 vectors pointing to all hemispheres of the planet. so iron can get in but it can't get out. some minerals drift down into the core if heavy elements are not bonded to other elements, but it's not as easy for minerals to drift back up. without being part of one big tectonic plate motion or something I guess.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition|Q=618}}Anarchism is everybody ruling everyone all the time {{YouTube|L68a6mIP09E}} -> this is.... not wrong. it came out of somebody who clearly doesn't understand anything but like, it isn't wrong. it's seemingly how a lot of recent anarchism has worked. it's backhandedly true.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition|Q=618}}Hierarchy is weak {{YouTube|CZ-FRyUZ3ok}} -> okay, but what happens when you break it open leaving an empty gap? is war strong? it must be, because it's completely unreasonable on any terms but its own and pretty hard for a small group of anarchists to stop. anarchists love reaction. they love letting anything that's too violent or dangerous for them to defeat just exist. just read Rothenberg's book where 'fascism' is treated as the only real problem but also practically raised to the level of human nature. but they'll turn around and attack things that are too weak to defend themselves against anarchism in an instant just because those things did a couple things they didn't like. this is my question: what will anarchism to do if something {{em|is anarchism}} but does something anarchism doesn't like? attack it and destroy it like anything else? how can you actually be sure that anarchism is a peaceful philosophy and not just one that will end up fighting itself for the rest of time?

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}The United States military is a neutral force within the world because it changes consciousness (anarchism) {{YouTube|LZiT3FgFqA4}} {{YouTube|sMoTWFZjoYA}} / I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong {{YouTube|FCJxf9bq1IU}} -> this is the consequence of unchecked Western-Marxism and letting people think Marxism is about actions that ""change consciousness"" rather than digging through the 'consciousness process' to uncover what structures people can be part of to gain better consciousness and how the sharpest people can start arranging [[E:arrangement of proletarians (meta-Marxism)|empowering structures]] that can [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin|create]] or [[E:revolutionary lattice period|defend]] those structures regardless of what other people already notice. the difference between Althusser and Stalin is that Althusser lets you go to imperialist war to learn a lesson purely to not be a Dictator and tell you what to think before you actually learn your lesson firsthand.

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}I used to think brown people weren't human — then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and realized that's wrong -> my brain was searching trying to think of what this made me think of and then I suddenly realized what it was. it was the MLP song. "I used to wonder what friendship could be..." that's it. like, that show embodies how Liberal-republicanism thinks of "consciousness", and this is the ultimate result of that overall kind of thinking.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}There is nothing wrong with hierarchy -> one of those propositions that's here to be the shocking result of combinations of bad propositions. 
this proposition isn't {{em|obviously}} incorrect, it's somewhat complex actually, but there are enough situations where it's wrong that in this form it would be false.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto LR, IV onto HM|Q=618}}Habermasian history is not a dialectical form of analysis because it does not understand how contradictory interactions or antagonisms rebuild the greater whole and prevent effective reforms / fundamental aspects of a society cannot simply be removed one at a time ... racism cannot be legislated out of capitalism [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> perfectly on the mark. this is what you tell them. 
the one thing you have to look out for, though: schizoanalysts trying to claim that because they included every contradictory minority at once that they've created a model which is 'actually dialectical'.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The human mind cannot become fully conscious of itself until bourgeois society is abolished, which ultimately stamps all non-proletarian philosophy as metaphysical and unscientific (Untermann 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html] -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen (Leigh 2024) [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}second-order anarchism -> the motif of someone who finds almost all forms of anarchism actually observed in the real world too specific and divisive to unite people and rebels against anarchism in order to achieve the greater goal of breaking everybody out of competing factions such as Communism versus anarchism and unifying them. this is the only kind of anarchism you could ever get me to believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}If you achieve degrowth through people of different industries periodically fighting each other and destroying each other's machines, then you've achieved degrowth {{YouTube|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> my objection to this isn't a moral one, because I don't believe morality or ethics is real. but I have an aversion to things that don't make any coherent sense. what about this makes sense? when does society know that the goal has been achieved? at what point does the process stop? is it possible for this process to extend into more abstract industries like academia or the arts, and somehow just, end up with people doing everything they can to suppress a paper or something, I don't know? what would people do to suppress pharmaceutical companies over-prescribing drugs? from what I know about anarchists, they draw the line at actually keeping people from receiving anti-depressants and hormones, so they can't stop drug production, even though it's the thing that's sold for money.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}turtles all the way down (motif)

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}botched neopets TTRPG {{YouTube|lirIV57wI34}} {{YouTube|TIxaATMBnvk}} {{YouTube|iYjUzlyEtkw}} -> it often feels like dumb headlines like these give you more insight into what kinds of class structures exist than an actual economics textbook. 
neopets exists. neopets scouts out contractor corporation. contractor corporation hires further contractors that are new at the task. there are no stable structures here; it's turtles all the way down.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Empire is always regenerating / Primitive accumulation keeps happening / Primitive accumulation is always happening -> otherwise it's hard to explain the Cold War and the way the overall concept has continued on and on more like a freezer that first set itself up and then continually circulated heat out.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ethics is the shovel dream of primitive accumulation -> think about it. most 'fitting actions' anarchists want you to do require people to have wealth first, or privilege as a whole society over other societies. create pieces of a 'community' for fun? you have to have all the money and privilege to have learned to do it correctly so your output isn't trash, or everyone will make fun of you and maybe call you immoral, potentially including the anarchists. distribute goods to people of questionable origin? you have to be White so you don't get immediately shot, and somebody first had to besiege Third World countries and make them have exactly the right government and level of wealth to both produce well and pay nothing in order for there to be enough abundance to be at the level where anarchists can claim 'distributing it' is the only problem. 
ethics itself is colonial in that without the creation of an empire you can't go on the continuing journey of people becoming 'more and more' ethical. you have to have that slump first where a huge atrocity is committed and then people progressively learn about it and apologize. a world without atrocities genuinely might not need morality or ethics at all. it might be a wholly amoral world. and the fact people are even talking about ethics may signal either that they're defending something awful, or that they aren't as good of people as they believe they are. 
why is it that anarchists always want to imagine everything perfect but it never occurs to them that a world in an original perfect state might not even have ethics.

{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618}}Plato was the only Greek / Plato was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece (observation on {{film|Chip Chilla}}) {{YouTube|x6IZm3lf50s}} / Aristotle was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece -> good catch! it's rather remarkable how, there were particular classes within ancient Greek society that could be at least vaguely separated out by layer, and almost everybody loves to act like the upper classes were the only class to exist. in reality, it appears that the upper classes and lower classes had different positions on topics like whether Greek gods were real. there was more than one body of ideology in ancient Greece, at least along the division of how educated people were if nothing else, and we don't usually talk about the interactions between those {{em|different}} bodies of ideology.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I {{em|know}} the Asriel plot thread is not that good, but everyone likes it. am I wrong or is everybody else right {{YouTube|ECa4_RWtoHY}} -> I couldn't tell you the answer to the question but I do know this is an interesting motif

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}Japanese culture (essence) / Japanese culture as essence of Japaneseness -> I used to think this concept made some sort of sense before I was an adult but now I don't think it makes any sense.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}Distinguishing countries by "culture" others them (Marxism, Trotskyism)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black vice -> this is how.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}inherently Black virtue -> this is more how a lot of characterizations of "Japanese culture" or "animist beliefs" work, casually implying that something can both inherently be of a particular "culture" and also be virtuous by having started from that.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}sugar, spice, and everything nice -> Idealism/essentialism in a fairy tale type context.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature — not in the unique sense which has gotten the label that exists within society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty does not exist in nature, because it can only exist {{em|within}} sociality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty exists due to greater or lower social bonds
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism, because Idealism cannot change the process of which people are socially compatible and develop stronger social bonds creating high-ranking individuals and marginalized individuals

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}The sun must rise (astronomy) -> I wrote this one down vaguely within context of eucatastrophe and the arguments that it is "realistic".

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Never debate Item names / Do not argue about Item names, given that all Items can have multiple aliases or outward sense labels, and you can debate which concepts belong in each numbered entry within Talk pages

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}Job as Communist antihero / Job as Communist hero -> think about it. he is told to do something and then he turns away from it and bad things keep happening and he keeps getting these reminders of the thing he was supposed to do, that bad things keep happening if he doesn't start doing. begins to remind me of Trotskyists repeatedly talking about crises and despite the claims the crises will lead to something being a little laughable correctly pointing out that none of it will get better if people do nothing. 
Q51,31 Job sounds like job + Christian devotional about Ted = Job as Communist antihero. 
Job sounds like job + Trotskyists obsessing about crises = Job as Communist antihero.

{{li|I=M3/MX/LR|Q=618}}What action taken by cops would be bad enough to actually get society to abolish them? / cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos ([[E:12,1,09|generic]]) -> I was thinking about qualified immunity and how absurdly it's been pushed to include cops getting to do anything that has no precedent and then after my brain churned a bit I was like... wait, {{em|anything}}? so if I pointed to a really messed up video of an anthro cat removing somebody's eyeballs, like, is it true that absolute serial killer shit wouldn't get us to abolish the police, and our society really thinks anything you do behind a cop's badge is okay. 
what if people signed up to a police department and became cops and then they burned down a billionaire's building? would they even get fired? what if a cop assassinated the president? would everything still go on the same as it was? what if a cop went to an immigrant prison and busted the place open and let them out? what if a cop distributed a bunch of illegal copies of a movie? what if a cop hid in a mascot costume and killed several kids at a pizza restaurant? what if a cop killed every single other cop in the state? what if a cop lied under oath? what if a cop shredded every single election ballot, and when there was another attempt to have an election, it happened again? what if a cop cut power to a hospital? what if a cop disrupted the mail? what if a cop somehow confiscated people's tax money and spent it so the government couldn't have it? what if a cop made a statement glorifying Vladimir Putin and Russia invading Ukraine? what if a police department went on strike for Palestine? is that literally the only thing a cop can get fired for? if every cop everywhere went on strike for Palestine would the United States have to abolish the police? 
I bet at least half of the weird scenarios I could think of absolutely wouldn't change anything no matter how strange or how horrific the thing that happened actually was. 
I really, genuinely wonder what it would take to end qualified immunity, and how outrageous the action taken by the cop would actually have to be. 
qualified immunity (United States) + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S1/MX/HAS|Q=618}}failed attempt at anti-essentialism / failed attempt to apply anti-essentialism -> I get really tired of the Ideals + anti-essentialism model of reality because I totally know it is not actually modeling what's real and there are going to be a lot of cases where it simply fails that nobody bothers to talk about. 
this + ?? = Not All Men.
{{li|I=S1/LR/ML|Q=618}}successful application of anti-essentialism denied by Liberal-republicans -> there's this category of statements too.

{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not every house cat is an obligate carnivore -> example where going against an overgeneralization could be harmful.
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone will learn tolerance from media representation -> sad but probably true.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Not every country should practice Liberal-republicanism -> it'll make everyone mad but that alone doesn't make it false.
{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=618}}Not everyone should vote for Joe Biden (2020) -> hypothetically possible but will make people mad.

{{li|I=F2/HAS|Q=618}}My dog is the only one / My dog is the only dog ever / My dog is the only thing that anyone calls a dog [https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/psych/glossary/undergeneralization/] -> example given to illustrate children failing to learn to generalize words beyond specific examples. one attested use of the term "undergeneralization".

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood 
When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization ... + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes represent international war / Superheroes largely started as a vague depiction of international war -> see: Superman punching Hitler, [https://screenrant.com/superman-first-hero-to-beat-up-hitler-not-captain-america/] Ultraman as representation of Soviet occupations
{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Superheroes appear spontaneously and unpredictably because they are a representation of the anhierarchic conditions of large-scale international politics in which war can never truly be regulated and whenever war begins the only thing that can counter it is war completing itself from the other side 
Superheroes represent international war + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If there are no grand narratives that stretch across the world, then it is impossible to tell Alexander Dugin that Russians can't just go kill Ukrainians because that's what they want to do that week and it makes them happy -> without Marxism, the statement that the world shouldn't have international wars or that countries should be "orderly" is nothing more than a narrative, so everyone is free to reject it. ethics is just a narrative. "international law" is just a narrative. suddenly the notion that narratives can't possibly reach around the world and become universal isn't sounding so good any more, is it?

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}In 1949, [[E:the real Chinese people|the real Chinese people]] were the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (Mao) [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm] 
China's conditions are exceptional + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}China's conditions are exceptional / Chinese exceptionalism (history) / China's history is exceptional / China's historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value -> this proposition has a very interesting relationship with the concept of country characteristics. many people will falsely go claiming that this {{em|is}} what country characteristics are, although in many cases it will simply not be true.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}U.S. conditions are exceptional / American exceptionalism (history) / The United States' historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Stalin intentionally created strawberry capitalism in order to get more allies in countries without a fully-developed capitalism [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peoples-republic] -> so in a way Trotskyists are accusing Stalin of having invented the primary phase of development / primary phase of "socialism". 
you know, having a "socialism" constructed over the top of your country for international geopolitical reasons and then living in that for years having to make sense of it is one of the few reasons it would make logical sense for China to bend over backwards to justify strawberry capitalism as "definitely socialism, actually". 
edit: the bot [[redlink - ICFI prompts|told me]] this theory was bogus. which really makes me wonder which party wrote this glossary, because apparently it was not the ICFI.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}bracketing in meta-Marxism / downreductionism in meta-Marxism / reductionism in meta-Marxism (referring to a process that does not remove outgoing interactions and antagonisms) / meta-Marxism and bracketing smaller areas of a larger system of interacting parts to better understand the outgoing interactions and antagonisms of a particular piece
upreductionism in meta-Marxism / meta-Marxism and reconstruction of larger systems or events by combining smaller parts into a whole

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}finding Marxism in {{film|Bee Movie}} {{YouTube|q_agS0hDMvc}} -> yeah, this {{em|is}} inherently funny due to the example fictional work already having meme status. but that doesn't make the concept bad. 
there's nothing wrong with people trying to do Marxist breakdowns of the elements or themes that make up popular media. not even if the popular work is superficial "slop". and you know why? the more popular something is the cheaper it gets to buy after a few years once people start donating it to thrift stores. if you manage to take a really popular work, however bad, and turn it into a teaching tool with a well known meaning, you've created really cheap propaganda that you don't need party organizers to distribute, that will keep getting spread around no matter how many party members get caught, and that will be harder to ban because the bourgeoisie created it and it wasn't created by a group of people easy to strategically label as "an invading foreign country". of all the things Western Marxists do, this is actually one of the smartest ones. because if Gramscians go into academia or movie studios and [[E:|take up job slots]], it doesn't make that big an impact on who can actually make decisions in industries or who can strike, but if you manage to change the use of an existing product then you've somewhat undone the ability of the corporations that made it to make decisions about what will be produced and what everyone is and isn't allowed to think before everybody else can.

{{li|I=S1/MX/ML|Q=618}}revolutionary lattice period / permanent revolution (meta-Marxism onto Stalin's Marxism) -> the motif of a historical era of physical events where people are linking horizontally to get through a battle against an initial bourgeois class rule or at the very least linking into a Lattice to form a nationwide party which will create a workers' state. the revolutionary lattice period ends when a workers' state is created, and it's significant because it allows for a very concrete mathematical definition of "Leninism" using graph theory. approximately synonymous with "permanent revolution", assuming you are not a Trotskyist. Trotskyists could still use this model to describe the creation of an orange party, but for them this is not permanent revolution at all because "[[E:international permanent revolution|permanent revolution]]" is the long setup period for creating a powerful Communist International that would in theory be able to stop imperialism and international wars.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Careers hold no life lessons / {{TTS|Careers*|Careers|title=* Specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training}} cannot teach life lessons / Because all specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training are incapable of seeing anything outside the system they operate in, no statement about "life in general for the human Subject" which a person put together as a statement as a guide to doing their career in the process of doing their career should be held up as The Truth; this includes the careers of David Graeber, Rebecca Sugar, Slavoj Žižek, Carl Sagan, Dinesh D'Souza, and Donald Trump, and it includes the careers of Stalin and Trotsky -> I don't really have to include Mao in that because he came from the peasantry and had a bunch of statements about not 'worshiping' books or theorists (those seem to multiply every time there's a new Marxist republic although nobody heeds them.) so I think he's in the clear, but Stalin and Trotsky on the other hand had cast all sorts of aspersions on each other about being bureaucrats, leading everybody outside the Soviet Union to believe they both were.

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}spontaneous explanation for Trotskyism / contingent explanation for Trotskyism / group-psychological explanation for Trotskyism -> a "spontaneous" explanation for Trotskyism is an attempt to explain the history of Trotskyism which focuses on the causes of individual events and why people might have formed into these events on the day they happened, in the moment. 
these might include: Trotskyists getting expelled from the CPSU was psychologically traumatic or at least not predicted by their theoretical models, people continue to found Trotskyist parties because they identify with the psychological trauma of early Trotskyism and pick it up and advocate about it as a sort of generational trauma they feel is unresolved and waiting for justice, incompatibility between Trotskyist factions and mainstream Marxist-Leninist factions for various reasons created and still creates physical antagonisms between the parties leading them to want to form separate "countries" or civilizations (that last one is easily phrased in terms of dialectical materialism and has no need for a single 'inciting incident').

{{li|I=S1/IV/MX|Q=618}}theoretical explanation for Trotskyism / explanation for Trotskyism based on analysis of internal theoretical models used by Trotskyist groups and exactly what historical processes and class interactions or horizontal antagonisms are being claimed inside said theories -> for the longest time I had a hard time finding any of these because of how so much of what Trotskyists say is just lies. I found it a lot easier to analyze their claims once they came out with an LLM and like, I was finally able to make that thing behave like the only Trotskyist that didn't lie for a few minutes at a time (before it started blatantly lying again and going on about 'the Stalinist bureaucracy').

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why invade Cuba? (2026) / If Cuba is not an exclusive republic, why is the United States so dead-set on creating a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over it?

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Cuba to Trump: warning, war causes war [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419]

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump's demands for Cuba (2026) / these included a two-week deadline to release high-profile political prisoners, implement sweeping market reforms, expand the private sector and attract foreign investment [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/21/mgaz-a21.html] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/cuban-leader-warns-of-potential-bloodbath-if-us-takes-military-action-6027419] -> I'd mark this brown except that these are the most capitalist demands I've seen in a while

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Alabama redistricting ruling (2026) [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-order-requiring-majority-black-district-in-alabama-6024323] [https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/democrats-ask-us-supreme-court-to-stay-virginia-supreme-court-ruling-invalidating-voter-approved-election-map-6024209]

{{li|I=S2/MX/JC/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung got help from other countries / Kim Il-sung got help from Communist youth organizations in Manchuria and educators in the Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet army [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kim-Il-Sung] -> that is a shocking revelation. if you know much about North Korea and what its values are now you never expect that the story of North Korea would start with this. 
why have I never heard Trotskyists saying this. it's like, the thing they should be pointing out about North Korea. I think it's always the existence of the Soviet army that bothers them. which is so odd and ironic when Trotsky is one of the figureheads of "orange Leninism" and where did he start out? gosh, to live in a world where Trotsky had been every bit as effective at holding down the Second World as Kim Il-sung. with this information that analogy only gets better.

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}How will the Communist Party prevent {{book|Animal Farm}}? -> a question that's annoying but worth answering.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}} / You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in {{book|Animal Farm}}, because secular animism gives you an imperative to protect the animals from getting eaten, while {{book|Animal Farm}} implies that it doesn't matter what happens to them if they have an inferior culture containing [[E:inherently dominating idea (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideas]] -> there is a particular history of people forgetting {{book|Animal Farm}} had anything to do with Communism and taking it literally because they didn't read the book; in particular, this "interpretation" emerged out of the shadows and became famous when it was used to market capitalist products. {{book|Animal Farm}} being co-opted by vegetarians might seem a little obnoxious at first, but honestly? I think these people could become heroes. and here's why. {{book|Animal Farm}}, being an allegory, was meant to be read as a bit of a metaphor, but vegetarians with no knowledge of Communism took what they knew of the book and interpreted it literally. compared with a lot of methods used in the humanities (in particular in the arts; the situation could be a little better in fields like anthropology), taking things literally is inherently closer to Materialism and thus inherently closer to Marxism. if one were to deliberately analyze {{book|Animal Farm}} as if the animals were literally animals and not the Soviet Union, it would come across as the terribly inhumane and un-humanitarian narrative it really is. I mean, just think about it. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to kill a house cat a lot of people would find that concept disturbing. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to take self-determination away from a group of animals trying to save themselves from quite literally being chopped up and eaten if a population of people had power over them, that concept should be equally disturbing — if somebody wanted to cook and eat Russians just for being Russian almost everybody would consider that a severe human rights violation. and the ending for the Soviet Union was vastly worse than the ending of {{book|Animal Farm}}. the book was way too generous, when the reality was that things went back to the way they were before — if what had been going on before was Russians getting eaten, well, that would be happening again. if that were the universe we lived in you couldn't really blame Russians for going a little crazy and launching wars on neighboring countries; if that is the only way for them to have power and the United States not to have power which is "permitted", of course they're going to take the option where they don't get eaten, no matter how evil that option is. 
Animals kill others to survive. most animals in nature don't experience their survival being threatened constantly; in a normal situation the predator or rival patriarch or matriarch usually walks away at some point if they stand their ground long enough. but nation-states are very different because there's never anywhere to run off to permanently. if a conflict begins and the aggressor has no actual incentive to stop it's going to keep going until somebody starts killing people. it's just going to keep going until wars cull enough people (potentially millions and millions) that "the space to run away in" is at some semblance of being restored. because a society is just a lot of Animals standing together like they were one Animal, and societies threaten each other as wholes, but when a threat refuses to go away, Animals kill. anarchists cannot get away from this. they keep trying to assert that a world with too many people in it having wars "isn't necessary" and "there's no need to apply Malthusianism" but no matter what, their theories cannot [[E:existential materialism|explain what generates]] the actual observed behavior of Russians. the longer anarchists try to assert that indigenous ways of life 'were kinder on the earth' and 'were less violent', the longer real-world populations will attempt to kill millions and millions of people until the world literally has the maximum number of human individuals it did when human populations were mostly tribes. the actual material transition to a world where everyone is predisposed to believe secular animism is utterly horrifying.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's rational for Russians to start wars and kill people if they will never be granted self-determination on the basis of a system where they try to help every Ukrainian and not start wars -> to correctly parse this proposition you have to understand that what is rational and what is ethical are not the same thing, contrary to what Kant says. 
this also doesn't mean that you can assert that 'getting rid of reason' will solve the problem, given that things that are 'rational' in this sense are rational precisely in the sense that they contain a specific [[E:causal logic (logical model of material causation)|sequence of causations]] and happen whether you want them to or not. 
Imperialism is the actual end of history + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Native Americans are capable of genocide / Inasmuch as indigenous populations are human, they are hypothetically capable of coming up with and practicing [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideologies]] that lead to large populational-scale numbers of people dying because other particular groups of people decide that they should die -> we really need to wake people up to the fact that a genocide can consist of five billion people equally drawn from all ethnic groups as opposed to a billion people of one specific ethnic group or nationality, in terms of whether a particular person's ideology can be ""inherently dominating"" enough to inherently lead to killing ten million people. if anybody in the world gets to keep calling a famine in Ukraine a genocide, then there are scenarios where advocating secular animism could itself be advocating for genocide, because it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than that. if everybody would stop saying that about Ukraine, I might consider dropping this.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Stalin's government committed genocide in Ukraine {{em|because}} they killed people using [[E:hierarchy (anarchism)|hierarchy]], and whenever a form of hierarchy is used that leads to a lot of people dying, that form of hierarchy is an [[E:domination (anarchism)|inherently dominating ideology]], and it is morally wrong to allow people to construct that form of hierarchy to any extent and morally right to tear it apart at every scale possible however small as soon as possible -> the best argument I can think of that the famine in Ukraine {{em|was}} a genocide. no, it's {{em|not}} very good. but at least it's logical enough to start analyzing, unlike a lot of things anarchists say. 
this.... is how a lot of people conceptualize the French Revolution, I think. ...oh god, that explains a lot. it even kind of explains where [[E:Menshevism (1900s)|Menshevism]] came from. the logic behind Menshevism is basically one that inherently dominating ideas merely need to be stopped. all Idealism is somewhat similar and there is a big overlap in Idealism between anarchism, Menshevism, Yaroshenkoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Western-Marxism. while mainstream Marxism-Leninism is nearly the only philosophy ever to state that people don't actually decide what ideas to believe, and that they are always simply handed ideas at the populational scale rather than a population actually having a mind of its own and actually being able to think. that's the sense in which BlackPantherism is quite respectable, to say that Black people among other ethnicities get ideas from their current conditions {{em|is}} a Materialist philosophy. one remaining question is whether Trotskyism falls into the trap of Idealist revolution or whether it genuinely is a Materialist revolution. I've always analyzed Trotskyism by taking individual Trotskyists or groups and modeling them through Materialist concepts of revolution, but my conclusions often don't sound much like their conclusions. they always talk like Stalin could have chosen not to do "Stalinism" so I don't know. 
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy + Stalin's government killed Ukrainian farmers = this.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=A, DX, LR, ES|Q=618}}Idealist revolution / destroy the idea that ... (generic; popular-culture expression of an Idealist campaign to slay [[E:inherently dominating ideology (anarchism)|dominating ideas]]) -> it took me a long time to put this concept into words, but yeah, I think the real problem with anarchism is that it is defining the concept of revolution based on Idealism. there seems to be a whole concept of an Idealist revolution where people think that if you can slay an "inherently dominating idea" that drives a population on a conceptual level, you can change one historical period into another historical period. now, to use some technical language, this is some unscientific SCP-report plotline {{censor|bullshit}}.

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=|Q=618}}thoughtcrime (anarchism) -> the motif of anarchists banning ideas in order to prevent harmful forms of society from being created whether those forms of society are really actually harmful or not, and punishing people for spreading what are actually neutral ideas. 
you can't deny it, in actually asserting that all bad behavior starts at ideas and all change starts at prohibiting ideas, anarchism comes way closer to doing this than Communism.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy / The act of handing money to someone is in and of itself a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)|spatial slot hierarchy]] because it is an act of deciding whether someone is good enough to do a task -> this claim would probably sound much stupider if it was coming out of an anarchist, but fortunately "hierarchy" isn't a big hang-up for me as much as a prosaic statement describing what kind of process is happening. 
that said, this is the thing you need to toss at anarchists who claim that hierarchy and expertise are different things. they really aren't. since the start of Liberal-republicanism expertise has generally been the source of almost all hierarchy. 
I feel like anarchists have shifted to saying "domination" largely so that when they mention "hierarchy" they don't sound as stupid. of course, it doesn't really help given that it's become so abstract that it's unclear what on earth it's even referring to.

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}X and X's brother / X and X's sister / Trotsky and Trotsky's brother (Animal Farm) / Rock and Rock's brother (Megaman exe) -> the motif of fictional stories taking a historical figure or previous fictional character in another continuity and creating a narrative parallel to them but then unexpectedly adding a sibling who actually does something and changes the story even if in a small way.

{{li|I=S1/HAS/Fy|Q=618}}gender roles in fairy tales -> I just started thinking about this suddenly today because I was trying to think if the concepts of "brother" and "sister" have different connotations in folklore, and then I started thinking about how weirdly often all the more negative characters in fairy tales are female. the wicked stepmother, the witch, maybe the wicked step{{em|sisters}}. but the male characters are often more neutral. kings and princes and medieval artisan type people all just have kind of a neutral presence or sometimes positive. there are some exceptions like 'the fairy godmother' that will be a positive influence. 
I.... don't know what the scope of this entry is because I'm not an expert in the humanities. I think it covers European fairy tales and probably through Eastern Europe into the rest of Asia but I don't really know what the division between "a fairy tale" and "a folktale" is, to me they're kind of the same thing. some people consider "Aladdin" to be broadly in the scope of fairy tales because there is a magic artifact or magic servant character that isn't so different from the fairy godmother. but that extends the geographical range of fairy tales quite a bit. what's the difference between a fairy tale and just a legend that people don't necessarily think is true? I think there's a clear difference between a fairy tale and a "myth" in that myths are religious stories from an ancient time of local gods, and fairy tales are about 'smaller' magical things that sort of just hide themselves in tiny places and cause mischief — "fae" sums up the concept of where fairy tales get their fantastical elements pretty well, you're thinking of a character that is usually pretty small and missable but can also be very powerful, could be the fairy godmother, could be a leprechaun. but I'm pretty confused on the difference between a fairy tale, a folktale, and a legend, because legends can have dragons in them; they don't have to be "historical".

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}belief (utilization) / believing in (utilizing) / I believe in solving math problems with lambda calculus / I believe in pomodoro timers -> a definition of "belief" which is one of the very few sensible ways to define the phrase "believing in Marxism". 
I think it's arguable that this definition doesn't apply to ideologies like Christianity, or even to a lot of secular systems of ethics; ethics is a potentially wrong descriptive model of reality pretending to be a technique. but, on the bright side, this motif does provide a lot of context for why people like to claim Communism "doesn't work". you could easily say "pomodoro timers don't work!" but if you aren't versed in how people actually use them and the exact conditions where people claim they do work versus what specific kinds of conditions lead them to fail, then you wouldn't necessarily be making a true accusation. at the same time, if you {{em|did}} claim "Pomodoro timers work!" without knowing how to use them, you also might not be making a true claim. that's why the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism has been so hard to resolve. out of the very limited number of people in the world who knew how to use Marxism at the time, or that do now, not all of those people genuinely understand how it's currently being used. and it's all downhill from there, because as you get further away from them, ordinary people only know less and less. 
you really do learn a lot more about Marxism itself by examining Trotskyist attacks on Marxism than you do by examining a lot of attacks on Marxism inside Liberal-republicanism. and in that, I think they actually have a counter-intuitive effect on consciousness in the grand scheme of things where depending on the specific issue them making errors may be less harmful than them not being there. not {{em|better}} precisely, yet definitely {{em|less bad}}.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}so mr. errors wants me to correct my errors -> what the early history of Trotskyism always feels like 
now to be perfectly fair to them, there are reasons this can {{em|apparently}} happen without being an actual mistake — Marxists speak of new forms of structure coming in and getting rid of old contradictions but bringing in new ones. I think this is how a lot of things they say happen to function.

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}tall, dark, and handsome [https://usdictionary.com/idioms/tall-dark-and-handsome/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3x6bco/in_the_phrase_tall_dark_and_handsome_what_exactly/] / tenebrous (attractive) -> I have seen this explained either as the person literally having dark hair or the person being mysterious (tenebrous). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ténébreux] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrae#Latin] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrous#English] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenebrize#English] for the purposes of analyzing the word "dark" I'm going to take the latter 
sidenote: the pictures you get when you search {{i|ténébreux}} are so funny, you get like a dude with a cloak, you get {{censor|fucking}} Ezio or Boromir. fantasy stories are very good at portraying this concept apparently. one of the only "modern" stories I can think of off the top of my head that goes there is when Ace Attorney introduced Godot. whether anyone thinks he's attractive I have no idea but he absolutely is trying way too hard to have a mysterious overcast disposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Goku is a bourgeois distortion / Goku is a bourgeois distortion of Buddhism / Goku's character concept is centered around the notion that finding or seeking enlightenment makes you more physically powerful; in the original {{book|Journey to the West}} narrative, this was supposed to be the monkey king's vulgar misunderstanding of Buddhism which ultimately got him sealed under a mountain; within {{book|Dragon Ball}} Goku can be said to represent crude bourgeois materialism as seen in Feuerbach — the major theme quickly established in {{book|Dragon Ball}} is that the world is physical and does what it wants as opposed to what you want it to do, but that this is partly because the world is in some abstract way "modern", and dotted with cities and corporations and most notably the influence of scientific insight and technology; in this sense, Goku is not the {{book|Journey to the West}} character Sun Wukong because while Sun Wukong represents ancient empires, he represents the rise of early capitalism and the ways in which capitalism both correctly and wrongly substituted morality for power going into the hands of those who desire change the hardest and become materially powerful enough to take power and [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic|fight off]] the people they wish would change -> 
this sounds weirdly like I'm on the side of Buddhism over early capitalism. I'm not. I'm just very tired of capitalism acting like it's fully justified to keep power over everything and prevent anything else that would happen after it from forming just because it's better than ancient imperial monarchies. 
if Hegel had known what an "end of history" was, he would have believed that monarchy and feudal orders were the end of history. and now Fukuyama thinks he's not as wrong as Hegel when he does the same thing. honestly... right down to even that thing where you claim a bunch of abstract ideas led to a material system yet were the only possible train of conclusions. capitalist theorists and Kantians are almost exactly just the Hegel of capitalism.

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}Daniel Snowberg, the perfect whistleblower [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/whistleblowers-dont-need-elite-credentials-help-protect-us-government-overreach] -> so, there had been this other blog where I think someone was calling out Ed Snowden for having 'done things wrong' and made up this fake story about Daniel Snowberg to show how he should have done it correctly. and the EFF wasn't having any of it because they knew the realities of real movements don't necessarily look like what you want them to be. 
also... funny story, when messing around with writing fiction and trying to throw Snowberg into a dystopia this had caused Valenoern to accidentally reinvent Trotskyism. but that takes a while to explain, and is a story for another day. to keep things short, they really did not know anything about the history of socialism or what Menshevism or Bolshevism were, they just sort of, created a character in the vein of "Emmanuel Goldstein" (that's just an example) from abstract concepts but didn't know that in the case of 1984 that was Trotsky, and so they reinvented Trotskyism. we've had a lot of fun with anticommunist fables and finding Trotsky in them since then.

{{li|I=S1/MX/MD|class=field_mdem field_14quarters|Q=618}}vermilion international / scarlet international / vermilion Marxism (as Communist International) -> the motif of a Communist international that combines mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism to ultimately form some kind of single global era of socialism. Trotskyists think this can't exist, and have said so rather clearly — what they generally want is to smash all crimson Communist parties and replace them with orange ones.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Videos are the new leaflets (booklets; pamphlets; etc) {{YouTube|bKq-iip4LXs}} / Videos have replaced leaflets -> I remember this coming up in videos on multiple YouTube channels but I don't remember which videos right now 
I wouldn't disagree with this, although... I think there are a few interesting things to note about it. for one, the environment of online videos gives Trotskyists a bizarrely huge advantage because they can all post videos from different countries and make it look like Trotskyism is a lot more omnipresent in any particular country than it really is, as well as like it's a long-standing philosophical tradition (technically not false) which is as rich as mainstream Marxism-Leninism is. online videos make it weirdly easy to "astroturf" the appearance of movements happening more intensely or widely than they actually are.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society disconnects human beings from material reality; news outlets sell the service of empirical encounters with material reality -> this is the only satisfactory explanation I can find for the way United States people will utterly deny things as a possibility {{caps|until}} they show up in a news article and then suddenly they're "real" and omnipresent and worrying and perhaps scary.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Free Software movement needs a theory of state businesses if it is ever to succeed; it needs a theory of how it is that products and production structures become part of public space and become impossible for individuals to control or 'retract' as opposed to saying that individuals just 'ought to' continually choose to put things in the public space within the space of individual choices and interactions 
methodological individualism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}I'm not here to educate you / It's not my job to educate you (statement that minority groups do not have to explain oppression) -> I don't think you can treat this statement as generally true. funny story, I've been picking up books on Native American history when I go to used book sales, and like, these claim to be educational, but you open them up, and the last one I was reading was treating the tribe in question as very mystical. it was trying to be positive and imply there was nothing wrong with people having a different culture but it overall still ended up presenting things like Rolling Thunder (he was the main topic of the book) had a fundamentally magical way of thinking, that he's almost some kind of wizard with magic occult powers in the way he thinks as opposed to his culture being something that can ever be "normal". I think the book was from 1976 if I remember right, not recently. 
so like, telling people to go educate themselves and implying they can't talk to actual people to learn what their problems are could be very harmful. I suspect that it's old books like these that a lot of anarchists are learning about other groups of people from and effectively where they're getting their anarchism. or that even if that's not literally the case, that you can still study that example to learn about the problems with the thing anarchists are actually doing. 
I think there is like.... a nuance that's totally lost on anarchists about the interaction of individuals or populations. if there's somebody that goes around talking like Rolling Thunder, you can't really just take what he says and present it to other people as his fundamental way of thinking. people in industrial populations are going to take it negatively. there might be one or two people who literally take it as 'backward' and say mean things, but that's not what you need to watch for, the most likely harm you need to keep an eye out for is people softly deciding that tribal populations can't understand modern science and that the way of thinking they have presented is part of their fundamental essence that 'blocks' them from absorbing the understandings people have in industrial society. this is racist, because it puts you into the same rhetorical position as the people who were recently arguing that Black South Africans 'didn't want the farmland taken by Afrikaners because of their culture' and {{em|therefore}} it was okay for European apartheid states to descend in and take whatever they want. I think there's a decent argument to be made that claiming someone like Rolling Thunder has a fundamentally different way of thinking 'than European science' is flat out supporting colonialism and is The Colonizer Attitude, because, just look at its results. 
this leaves open the rather broad question of how exactly you can merge tribal populations' ways of thinking with modern science and the findings of industrial societies. we know it's not optional to do that. we know it's necessary to do it to not essentialize people and treat indigenous people as stupid. we know that anarchists trying to present older and more mystical ways of thinking as 'the natural way of thinking' is not okay because it what it effectively does is allow White people to appropriate indigenous culture for their own benefit but still deny that culture to the actual indigenous people and hand all the power of people to determine themselves, to be able to talk about all topics intelligently as the adults in the room and make sophisticated decisions on various topics and involving several different philosophies, to Europeans. putting yourself in a position where other people will essentialize you to one particular level of ideological development is dangerous. I think it's the anarchists that need to be told this more than the tribal populations; they've been through a lot and I think to some extent they know this. anarchists, on the other hand... I feel like it's vaguely possible that some day in the future, people will talk about anarchists as inherently mystical people and weirdly racialize all anarchists {{em|exactly}} the way they've done with tribes in North or South America.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / ({{9k|RD/Q53,19}})

{{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/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{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 {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> 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/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/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=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/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=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=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

</ol><noinclude>

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/12000

2026-06-15T23:08:02Z

Reversedragon: BadEmpanada's theoretical errors

<h2 id="section-12000">10249 - 13200 {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/12000}}</h2>

National Pokédex, and various items that simply didn't fit earlier. 

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="10249" class="hue clean">
<li class="field_geo" value="10250" data-dimension="S0">hypothetical battle
</li><li class="field_geo" value="10251" data-dimension="S">power scaling / power level calculations
</li><li class="field_geo" value="10252" data-dimension="S">one billion lions {{YouTube|R5kLSRZMDI8}}
</li><li class="field_horror" value="10253" data-dimension="S">black hole (opponent)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10254">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10255">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10256">??
</li><li value="10257" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Super Dragon Balls
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10258" data-dimension="S">Super Shenron

</li><li class="number_empty" value="10280">
{{li|I=S1/Fy|dimension=S0|Q=10,2,90|Q2=10290}}LithoGraphica influence / ([[User:RD/9k/Q10,2,90|9k]])

{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=10,2,91|Q2=10291}}TV Tropes [https://tvtropes.org/] / AllTheTropes (generic) [https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Main_Page] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q10,2,90|9k]])
{{li|I=Z1/MX|Q=10,2,92|Q2=10292}}LithoGraphica (About page)
{{li|I=Z1/STM|tradition=unknown|Q=10,2,93|Q2=10293}}Snopes.com / ([[User:RD/9k/Q10,2,90|9k]]) 
Snopes.com + Marxism = LithoGraphica.
{{li|I=Z1/LLM|tradition=LLM, ES|Q=10,2,94|Q2=10294}}Infinite Craft / ([[User:RD/9k/Q10,2,90|9k]])
{{li|I=Z1/HAS|Q=10,2,95|Q2=10295}}KnowYourMeme / ([[User:RD/9k/Q10,2,90|9k]])
</li><li class="field_geo" value="10296" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="10297" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="10298" data-dimension="Z">??
{{li|I=Z1/STM|Q=10,2,99|Q2=10299}}Wikidata / ([[User:RD/9k/Q10,2,90|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="10300">(... [[:Category:Glitch Pokémon ontology|literal Missingno. entries]])
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10302" data-dimension="S">Pokémon form / Pokémon visual form / Pokémon variant within single stage
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10303" data-serial="90" data-dimension="S">Spiral Shellder / Turbann (theories)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10304" data-serial="95" data-dimension="S">Crystal Onix
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10309">(... beta Pokémon)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10310" data-volume="6" data-dimension="S">split Mega evolution
<noinclude> 
<li class="number_empty" value="413" data-remark="http code for 'too large'">(no-include section:)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10311" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Venusaur
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10312" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Charizard X
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10313" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Charizard Y
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10314" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Blastoise
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10315" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Beedrill
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10316" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Pidgeot
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10317" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Gyarados
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10318" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Mewtwo X
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10319" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Mewtwo Y
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10320" data-serial="65" data-dimension="S">Mega Alakazam
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10321" data-serial="80" data-dimension="S">Mega Slowbro
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10322" data-serial="94" data-dimension="S">Mega Gengar
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10323" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Kangaskhan
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10324" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Pinsir
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10325" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Aerodactyl
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10326" data-serial="212" data-dimension="S">Mega Scizor
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10327" data-serial="214" data-dimension="S">Mega Heracross
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10328" data-serial="208" data-dimension="S">Mega Steelix
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10329" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Ampharos
</li><li class="number_empty" value="413">(end no-include section)
</li></noinclude><includeonly><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="10,3,29" value="10329" data-dimension="Z">(... mega evolutions)</li></includeonly>

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10330" data-volume="4,6" data-dimension="S">Primal form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10331" data-dimension="S">Castform (Normal form)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10332" data-dimension="S">Castform (Sunny form)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10333" data-dimension="S">Castform (Rainy form)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10334" data-dimension="S">Castform (Snowy form)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10335" data-serial="382" data-dimension="S">Primal Kyogre
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10336" data-serial="383" data-dimension="S">Primal Groudon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10337" data-serial="386" data-dimension="S">Deoxys Attack form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10338" data-serial="386" data-dimension="S">Deoxys Defense form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10339" data-serial="386" data-dimension="S">Deoxys Speed form

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10340" data-volume="4,8" data-dimension="S">Origin form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10341" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Shellos West Sea
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10342" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Gastrodon West Sea
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10343" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Shellos East Sea
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10344" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Gastrodon East Sea
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10345" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Shadow Lugia
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10346" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Dark Dialga (Explorers of Time/Darkness) / Primal Dialga
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10347" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Origin Dialga
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10348" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Origin Palkia
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10349" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Origin Giratina

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10350" data-volume="6" data-dimension="S">[https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Mega_Evolution#Pok%C3%A9mon_capable_of_Mega_Evolution Mega-evolved form]
</li><noinclude>
<li class="number_empty" value="413" data-remark="http code for 'too large'">(no-include section:)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10351" data-serial="229" data-dimension="S">Mega Houndoom
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10352" data-serial="248" data-dimension="S">Mega Tyranitar
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10353" data-serial="254" data-dimension="S">Mega Sceptile
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10354" data-serial="257" data-dimension="S">Mega Blaziken
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10355" data-serial="260" data-dimension="S">Mega Swampert
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10356" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Gardevoir
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10357" data-serial="302" data-dimension="S">Mega Sableye
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10358" data-serial="303" data-dimension="S">Mega Mawile
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10359" data-serial="384" data-dimension="S">Mega Rayquaza

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10360" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Aggron
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10361" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Medicham
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10362" data-serial="310" data-dimension="S">Mega Manetric
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10363" data-serial="319" data-dimension="S">Mega Sharpedo
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10364" data-serial="323" data-dimension="S">Mega Camerupt
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10365" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Altaria
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10366" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Mega Banette
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10367" data-serial="359" data-dimension="S">Mega Absol
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10368" data-serial="362" data-dimension="S">Mega Glalie
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10369" data-serial="373" data-dimension="S">Mega Salamence

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10370" data-serial="375" data-dimension="S">Mega Gallade
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10371" data-serial="376" data-dimension="S">Mega Metagross
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10372" data-serial="380" data-dimension="S">Mega Latias
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10373" data-serial="381" data-dimension="S">Mega Latios
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10374" data-serial="428" data-dimension="S">Mega Lopunny
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10375" data-serial="445" data-dimension="S">Mega Garchomp
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10376" data-serial="448" data-dimension="S">Mega Lucario
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10377" data-serial="460" data-dimension="S">Mega Abomasnow
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10378" data-serial="531" data-dimension="S">Mega Audino
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10379" data-serial="719" data-dimension="S">Mega Diancie
</li><li class="number_empty" value="413">(end no-include section)
</li></noinclude>
<includeonly><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="10,3,79" value="10379" data-dimension="Z">(... mega evolutions)</li></includeonly>

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10380" data-volume="7" data-dimension="S">Pokémon regional form / Alolan form / Galar form
</li><noinclude>
<li class="number_empty" value="413" data-remark="http code for 'too large'">(no-include section:)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10381" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Rattata
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10382" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Raticate
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10383" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Raichu
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10384" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Sandshrew
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10385" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Sandslash
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10386" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Vulpix
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10387" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Ninetales
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10388" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Diglett
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10389" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Dugtrio

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10390" data-volume="7" data-dimension="S">Alolan form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10391" data-volume="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Meowth
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10392" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Persian
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10393" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Geodude
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10394" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Graveler
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10395" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Golem
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10396" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Grimer
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10397" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Muk
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10398" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Exeggutor
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10399" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Alolan Marowak

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10400" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Meowth
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10401" data-volume="" data-dimension="S">Galar Ponyta
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10402" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Rapidash
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10403" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Farfetch'd
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10404" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Weezing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10405" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Zigzagoon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10406" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Linoone
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10407" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Articuno
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10408" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Zapdos
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10409" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Moltres

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10410" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Mr. Mime
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10411" data-volume="" data-dimension="S">Galar Slowpoke
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10412" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Slowbro
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10413" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Slowking
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10414" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Corsola
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10415" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Darumaka
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10416" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Darmanitan Standard Mode
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10417" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Darmanitan Zen Mode
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10418" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Yamask
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10419" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Galar Stunfisk

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10420" data-volume="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Growlithe
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10421" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Arcanine
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10422" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Voltorb
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10423" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Electrode
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10424" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Typhlosion
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10425" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Qwilfish
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10426" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Sneasel
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10427" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Samurott
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10428" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Lilligant
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10429" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Braviary

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10430" data-volume="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Zorua
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10431" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Zoroark
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10432" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Sliggoo
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10433" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Goodra
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10434" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Avalugg
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10435" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Hisui Decidueye
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10436" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Bloodmoon Ursaluna
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10437" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">White-Stripe Basculin
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10438" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Male Basculegion
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10439" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Female Basculegion
</li><li class="number_empty" value="413">(end no-include section)
</li></noinclude>
<includeonly><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="10,4,39" value="10439" data-dimension="Z">(... regional forms)</li></includeonly>

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10440" data-volume="9" data-dimension="S">[https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Paradox_Pok%C3%A9mon Paradox Pokémon]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10441" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Terastallized state
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10442" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Paldean form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10443" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Paldean Tauros (Combat Breed)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10444" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Paldean Tauros (Blaze Breed)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10445" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Paldean Tauros (Aqua Breed)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10446" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Paldean Wooper
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10447" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Normal Terapagos
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10448" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Terastal Terapagos
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10449" data-serial="" data-dimension="S">Stellar Terapagos

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10450" data-volume="8" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10451" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Venusaur
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10452" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Charizard
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10453" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Blastoise
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10454" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Pikachu
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10455" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Meowth
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10456" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Eevee
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10457" data-serial="812" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Rillaboom
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10458" data-serial="815" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Cinderace
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10459" data-serial="818" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Inteleon

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10460" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Butterfree
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10461" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Machamp
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10462" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Gengar
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10463" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Kingler
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10464" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Lapras
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10465" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Snorlax
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10466" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Garbodor
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10467" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Melmetal
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10468" data-serial="823" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Corviknight
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10469" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Orbeetle

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10470" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Drednaw
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10471" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Coalossal
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10472" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Applin / Gigantamax Flapple / Gigantamax Appletun
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10473" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Sandaconda
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10474" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Toxtricity
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10475" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Centiscorch
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10476" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Hatterene
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10477" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Grimmsnarl
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10478" data-serial="892" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Urshifu (Single Strike)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10479" data-serial="892" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Urshifu (Rapid Strike)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10480" data-dimension="S">enigma-tier Pokémon / Ultra Beast tier / Paradox tier / Pokémon from another realm using Legendary Pokémon conventions
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10481" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Alcremie
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10482" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Copperajah
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10483" data-dimension="S">Gigantamax Duraludon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10484" data-dimension="S0">Basic form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10485" data-dimension="S0">Battle form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10486" data-dimension="S0">Ride form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10487" data-dimension="S">Battle Cyclizar
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10488" data-dimension="S">Apex Koraidon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10489" data-dimension="S">Ultimate Miraidon

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10490" data-dimension="S0">method of obtaining Pokémon -> in cave and only one, etc.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10491" data-dimension="S">available in wild
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10492" data-dimension="S">one encounter available in specific location
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10493" data-dimension="S">raid battle / raid battle (Pokémon Sword/Shield) / raid battle (Pokémon Go)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10494" data-dimension="S">environmental trace / shaking grass (Pokémon) / rippling water (Pokémon) / dust clouds (Pokémon) / overhead shadow (Pokémon) / [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Ambush_encounter shaking trash can] (Pokémon)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10495" data-dimension="S">[S] Pokémon feeder / joining (Pokémon gen 8) / honey tree (Pokémon gen 4)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10496" data-dimension="S">Pokémon day care
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10497" data-dimension="S">gift Pokémon / in-game trade
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10498" data-dimension="S">scripted story event
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10499" data-dimension="S">event distribution
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10500">(... generations)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10520" data-dimension="S0">Legendary Pokémon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10521" data-dimension="S0">Box Legendary
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10522" data-dimension="S0">dungeon Legendary / cave Legendary / ARG Legendary (Regis, etc.)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10523" data-dimension="S0">Roaming Legendary
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10524" data-dimension="S0">cosmic Legendary / pantheon deity Legendary
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10525" data-dimension="S0">doom Legendary -> Mewtwo, Deoxys, Necrozma, Eternatus
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10526" data-dimension="S0">type drive Legendary -> Silvally, Arceus, Genesect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10527" data-dimension="S0">unique hero Pokémon / unique antagonist Pokémon -> Zoroark, Zeraora, Kubfu, Zarude
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10528" data-dimension="S0">event Legendary / tie-in Legendary
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10529" data-dimension="S0">Mythical Pokémon

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10530" data-dimension="S0">movie-relevant Pokémon / movie figurehead Pokémon -> doesn't have to be Legendaries, if there's a movie totally centered on Eevee, or Zoroark
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10531" data-dimension="S0">fusion Legendary
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10532" data-dimension="S0">fusable Legendary
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10533" data-dimension="S0">composite Legendary -> Melmetal, Zygarde
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10534" data-dimension="S0">event-distributed form of regular Pokémon -> Zoroark, Own Tempo Rockruff, etc.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10535" data-dimension="S0">Pokémon with special-edition forms -> Pichu, Pikachu & Eevee, Greninja
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10536" data-dimension="S0">Pokémon with natural variations -> Shellos, Basculin, Pumpkaboo, Sinistea, Sinistcha, Dudunsparce
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10537" data-dimension="S0">Pokémon with branched evolutions
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10538" data-dimension="S0">pseudo-legendary Pokémon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10539" data-dimension="S0">fossil Pokémon -> clearly not a type of Legendary, but put here to stop me wondering if Dracozolt is an enigma-tier. enigmas are Legendaries that seem like they should be regular, fossil Pokémon are fossil Pokémon

</li><li class="number_empty" value="10540">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10541">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10542">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10543">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10544">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10545">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10546">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10547">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10548">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10549">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="10600">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10700" data-dimension="S0">Pokémon technique / Pokémon move
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10719">(... [[Ontology:Q10719|Stellar-type move]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10720">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10730">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10740">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10750">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10760">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10770">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10780">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10799">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10819">(... [[:Category:Pokémon types ontology|Pokémon types]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10820">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10830">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10840">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10850">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10860">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10870">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10880">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10899">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10919">(... [[:Category:Pokémon types ontology|Pokémon of Types]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10920">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10929" data-dimension="S0">Baby Pokémon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10930" data-dimension="S0">Basic Pokémon (main series)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10931" data-dimension="S0">Stage 1 Pokémon (main series)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10932" data-dimension="S0">Stage 2 Pokémon (main series)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10903">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10904">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10905">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="10906" data-dimension="S0">Mega evolution stage / Primal reversion stage
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10907">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10908">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="10909">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="11000" data-dimension="S">[https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_National_Pok%C3%A9dex_number National Pokédex] -> has serialized parts: every single Pokémon ever.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="11001" data-dimension="S">Bulbasaur (<cite>Pokémon</cite>; gen 1 / Kanto)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="11002">(... National Pokédex)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="12025" data-dimension="S">Pecharunt (<cite>Pokémon</cite>; gen 10 / Paldea) -> last known Pokémon as of 2025. do not reserve the next hundred slots for Pokédex slots, just start over on a clean hundred when the next game comes out.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12026">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12030">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12035">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12040">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12045">??

{{li|I=S1/DX|Q=12,0,48|Q2=12048|rem=}}BadEmpanada's theoretical errors / ({{9k|RD/Q12,0,48}}) 

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12050">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12055">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12060">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12065">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12070">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12075">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12080">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12085">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12089">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="12,0,90" value="12090" data-dimension="S">So Sorry (Undertale)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="12,0,91" value="12091" data-dimension="S">invented species (furry fandom) / original species / open species (generic) / closed species (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="12,0,92" value="12092" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Closed species are a microcosm of capitalism / Closed species are a microcosm of society / The structure of "closed species" fan circles is a limited model of how society functions under capitalism in general, by featuring visible status symbols that people compete for through labor or money and push subtle shame onto each other for only having been able to get the basic ones and not having been able to claim the best ones / Microtransactions to get rare avatars, companions, or cosmetic items are a microcosm of how real-world capitalist societies function / ([[User:RD/9k/Q12,0,92|9k]]) 
if you ask me, I don't think it's positively immoral to put this kind of thing in a game, like your country forms a Molecular Marxism and you're absolutely banned from making an MMO with a Chimereon upgrades store and it's all over the party platform or such, but I do think it's vaguely annoying. I think it's annoying to try to escape reality by playing a game and have thrown at you exactly what you've been trying to escape and not think about. I find it annoying that nobody is imaginative enough to find any better ways to design games.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="12,0,93" value="12093" data-dimension="S2">Protogen co-founder exempt from rules / I helped launch protogens, so I am exempt from the protogen rules {{Youtube|5jqnIVsVxUA}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q12,0,94|9k]])
</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="12,0,94" value="12094" data-dimension="S">harassing illegal protogens / furry fandom becoming a cloud of decentralized dictators over closed species / ([[User:RD/9k/Q12,0,94|9k]]) 
Anarchy is the most authoritarian thing there is + Protogen co-founder exempt from rules = harassing illegal protogens.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="12095" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="12096" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="12097" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="12098" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="12,0,99" value="12099" data-dimension="M3">Who is paying for spambot advertising? -> my top guess right now is that the people who pay for spambots don't even know they're getting them, and they're actually paying for "SEO rankings" or something, after which they only get a bunch of spambots.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="12100" data-qid="12,100" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q12,100|nonsensical scam advertiser]] / spambot (automated nonsensical advertiser) -> I'm broadening the total definition of spambot to include Third-World scammers, because they have seriously interesting stories behind them that are worth talking about. Deltarune making the [[E:Spamton|scammer character]] have a few real emotions was wired. although the one thing I slightly object to sometimes is how creating a softly-whitewashed "I could be anybody" character erases the great difference between First-World and Third-World countries that actually creates a lot of real-world scammers. it's like structural racism only it's very very big.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="12101" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q12,101|Nigerian prince scam]] -> everyone who isn't old has heard of these. fewer people actually know about the living conditions of the people sending these emails.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="12102" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q12,102|Taiwanese massage degrees going to Turkey]] [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Spambot/massage/PeterGuerin5] -> analyzing the motifs of spambots? of course. spambots tell some of the most interesting stories when you really, really look deep into them. look at how much history is behind Nigerian prince scams and "yahoos" alone. there's definitely something going on in either Taiwan or Turkey which is not good. are the people of Taiwan desperate? are they funneling people out of poorer countries to go to Taiwanese universities and go to Turkey? are they recruiting people out of Turkey to go to Taiwan and go back to Turkey? right now I don't quite get what's going on.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="12,1,03" value="12103" data-dimension="S">AI-generated anti-racism [https://medium.com/@elijah_jordan211/the-13-50-myth-and-the-weaponization-of-cherry-picked-crime-stats-1d33794b7729] -> I have no idea what is going on here but it's really interesting. is this a Tory experiment to mess with center-Liberals? is it a benign attempt to positively poison AI by filling the internet with AI-generated anti-racism posts and hoping it reads all of them? I don't even know. this does seem less harmful than the "Taiwanese massage degrees going to Turkey" bot but I am baffled as to why it exists.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="12,1,04" value="12104" data-dimension="S">spambots and brain injury lawyers / spambots and traumatic brain injury lawyers -> some things like casinos and currency exchanges and porn sites make some kind of sense because there are clearly ways to skim money off either the users or advertisers of those. but spambots advertising traumatic brain injury lawyers has me a little baffled 
places mentioned so far: New York City, Chicago, San Diego, Florida. 
my first guess is that most of these are cities, so people are somehow paying for this because it's hard to attract customers inside a crowded city that might have a lot of other options? that doesn't explain Florida though.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="12,1,05" value="12105" data-dimension="S">reading glasses spam / Mozaer reading glasses -> we've weirdly been getting a lot of ads for these. this is extra baffling because it's not one of those things that's an obvious scam or something that rakes in a lot of money in and of itself.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12105">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12106">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12107">??

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=12,1,08|Q2=12108|rem=108 as large number of bandits}}Spambots are a tiny neocolonialism / Blog and wiki spambots are a micro-scale form of neocolonialism / The functional purpose of blog and wiki spambots is to use arbitrary parts of the internet to gain a bigger functional business territory and multiply capital; this is to say that from the vantage point of a spambot the existence of human beings, institutions, or meeting places is an impediment to making money and staying in business while slowly taking anything anyone has ever held or created is more advantageous to the basic stability of a business, and to imply that it is more advantageous to the continued existence of a population against the onslaught of external countries existing through the ability of concentrated capital to allow populational reproduction in a way that many small and unstable businesses cannot

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=12,1,09|Q2=12109}}cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=12,1,10|Q2=12110}}[[Ontology:Q12,1,10|cursed export]] / paying Third-World people for footage of things that would be crimes {{YouTube|hQY6qJWbDAY}} -> what it says. in reference to the below Items.
{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=12,1,11|Q2=12111}}[[Ontology:Q12,1,11|The Khmer Rouge left Cambodians with nothing but monkey abuse]] / The abuses of the Khmer Rouge left Cambodians with nothing but monkey abuse / The Khmer Rouge stopped Cambodia from having any doctors and left them with nothing but selling monkey torture -> I don't have a lot of information about the reality of what happened with the Khmer Rouge, but this is a pretty outrageous thing to claim with a straight face. looking at the most important part of the claim, that being in a poor country is bad, it would be just as accurate to say that people showing up from other countries with money is harmful and dangerous to a country because the people with money can pay money for this, or for people to sell the United States slaves, and only Mao or Kim Il-Sung putting up a barrier around the country and forcing it to develop inside itself can prevent slavery and monkey abuse. cursed exports are weirdly like a reverse Nigerian prince scam. both of them are a kind of toxic connection between a First-World country and a Third-World country which doesn't create anything productive and where everyone would have been better off if that one particular interaction between the two countries didn't happen.

{{li|I=S2/MX/JC|Q=12,1,12|Q2=12112}}[[Ontology:Q12,1,12|Only Kim Il-Sung can prevent monkey abuse]] / Protectionism prevents cursed exports such as animal abuse for money / If Indonesia transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought, there would be no monkey abuse -> a bit of a troll proposition, but it does make you ask what's wrong with it. if a country creates Juche-socialism and closes itself up, at whatever peril comes with that, it will almost certainly prevent US people showing up with a bizarre amount of money to pay the country for the world's weirdest export. everyone will be busy stumbling to create industries inside the country. so there are downsides but there are also clear upsides. 
(next proposition merged) I keep thinking about how one of the single most successful policies of workers' states has simply been refusing connections from the outside until they're ready. is this to say it's possible to go directly to Deng Xiaoping Thought before trying to create Bolshevism, and it isn't a form unique to a country sliding backward? have we been interpreting history wrong? and if so, what exactly is the logic for Deng Xiaoping Thought actually being a necessary step — what is achieved by gaining solid control over the internal borders of a country if the Archons of the population still drive it? what's the huge reward everybody gets from those Archons being free from the outside world? I feel like answering that could yield a significant breakthrough in understanding Liberalism as well as Third-World countries. this is clearly a hugely important step for some reason, so important that the United States is desperately trying to do it erratically across the inside of the United States.

{{li|I=Z1/DFy|Q=12,1,13|Q2=12113}}Vladimir Nabokov -> author of disturbing [[E:Lolita (Nabokov 1955)|book]] that keeps getting grandfathered in while at various times similar writings wrote any year after it get blocked. (Definitely not all of them though.) 
this Item itself is Take It Seriously but at the same time I could see some very funny usages of it in Wavebuilder combinations; he may be a questionable person but he's kind of a choice [[E:Cards Against Humanity|white card]].

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="12,1,14" value="12114" data-dimension="S">Sam polarizing the Undertale fanbase / So Sorry, furry porn, and the {{censor|floraverse discord}} scandal
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="12,1,15" value="12115" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Lolita}} is just a book / {{book|Lolita}} is okay because escapism is okay -> please do not enter {{book|Lolita}} into the first 10,000 Items. or anything that manages to be more disturbing. if it becomes necessary to some other entry, then you may enter it at a later number. I entered the "Warriors discourse" Item after 10k. these two Items show the threshold of nasty allowed, anything where the topic {{em|isn't}} "right there in your face" to where it's difficult to bury deep inside the article text can go below 10k.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto Fy, ML onto Fy" data-qid="12,1,16" value="12116" data-dimension="S">modeling furries as a nationality / modeling furry-fans as a nationality -> the motif of talking about the internal structure and "historical development" of collections of furries (real-life fans, not fantastical characters) as if they are a national population which is appropriate to analyze through Marxism, and as if this population can undergo transitions to improve its day-to-day life. this motif is not to be taken entirely seriously, though it is not meant as a joke either. this won't always work 100% but it hopefully has use as a teaching tool to explain to people about more important things. 
for modeling fictional nations of furry characters and doing Materialist analysis of literature, there will be other Items.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto Fy, MX onto ML onto Fy" data-qid="12,1,17" value="12117" data-dimension="S">running a closed species based on the principles of Bolshevism / running an invented-species community based on the principles of Bolshevism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q12,1,17|9k]]) 
closed species are a microcosm of capitalism + transition from capitalism to Bolshevism = this.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="12,1,18" value="12118" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Chouette}} (2021) [https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1055640680/a-parable-about-motherhood-chouette-begins-with-a-human-birth-to-an-owl-baby] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q12118|9k]])

</li><li class="field_horror" value="12119" data-dimension="S2">zoophilia -> this item will mostly not be used in relation to real-world crimes as much as in discussing the nature of art and the relationship between art and reality. you know, discourse where people get mad about getting mad about art. usually it would seem like this discussion is stupid and there's nothing to be learned here. but actually, if you look into it with a real ability for media analysis you learn a lot about the nature of how art represents things and what it represents, even "normally" when it's not depicting anything weird or disturbing; you learn a lot about the concepts of Media Representation and how every act of publishing art or posting something in the open serves as a speech act that reveals people's character no matter how much death of the author you invoke. talking about whether furries are allowed to draw two Jack-London characters banging might actually be one of the only way to start teaching furries Materialism and why almost every work of fiction has some potential to be used to explain Communist revolutions and socialist transition.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="12120" data-dimension="S">dubious pictures of Firestar / {{censor|sexual content of animal characters / feral porn}}

</li><li class="field_horror" value="12121" data-dimension="S">Not analyzing zoophilia is anti-intellectualism / Not discussing the sociology and psychology of {{censor|bestiality}} is anti-intellectualism -> one day, there was a weird little discussion about this on the internet. {{YouTube|DGwiyyZhNpM}} then a particular aspiring Marxist theorist found it (not me. they post big long reading lists) and made a post about how it was really stupid*. I had no real opinion on it back then. now... I think I actually agree with the original poster, but for very different reasons than they had. I think that this topic takes on a very different context among furries, who are generally really stupid about politics and morality even within the bounds of Liberal-republicanism, but where this is about the only actual philosophical issue they talk about which could legitimately be used to shake up their entire worldview and get them to think of reality in Materialist terms. you think I'm joking. but it's the only thing they care about. whether they can draw the things they want to or other people will get scared of them and the "community" will fracture. 
furries are very anarchist in some of [[E:anarcho-Toryism|the worst senses]]. they truly believe society is made of nothing but social bonds and choices. they think there are actually correct answers to how to behave at people, rather than it being a matter of getting to know and bond with the person before you can even guess what would upset them. they believe in "don't like, don't read", but they aren't willing to face the consequences that come with shamelessly being themselves of losing relationships and having people hate their personal identities when they post something disturbing. they'll accept the line that cops are bad, say that a bunch of totally heterogeneous things definitely belongs in the same Community [[E:schizoanalysis|just because totally different things naturally love each other]], then get really upset when it turns out the heterogeneous things don't belong together and they're all mad at each other and some of them occasionally want to do real violence to each other (ok, that's happened in fandoms more than to furries but the overall process is the same). I'm kind of sick of it. I wish furries would [[E:existential materialism|learn Materialism]] and start to realize that only awareness of how to shape the actual shapes, arrangements, and nestings of their Communities would fix the behavior inside those things. 
<ins>*edit:</ins> I rewatched the video. all the arguments in it from any of the people {{em|were}} pretty stupid. but they were stupid in a specific way, for a specific reason. the video kept invoking traditional philosophy and this specific way people treat philosophy like it's all totally arbitrary and has nothing to do with anything. "a consequentialist—" what. it's one thing to divide people up by their entire worldview they live their lives by like Liberal-republican, Tory, Trotskyist, Southern Baptist Christian, furry. but nobody actually goes around making all their decisions as a "consequentialist".

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="12,1,22" value="12122" data-dimension="S2">Furries only want zoophiles expelled / Furries only seek to expel zoophiles / Furries only want [censored] expelled (censored title) / When furries debate about zoophilia they do not actually believe that prohibiting a single specific person from drawing or commissioning the wrong pictures will prevent that particular person from being a problem, and instead are simply using the discovery of these "suspicious pictures" to justify revoking trust and expelling or exiling people from social circles -> this is the big difference between a video essayist having an abstract discussion about zoophilia and furries debating zoophilia. for them it's an actual practical issue that they are having to improvise practical solutions to, which inherently makes their reasoning process about the issue more meaningful and interesting because there is an actual concept in play of there being factually right or wrong answers to the question and real consequences if they don't find the true or accurate answers. I guess I have to thank furries for making an otherwise totally uninteresting issue become bizarrely interesting by turning it Materialist.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="12123" data-dimension="S">??

{{li|I=S2/Fy|dimension=M3|class=field_horror|Q=12,1,24|Q2=12124}}If you had total artistic freedom, and you could literally make whatever you wanted, and nobody would ever call you out on any of it, giving you the total freedom to make mistakes and learn what is right and wrong on your own, but to have that you had to live in a country which was an empire and benefited from allying with other large empires to beat up Third World countries and force people off their land or put most of their populations into factories to turn your country into a series of malls and tiny shops, and you could not stop Palestinians from being killed every day, but as long as you shut up you would get to write romances about The Onceler or serial killers or draw {{censor|Jack London wolves banging}} or write about {{censor|weird fetishes}} or things people debate as being stereotypes or normalizing toxic relationships or literally whatever you want to express, would you take that trade-off? -> I swear people answer this question wrong every single day. 
the question here may be {{em|slightly}} hypothetical and contrived in that the causality on some of these things doesn't connect directly to empire, but you still see people {{em|saying}} the inverse proposition that they think Freedom is more important than literally anything and they would choose Freedom if it did. that's the key. as long as Freedom is more important than not killing people, not only will you never get to build the [[E:dictatorship of the proletariat|temporary cages]] that reconstruct all of society in a form where chunk competition is far less easy, but generally, you'll never get people to be ethical at all.

{{li|I=S1/PT|class=field_horror|Q=12,1,25|Q2=12125}}banning Brians via Hays code / banning through the Hays Code talking animals that, despite animation hyperboles, read as {{censor|zoophilia}} {{YouTube|5b0aLXedXck}} {{YouTube|znxGA4drZDw}} -> thanks Family Guy analysis for my new euphemism for this
</li><li class="field_horror" value="12126" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,1,27" value="12127" data-dimension="S2">If you don't understand material reality, Kero {{em|will}} {{censor|stick his dick in the mouth of|tts=censored}} a dog / If you don't understand material reality, [censored] will [censored] a dog (censored title) -> I am sick of people acting like material reality is subordinate to reason and argument. I hope a little shock humor will illustrate why. 
let's just say, the moment two material objects exist, any particular material object somebody looks at is subject to material reality running into it all the time, not to whatever object A thinks or reasons in its mind is true. if object A has an inner experience or object B has an inner experience that is irrelevant. objects A and B can only see the outside behavior of each other, and if that is not sufficient for them to understand and predict each other then horrible things might happen. 
I am therefore I am + zoophilia = this.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="12128" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="12129" data-dimension="S2">Wanting human nonexistence is like {{censor|drawing porn}} of Firestar / If it's okay to draw {{censor|Warrior cats having sex}}, it's okay to say humans should never have existed / ... it has to be applied onto the conditions of the real world (censored title) -> in any given worldview, both of these things are "morally wrong" for essentially the same reason. explicit {{censor|content about unrealistic beasts}} is generally deemed bad because the concept of roleplaying a world where there are no humans cannot be separated from real-life humans who think about it existing. if people can fully separate real world from hypothetical world and take the hypothetical world as self-contained, then it should not be immediately harmful, but problems always come up where the person talking about the hypothetical world is taken as performing a speech act that applies to the relationship between the real person and real people. the problem with saying humans never should have existed is essentially the same situation. for the hypothetical to have any bite and say anything meaningful about the real world, it has to be applied onto the conditions of the real world, where individuals exist and say things and each individual has the ability to kill maybe ten people or a hundred or end their own life but never has the ability to wipe out all of humanity or make humanity painlessly have never existed. whether somebody entertaining this hypothetical will commit any such offenses is unclear, {{em|seems}} unlikely, but in terms of indirect effects you never know. 
(This entry is censored just so while scrolling the prototype you don't have to look at it over and over. <s>Whether this kind of thing is actually forbidden in outward-facing Item labels is still up in the air.</s> Nah. I think it will be. Outward-facing Item labels are meant to communicate things super-clearly, including what the rules are.)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12130">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12140">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12150">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12160">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12165">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12170">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12175">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12180">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12184">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12190">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12191">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12192">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12199">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12200">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12225">(something related to Christmas or Deltarune)

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,2,30" value="12230" data-dimension="S">adult cartoon -> general category of animated shows which are not for teenagers, or at least "generally" "not really" for teenagers. we all know some of them watch them anyway.
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,2,31" value="12231" data-dimension="S">adult cartoons as strictly crass / adult cartoon (United States) -> you almost need a separate Item just to convey the specific idea of shows like {{film|Family Guy}} and {{film|Helluva Boss}} and how the United States is convinced this is what an 'adult cartoon' is
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,2,32" value="12232" data-dimension="S">adult cartoon as story / adult cartoon (Japan) -> "adult cartoons" from Japan are so much often better, and I think the big difference is that they tend to be story-based and pick a particular messed-up story to tell that just doesn't fit into the box of what a teen-rated show should be. I think adult cartoons trying to strictly be sitcoms is part of what sinks them. {{film|Fionna and Cake}} for instance succeeds on the basis of being a story, much like {{film|Homestuck}} does

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,2,33" value="12233" data-dimension="S">analyzing {{film|Family Guy}} as a soap opera -> I have never liked this show but if you want to take it semi-seriously to ask questions about who the characters are and how their development works per episode and in relation to other episodes, this is the way to do it. god, seeing people analyze {{film|Family Guy}} this way is funnier and more entertaining than the actual show

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,2,34" value="12234" data-dimension="S">Why does {{film|Family Guy}} have banned episodes? -> most shows that have banned episodes are like, shows for kids that have standards of what they can show, and the purpose of {{film|Family Guy}} is the opposite of that — to be as offensive as possible, spread carefully across a lot of plot and episodes, within limits (this would be "theoretically offensive to the fictional universe it portrays" more than "actually offensive", to be fair; it's part of writing a {{em|good}} adult cartoon to allow that sometimes offense comes from the characters in universe having unreasonable standards... as the opening of {{film|Family Guy}} tries to suggest). so, like... why are there banned episodes. there are absolutely things in early episodes that are unacceptable now yet the episodes are still airing. why bother to ban any of them?

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,2,36" value="12236" data-remark="Ling-Ling's new designated number, no.25 Pikachu shifted over. also 36 being the Zinovievist number and theoretically being violent is a conceptually funny connection" data-dimension="S">Ling-Ling, psycho-type kaiju / {{censor||Chinpo|komon|tts=[Censored]Pokomon|tts2=Chinpokomon}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q12,1,69|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12240">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12250">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12300">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12325">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12350">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12400">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12425">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12430">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12440">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="12,4,44" value="12444" data-dimension="S">Trotskyist theorist depicted as furry
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="12,4,45" value="12445" data-dimension="S">furry version of Leon Trotsky -> this should not be a motif except that while going way too far into deltarune AUs I ended up making one so yeah

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12450">??
{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,4,92|Q2=12492}}
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12500">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12550">??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,600 |Q2=12600}}furry character (furry fandom)
{{li|I=S0/Fy|Q=12,6,01|Q2=12601}}species (furry fandom)
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,02|Q2=12602}}furry characters and gender
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,03|Q2=12603}}furries transcending gender / furry characters falling outside the concept of gender
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,04|Q2=12604}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,05|Q2=12605}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,06|Q2=12606}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,07|Q2=12607}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,08|Q2=12608}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,09|Q2=12609}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,10|Q2=12610}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,11|Q2=12611}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,12|Q2=12612}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,13|Q2=12613}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,14|Q2=12614}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,15|Q2=12615}}??
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,16|Q2=12616}}furry characters and metanarratives
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,17|Q2=12617}}furry characters and transcending 'real life' / furry characters and transcending reality in the sense of the material world as viewed through an individual Lived Experience or an individual's daily "[[E:Life revolves around you|life]]" -> again, tossing Gaster into #17 so I don't have to make a proposition about furries and Communism. however, this is actually more relevant to furry characters than you'd think because this is what is implied to have happened to Dess, who falls within the general category of furry characters.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,18|Q2=12618}}furry characters and poststructuralism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,19|Q2=12619}}fursona / furry character ([[E:Q12,600|generic]])
{{li|I=Z1/Fy|Q=12,6,20|Q2=12620}}furry fandom
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=12,6,21|Q2=12621}}furry porn -> why is this like, the top political issue for normal people. nothing else truly matters except whether or not you can put {{censor|weird genitalia}} on your fursona and whether you can draw {{censor|Jack London wolves banging}}. people have genuine thought-out debates about this, over and over, then with everything else they go through life expecting everyone to magically become a good person educated on everything, and acting like actually discussing anything about the way societies form or develop is stupid. 
well, I'm getting my revenge now. I'm going to analyze the {{censor|fuck|tts=F}} out of furry discourse and how it relates to Materialism and make them all learn something.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12630">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12640">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12650">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12700">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12710">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12720">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12730">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12740">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12750">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12760">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12770">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12780">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12790">??
{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,7,92|Q2=12792}}??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12800">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12850">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12900">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12910">??

{{li|I=S2/MX/MX|Q=12,9,20|Q2=12,9,20}}Meta-Marxism is violet / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12935">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12930">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12941">??

{{li|I=S2/MX/ES|Q=12,9,42|Q2=12942}}Existence-philosophy is blue / Early existentialism is blue / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943}}Psychoanalysis is blue / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12944">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12945">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12950">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12955">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12960">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12965">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12970">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12971">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12972">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12973">??

{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=12,9,74|Q2=12974}}Trotskyism is orange / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S2/MX/A |Q=12,9,75|Q2=12975}}Anarchism is charcoal / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=12,9,76|Q2=12976}}Liberal-republicanism is usually blue / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})

</li><li class="number_empty" value="12977">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12978">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12979">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12980">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12981">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12982">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12983">??

{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=12,9,84|Q2=12984}}Stalin's Marxism must be crimson / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S2/MX/DX|Q=12,9,85|Q2=12985}}Eclectic Marxism is strawberry / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
</li><li class="number_empty" value="12986">??
{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,87|Q2=12987}}Toryism is brown / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,88|Q2=12988}}European fascism must be brown / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S2/MX/PT|Q=12,9,89|Q2=12989}}Duginism is brown / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,90|Q2=12990}}{{int:sitename}} philosophy classification systems / philosophy tag / ideology code / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,91|Q2=12991}}{{int:sitename}} philosophy tag system / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})
{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=12,9,92|Q2=12992}}{{int:sitename}} color swatch system / ({{9k|RD/Q12,9,92}})

</li><li class="field_geo" value="13000" data-dimension="S0">chemical element (periodic table) / periodic table of elements / chemical element listed on periodic table
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13001" data-dimension="Z">Hydrogen (H)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13002" data-dimension="Z">Helium (He)
</li><noinclude>
<li class="number_empty" value="413" data-remark="http code for 'too large'">(no-include section:)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13003" data-dimension="Z">Lithium (Li)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13004" data-dimension="Z">Beryllium (Be)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13005" data-dimension="Z">Boron
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13006" data-dimension="Z">Carbon
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13007" data-dimension="Z">Nitrogen
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13008" data-dimension="Z">Oxygen
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13009" data-dimension="Z">Fluorine
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13010" data-dimension="Z">Neon

</li><li class="field_geo" value="13011" data-dimension="Z">Sodium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13012" data-dimension="Z">Magnesium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13013" data-dimension="Z">Aluminum
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13014" data-dimension="Z">Silicon
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13015" data-dimension="Z">Phosphorus
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13016" data-dimension="Z">Sulfur
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13017" data-dimension="Z">Chlorine
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13018" data-dimension="Z">Argon

</li><li class="field_geo" value="13019" data-dimension="Z">Potassium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13020" data-dimension="Z">Calcium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13021" data-dimension="Z">Scandium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13022" data-dimension="Z">Titanium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13023" data-dimension="Z">Vanadium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13024" data-dimension="Z">Chromium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13025" data-dimension="Z">Manganese
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13026" data-dimension="Z">Iron
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13027" data-dimension="Z">Cobalt
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13028" data-dimension="Z">Nickel
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13029" data-dimension="Z">Copper
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13030" data-dimension="Z">Zinc
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13031" data-dimension="Z">Gallium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13032" data-dimension="Z">Germanium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13033" data-dimension="Z">Arsenic
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13034" data-dimension="Z">Selenium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13035" data-dimension="Z">Bromine
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13036" data-dimension="Z">Krypton

</li><li class="field_geo" value="13037" data-dimension="Z">Rubidium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13038" data-dimension="Z">Strontium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13039" data-dimension="Z">Yttrium
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13040" data-dimension="Z">Zirconium

</li><li class="field_geo" value="13117" data-dimension="Z">Tennessine (Ts)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="413">(end no-include section)
</li></noinclude>
<includeonly><li class="field_geo" value="13117" data-dimension="Z">(... periodic table of elements)</li></includeonly>
<li class="field_geo" value="13118" data-dimension="Z">Oganesson (Og)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13200" data-dimension="Z">(... reserved for future element discoveries, unless there is good evidence heavier elements stop being possible before 200)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13201" data-dimension="S">island of stability

</li></ol><noinclude>

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,0,48 BadEmpanada's theoretical errors

2026-06-15T23:01:23Z

Reversedragon: page alias

#redirect[[Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q12,0,48]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12048

2026-06-15T23:00:48Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12048 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,0,48: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

#REDIRECT [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,0,48]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,0,48

2026-06-15T23:00:48Z

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12048 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,0,48: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=BadEmpanada's theoretical errors|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/DX|tradition=|Q=12,0,48|Q2=12048}}BadEmpanada's theoretical errors -> this is a bizarrely specific entry, but I have my cumulative reasons for adding it. 
A) B.E.'s videos are easily findable and very 'attested'. not a strict requirement for every new entry but helps a lot in creating a "higher tier" article. B) B.E. is one of the only video creators I can stand to listen to and haven't unsubscribed from. (which says a lot about every Marxist video channel. I exempt Trotskyist groups from that but hardly anyone else.) C) B.E. is always levelheaded about criticisms aimed at him and would never be expected to see them and start "drama" about them per se. I'm not afraid to just drop his name here. D) B.E. speaks quickly and sets down a lot of strange opinions. I wouldn't even say all of his "strange opinions" are wrong, although I strongly suspect a few of them are.

</li></ol>

== Anti-imperialism ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|I=F2/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}You can be an anti-imperialist without being a Marxist -> sort of, but no. on a 5-year time scale yes, on a 30-year time scale no. truth value: misleading.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}All anti-imperialism which doesn't contain Marxism eventually helps the United States -> my reference point is the Vietnam War. there was quite an explosion of non-Marxist anti-war demonstrations. but then when the campaign donor layer got to it it all culminated in this dude who believed in turning the war into a psychology problem founding the DSA and fueling this really big push everywhere for pro-capitalist replacements for Marxist theory that made universities utterly insufferable.

</li></ol>

== LLMs ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=F2/DX|tradition=|Q=618}}AI datacenters taking over towns is an unimportant issue {{YouTube|L7Nmt4G_CW4}} -> the problem with this is. well. see the next proposition. and whenever that happens it builds up chunks of unaccountable people, consolidates United States empire, and empowers it to brutalize other countries. you're supporting anti-Zionism with one hand and undoing it with the other hand.

{{li|I=Z1/LR|tradition=|Q=618}}Trinidad water incident / A Texas woman was arrested for "false alarm" when the town's water turned sewage-brown; she was charged with a serious crime but the charges were dropped; she is filing a lawsuit {{YouTube|-ZVXLyqB_2M}} {{YouTube|eB1V11ChQcQ}} {{YouTube|4eIwIx30ik}} / Trinidad arrested a protestor outside the water clerk's office for disrupting the water clerk's office; when the water clerk and judge did not agree with the charges, they were fired {{YouTube|FuxLAnfS8Mw}} -> to be fair I can't find evidence this happened because of datacenters. but it does show {{em|exactly and precisely what would happen}} if you complained about data centers polluting your water

{{li|I=S2/LLM/GHG|tradition=|Q=618}}"Ethical" AI is unethical -> so, some people like BadEmpanada really do not understand the structure of the discourse around LLMs. there was a period where it was all about ""stealing content"", until the day where somebody built an "ethically-sourced AI", and the moment that happens, capitalists start exploiting anti-essentialism to try to get everyone to think that the moment a tiny fraction of something is ethical the entire thing is. so the entire discourse had to shift to proving that all LLMs were unethical because they were LLMs and not because of what they were used for, and this is where the data center talking point originated. it was an attempt to unify people around an issue that could easily get divisive by finding a point that was harder to refute. 
but, of course, it still has the inherent problem that basically all theories of ethics rely on eternal truths that don't exist. it is meaningless to argue over whether something is ethical if the people who would be harmed by it aren't strong enough to fight against it and will always be crushed, because once the powerful win [[E:The victors write history|they institute their own unbudgeable eternal truths]]. we've learned that lesson the hard way with oil companies and climate conferences, and all the wars that still happen over oil where still nobody is managing to persuade people to stop them just because of ethics.

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">
{{li|start=y
|I=S1/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|ES|E-S}} / anti-Zionism
{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=92|Q2=92}}{{TTS|MX|meta-}} / meta-Marxism
</li></ol>

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,0,48

2026-06-15T23:00:10Z

Reversedragon: typo